DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2020-152170.
Regarding claim 1, JP 2020-152170 discloses:
A high roof structure (1; Fig. 1) of a truck, the high roof structure being mounted on a cab body (5; Fig. 1; page 2, line 5 of the second full paragraph of the translation) that has an open ceiling (in that the high roof panel (3; Fig. 1) expands the passenger compartment (4; Fig. 1) upward and a body (5; Fig. 1) below the roof panel (3; which includes upper panel 3a; Fig. 1), which naturally involves an open ceiling of the original cab; as described on page 2, lines 2-4 of the second full paragraph of the translation; in order for the passenger compartment to be “expanded upward”) and being provided with a roof panel (3a; Fig. 1) that inclines (forwardly as shown in Fig. 1) so as to gradually increase a vehicle height from a front side to a rear side (front to rear in the vehicle longitudinal direction), the high roof structure (1; Fig. 1) comprising:
a pair of front side frames (35; Fig. 1; one on each side of the vehicle) that respectively erect from a pair of side faces (the right side face pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 below and an opposite left face; not shown) spaced apart from each other in a vehicle width direction in the cab body (5; Fig. 1), and that support the roof panel (3a; Fig. 1);
a pair of rear side frames (made up of elements 12 and 14 in Figs. 1, 3 and 6) that respectively erect straight (they have straight sections as shown in Fig. 2 which extend upwardly with respect to the side faces) from the pair of side faces (the right side face pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 below and an opposite left face; not shown) on the rear side (rearwardly) of the front side frames (35; Fig. 1) to be higher than the front side frames (35; Fig. 1; with respect to the dotted line illustrated in annotated Fig. 1 below) and that support the roof panel (3a; Fig. 1); and
a fragile portion (14; Fig. 1) provided in the rear side frames (that are made up of elements 12 and 14 in Figs. 1, 3 and 6), where the fragile portion (14; Fig. 1) is part of and therefore provided in the rear side frame, and having a low strength (“more easily deformed than the reinforcement 12 with respect to a load from above”, as described on the last three lines of the abstract) relative to portions (namely portion 12 of the rear side frame 12 made up of elements 12 and 14 in Figs. 1, 3 and 6) adjacent to the fragile portion (14; Fig. 1; arranged) in a vehicle height direction as shown in Figs. 1, 3 and 6.
PNG
media_image2.png
940
924
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, JP 2020-152170 discloses:
The high roof structure according to claim 1, as explained above, wherein a dimension in the vehicle height direction of the fragile portion (14; Fig. 1) is set to be equal to a height difference between the front side frames (35; Fig. 1) and the rear side frames (which are considered to be made up of elements 12 and 14 of Fig. 1 taken together), where the horizontal line 20 in Fig. 1 intersects the top of front side frame (35; Fig. 1) and the distance between line 20 in Fig. 1 and the dotted incline line (as illustrated in Fig 1 above) at the fragile portion 14 represents both the height of the fragile portion (14; Fig. 1) and the height difference between the front side frames (35; Fig. 1) and the rear side frames (which are considered to be elements 12 and 14 of Fig. 1 taken together).
Regarding claim 5, JP 2020-152170 discloses:
The high roof structure according to claim 1, as explained above, wherein: the rear side frames (made up of elements 12 and 14 in Figs. 1, 3 and 6) include an inner frame (comprising element 15 (Fig. 3 below)) taken with the structural portion making up the fragile portion, as pointed to by an arrow in annotated Fig. 3 below), where the term “fragile portion” (14; Figs. 1 and 3) refers to a function of the structure thereof and the structure thereof is considered to constitute part of the inner frame) and an outer frame (16; Fig. 3) that is disposed outside (where the outside direction is indicated by the direction symbol at the top left corner of Fig. 3 below) the inner frame in the vehicle width direction (the IN/OUT direction) and that forms a closed cross section (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 3 below) with the inner frame (element 15; Fig. 3 below); and the fragile portion (14; Fig. 3) includes a missing part (the fragile portion (14; Fig. 3) is missing an outer frame portion which would have created a closed cross section that would have otherwise formed a structural continuation of the closed cross section formed by inner frame 15 and outer frame 16) at which the inner frame is divided (where the missing part begins where the inner frame is divided which corresponds to the area of intersection of portion (22; Fig. 3) of the inner frame with the portion (15; Fig. 3) of the inner frame, as circled in annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
995
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, JP 2020-152170 discloses:
The high roof structure according to claim 1, further comprising; an upper frame (disclosed as an “upper reinforcement”; see page 8 of the translation, lines 17-19, where “the upper reinforcement (upper frame)…may be fixed to the upper end portion of the fragile portion 14 on the rear side” so that the upper reinforcement (upper frame) arcs upwardly towards the center of the roof panel 3a from the fragile portion 14 so as to be “above the fragile portion”) that connects the rear side frames (specifically, the upper frame connects the fragile portion 14 of each rear side frame (made up of elements 12 and 14 in Figs. 1, 3 and 6; one on each side of the vehicle) disposed on opposite sides of the vehicle) to each other on the rear side of the rear side frames (made up of elements 12 and 14 in Figs. 1, 3 and 6) and above the fragile portion (14; Fig. 1), as explained above in this paragraph. Note that while Figure 3 only shows the upper reinforcement 31 connected to the fragile portion 13, page 8 of the translation, lines 17-19 indicates that such an upper reinforcement may also be connected to the fragile portion 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020-152170 in view of JP 2017-144967.
Regarding claim 2, JP 2020-152170 discloses:
The high roof structure according to claim 1, as explained above, further comprising: a rear roof frame (disclosed as an “upper reinforcement”; see page 8 of the translation, lines 17-19, where “the upper reinforcement (rear roof frame)…may be fixed to the upper end portion of the fragile portion 14 on the rear side”) that connects respective upper ends of the rear side frames to each other (specifically, the rear roof frame connects the upper end of fragile portion 14 of each rear side frame (made up of elements 12 and 14 in Figs. 1, 3 and 6; one on each side of the vehicle) disposed on opposite sides of the vehicle.
However, JP 2020-152170 does not disclose a front roof frame that connects respective upper ends of the front side frames (35; Fig. 1) to each other.
Notwithstanding, JP 2017-144967 discloses a high roof structure (10; Fig. 2) with a roof panel (41; Fig. 2) that is supported at the front thereof by a pair of front side frames (43b; Fig. 2; one on each side of the vehicle) as well as a front roof frame (43a; Fig. 2) that connects respective upper ends of the front side frames (43b; Fig. 2) to each other, as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
608
527
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to provide the high roof structure of JP 2020-152170 with a front roof frame that connects respective upper ends of the front side frames to each other as taught by JP 2017-144967 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide greater support for the roof panel in the front region thereof.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020-152170 in view of JP 2017-144967, as applied above to claim 2 and further in view of JP 2005-255095.
Regarding claim 3, JP 2020-152170, as modified by JP 2017-144967, discloses:
The high roof structure according to claim 2, as explained above, except for further comprising; a long roof frame that extends in an inclined manner along the roof panel (3a; Fig. 1 of JP 2020-152170) from a front face (labeled in Fig. 1 above of JP 2020-152170) disposed in front of the pair of side faces (labeled in Fig. 1 above of JP 2020-152170) in the cab body and that is coupled to the front roof frame and the rear roof frame.
Notwithstanding, JP 2005-255095 discloses a truck cab frame construction which includes a long roof frame (11; Fig. 2) that extends along a roof panel (2; Fig. 1) from a front face (3; Fig. 1) of the cab disposed in front of a pair of side faces (7; Fig. 1) in the cab body and that is coupled to a front roof frame (20; Fig. 1) and a rear roof frame (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
1078
828
media_image5.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The JP 2005-255095 reference is considered to be relevant art in that the JP 2005-255095 reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to truck cab roof support frame constructions, as the JP 2020-152170 reference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to provide the high roof frame of JP 2020-152170 with a long roof frame that extends along the roof panel from a front face disposed in front of the pair of side faces in the cab body and that is coupled to the front roof frame and the rear roof frame as taught by JP 2005-255095 with a reasonable expectation of success because additional frame members provide greater strength to the roof frame. As a result of the inclined profile of the cab frame of JP 2020-152170, the long roof frame extends along the roof panel in an inclined manner
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020-152170 in view of DE 102008012879.
Regarding claim 6, JP 2020-152170 discloses:
The high roof structure according to claim 1, as explained above, wherein; the fragile portion (14; Figs. 1 and 6) includes a recess (28; Fig. 6 below) which is recessed into the fragile portion 14 from the interior of the cab that each extends in a vehicle length direction in the rear side frames (specifically the recess is formed in the fragile portion 14 of the rear side frames which are taken to be element 14 and element 12 taken together as shown in Figures 1, 3 and 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
518
504
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, JP 2020-152170 does not disclose a second recess spaced apart from the first recess in the vehicle height direction.
Notwithstanding, DE 102008012879 discloses a high roof construction (2; Fig. 1; see the Abstract, line 1) for a driver’s cab with vertically oriented frame portions (as labeled in annotated Fig. 1 below) having a plurality of recesses (4; Fig. 1 disclosed as corrugations on the second to last line of the Abstract) formed therein which are recessed from the interior of the cab, where the recesses function to “purposefully deform under a load” as described on line 5 of the Abstract.
PNG
media_image7.png
372
661
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to construct the recess of the fragile portion of JP 2020-152170 to include a plurality of recesses as taught by DE 102008012879 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide for a lower threshold for deformation of the fragile portion which is suitable for certain applications of the invention where the weight of the cab dictates a fragile portion which has a lower deformation threshold.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020-152170 in view of JP 2017-144967.
Regarding claim 8, JP 2020-152170 discloses:
The high roof structure according to claim 1, as explained above, except for further comprising; a lower frame that connects the rear side frames (made up of elements 12 and 14 in Figs. 1, 3 and 6; one on each side of the vehicle) to each other on the rear side of the rear side frames (made up of elements 12 and 14 in Figs. 1, 3 and 6; one on each side of the vehicle) and below the fragile portion (14; Fig. 1).
Notwithstanding, Notwithstanding, JP 2017-144967 discloses a high roof structure (10; Fig. 2) with a roof panel (41; Fig. 2) that is supported at the rear thereof by a pair of rear side frames (44b; Fig. 2; one on each side of the vehicle) as well as a lower frame (40c; Fig. 2) that connects the rear side frames (44b; Fig. 2) to each other on the rear side of the rear side frames (44b; Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image8.png
608
570
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to provide the high roof structure of JP 2020-152170 with a lower frame that connects rear side frames to each other as taught by JP 2017-144967 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide greater support for the roof panel in the rear region thereof. As a result of the location of the fragile portion (14; Fig. 1) of the cab frame of JP 2020-152170, the lower frame of JP 2020-152170, as modified by JP 2017-144967, is below the fragile portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The recitation in claim 9 that the fragile portion is provided only in a first one of the rear side frames; and a second one of the rear side frames, in which the fragile portion is not provided, includes a bent portion bent inward in the vehicle width direction for arranging an intake duct is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, JP 2012136121, the closest prior art including an intake duct associated with a truck cab, discloses a cab (Fig. 1 below) having an air deflector (Fig. 1 above) on the roof thereof, where an intake duct (39; Fig. 1 below) is provided in the air deflector adjacent to the roof of the cab. It would not have been obvious to utilize JP 2012136121 to provide an intake duct in the high roof of JP 2020-152170 because there would be no motivation to not provide a fragile portion on one side of the rear side frames and to provide an inwardly bent portion where the fragile portion is not provided for arranging an in take duct. The teaching of JP 2012136121 is limited to providing an intake duct on an air deflector and there is no bent frame element therein to accommodate such intake duct.
PNG
media_image9.png
505
513
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suchanek US 4,201,415 discloses a high roof structure for a truck cab as shown in Fig. 1. However, the reference does not disclose the details of a frame for the high roof including a fragile portion thereof as required by claim 1.
Penbzotti et al. US 5,201,379 disclose a high roof structure (216, Fig. 2) for a truck cab. However, the reference does not disclose the details of a frame for the high roof including a fragile portion thereof as required by claim 1.
DE 102006037028 discloses a high roof can construction (2; Fig. 1) for a truck cab.
However, the reference does not disclose the details of a frame for the high roof including a fragile portion thereof as required by claim 1.
DE 3718746 discloses a high roof (2; Fig. 1) cab construction for a truck can showing how the high roof is attached to the cab in Fig 1. However, the reference does not disclose the details of a frame for the high roof including a fragile portion thereof as required by claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights