DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the cover; the top surface potion includes:” contains spelling errors.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gruich (US 20020109376 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gruich teaches “A work vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body (see Gruich, Figure 2, Annotation set 1);
a plurality of wheels provided on the vehicle body (see Gruich, Figure 2, Annotation set 1);
and a housing body mounted to a side portion of the vehicle body and behind one of the plurality of wheels (see Gruich, Figure 2, Annotation set 1),
the housing body including:
a main body provided with an opening through which an inside of the main body is accessible (see abstract);
a cover for covering the opening, which is mounted to the main body so as to be openable and closable (door is provided over the opening, see abstract); and
a locking tool for locking the cover to the main body (locking latches, see paragraph 0030),
wherein the housing body is formed into a box shape including:
a bottom surface portion (bottom surface, see paragraph 0030);
a top surface portion arranged to face the bottom surface portion (top surface, see paragraph 0033);
a first side surface portion connecting the bottom surface portion and the top surface portion on a side facing the one of the wheels (see Gruich, Figure 2, Annotation set 2); and
a second side surface portion connecting the bottom surface portion, the top surface portion, and the first side surface portion from a lateral side at a position more rearward than the first side surface portion (see Gruich, Figure 2, Annotation set 2),
the top surface portion consists of the main body and
the cover (door, see abstract),
the top surface potion includes:
a horizontal region parallel to a ground surface in contact with the vehicle body (see Gruich, Figure 1); and
an inclined region inclined downward from the horizontal region toward the second side surface portion (see Gruich, Figure 1), and the locking tool is provided on the inclined region of the top surface portion (see Gruich, Figure 1).”
PNG
media_image1.png
454
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gruich, Figure 2 (Annotation set 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
367
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gruich, Figure 2 (Annotation set 2)
PNG
media_image3.png
545
959
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gruich, Figure 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruich (US 20020109376 A1), in view of Christensen (US 20050145527 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Gruich teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1 above, except “wherein the housing body further includes a handle for opening and closing the cover, and
the handle is provided on the cover at the inclined region of the top surface portion thereof.”
However, Christensen teaches “wherein the housing body further includes a handle for opening and closing the cover (see Christensen, Figure 2, Annotation set 1), and
the handle is provided on the cover at the inclined region of the top surface portion thereof (see Christensen, Figure 2, Annotation set 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the latch assembly as taught by Gruich, with the latch and handle assembly as taught by Christensen, to provide a convenient point of contact for the user to gain leverage to open the assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image4.png
616
785
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Christensen, Figure 2 (Annotation set 1)
Regarding claim 3, Gruich teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 2 above, except “each of the locking tool and the handle is placed such that a longitudinal direction thereof is along an inclination direction of the inclined region.”
However, Christensen teaches “each of the locking tool and the handle is placed such that a longitudinal direction thereof is along an inclination direction of the inclined region (see Christensen, Figure 2, Annotation set 2).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the latch assembly as taught by Gruich, with the vertically aligned latch and handle assembly as taught by Christensen, to provide a convenient point of contact for the user to gain leverage to open the assembly and that the handle may be actuated upward to disengage the latching mechanism, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image5.png
616
785
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Christensen, Figure 2 (Annotation set 2)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruich (US 20020109376 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Gruich teaches “The work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein in the housing body, an inclination angle of the inclined region of the top surface portion with respect to
the ground surface is set to be more than an angle which is a slope of 3/10 (see Gruich, Figure 4).”
Gruich does not teach “The work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein in the housing body, an inclination angle of the inclined region of the top surface portion with respect to
the ground surface is less than an angle obtained by subtracting a swing angle of the one of the wheels from 90 degrees”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the housing body as taught by Gruich with an incline angle that is best suited to reduce aerodynamic drag, falling within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image6.png
281
328
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Gruich, Figure 4
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruich (US 20020109376 A1), in view of Anderson (US 11186167 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Gruich teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1 above, except “inside the housing body, a fueling port for filling a fuel is installed.”
However, Anderson teaches “inside the housing body, a fueling port for filling a fuel is installed (see Anderson, Figure 4).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to place a fuel filling port as taught by Anderson inside the covered storage assembly as taught by Gruich, to eliminate the need for a separate cover over the fuel port, instead letting the cover over the storage box protect the port as well, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image7.png
746
665
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Anderson, Figure 4
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruich (US 20020109376 A1), in view of Thelen et al. (US 20070267885 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Gruich teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1 above, except “the housing body is provided with a hinge for fixing the cover with respect to the main body on the first side surface portion so as to be rotatable,
the cover opens and closes with rotating around the hinge in a forward and rearward direction of the vehicle body, and
in the inclined region, the locking tool is located at an end portion which is on a side opposite to a side closer to the first side surface portion.”
However, Thelen teaches “the housing body is provided with a hinge for fixing the cover with respect to the main body on the first side surface portion so as to be rotatable (doors are connected to the sides of the compartment, see Thelen, paragraph 0023),
the cover opens and closes with rotating around the hinge in a forward and rearward direction of the vehicle body (hinge allows doors to swing open horizontally, see Thelen, paragraph 0023), and
in the inclined region, the locking tool is located at an end portion which is on a side opposite to a side closer to the first side surface portion (see Thelen, Figure 2b).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, move the horizontally aligned hinge as taught by Gruich to the side of the opening such that it becomes a vertically aligned hinge as taught by Thelen, to prevent the accidental closure of the cover under the influence of gravity, contributing to simplicity and ease of use while on the job-site, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image8.png
398
556
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Thelen, Figure 2b
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited references disclose external cover or tool storage assemblies for use on a working vehicle.
Sterling (US 9669746 B2) teaches storage bins located on the inside walls of a pickup truck bed for storing tools and other articles.
Scott et al. (US 6003923 A) teaches storage bins similar to those of Sterling.
Shimodaira et al. (JP 2012183943 A) teaches an external cover assembly for housing the battery of a front-loading machine.
Noda et al. (JP 2015134999 A) teaches an external cover assembly for housing tools and sealing an onboard fluid (not fuel) tank on a working machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
JRC /VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights