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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: "communication unit" and "attachment tool" in Claim 1.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 5, 8-9, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. All the claimsThe “communication unit” could be a mobile device or a radio or a computer device that could be held by the operator and set on a holder. There is no evidence that the “communication unit” is in possession of the Applicant.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “communication unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As mentioned in the previous rejection, the term “communication unit” is not adequately defined and does not provide the entire structure needed for performing the entire claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 4-6, 9-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai et al. (JP 2021150509 B1).
Re Claim 1, Arai et al. disclose,
a working machine (Fig. 1: 1; Para 0008) comprising:
a machine body (Fig. 1: 2; Para 0008);
a seat on the machine body (Fig. 2: 6; Para 0014);
a console (Fig. 2: 44R; Para 0015) located outward of the seat in a machine-body width direction;
a meter provided at a front portion of the console (Fig. 4: as seen annotated; Para 0017);
a communication unit (Fig. 4: as seen annotated; Para 0020) located forward of the meter; and
a unit support (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) to support the communication unit, wherein the unit support includes a unit bracket (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) to which the communication unit is attached,
a support bracket (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) located outward of the meter in the machine-body width direction and attached directly or indirectly to the machine body, and an attachment tool (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) to attach the unit bracket to the support bracket,
the unit bracket includes an attached section (Fig. 4: as seen annotated),
the support bracket includes an attaching section (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) with which the attached section overlaps in the machine-body width direction, and
the attachment tool is configured to attach the attached section to the attaching section in the machine-body width direction (Fig. 4: as seen annotated).
Re Claim 5, Arai et al. discloses:
the communication unit (Fig. 4: as seen annotated; Para 0020) includes an information processing device (Fig. 4: 59; Para 0020) and a communication device (Fig. 4: 60; Para 0020) to receive data from and transmit data to the information processing device, the communication device containing a communication antenna (Fig. 14: 92; Para 0037) and configured to transmit data,
the information processing device is located on a back side of the communication device (as seen in Fig. 4) and includes, at a lower side thereof, a connection portion (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) to have a harness (Fig. 7: 64) connected thereto, and
the unit bracket includes a guard member (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) to guard the harness connected to the connection portion from below.
PNG
media_image1.png
844
877
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Arai et al. (JP 2021150509 B1)
Re Claim 4, Arai et al. discloses:
a controller (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) located outward of the meter in the machine-body width direction; and
a controller support (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) attached directly or indirectly to the machine body to support the controller, wherein
the support bracket is attached on the controller support along a front-rear direction (Fig. 4: as seen annotated), and
the controller support includes a constituent portion (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) including an upper surface (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) extending below the attaching section and the attached section and extending diagonally forward and downward (the diagonally extended portion is not clearly visible in Fig. 4 as it is in Fig. 5 of Arai et al.).
Re Claim 5, Arai et al. discloses:
the communication unit (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) includes an information processing device (Fig. 4: 59) and a communication device (Fig. 4: 60) to receive data from and transmit data to the information processing device, the communication device containing a communication antenna (Fig. 14: 92; Para 0037) and configured to transmit data,
the information processing device is located on a back side of the communication device and includes, at a lower side thereof, a connection portion (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) to have a harness (Fig. 7:64) connected thereto, and the unit bracket includes a guard member (Fig. 4: as seen annotated) to guard the harness connected to the connection portion from below.
Re Claim 6, Arai et al. discloses:
a pedal member (Fig. 2: 50) to be depressed by a user seated on the seat is located below the guard member (In the annotated Fig. 4, the pedal member would be located below the guard member).
Re Claim 9, Arai et al. discloses:
A working machine (Fig. 1: 1; Para 0008) comprising:
a machine body (Fig. 1: 2; Para 0008);
a seat (Fig. 2: 6; Para 0014) on the machine body;
a console (Fig. 5: as seen annotated; Para 0015) located at one side of the seat;
a communication unit (Fig. 5: as seen annotated; Para 0020);
a unit bracket (Fig. 5: as seen annotated) to which the communication unit is attached;
a support bracket (Fig. 5: as seen annotated) vertically provided directly or indirectly on the machine body to support the console; and
an attachment bracket (Fig. 5: as seen annotated) provided at the support bracket to attach the unit bracket, wherein
the communication unit includes an information processing device (Fig. 5: 59; Para 0020) and a communication device (Fig. 5: 60; Para 0020) to receive data from and transmit data to the information processing device, the communication device containing a communication antenna (Fig. 14: 92; Para 0037) and configured to transmit data,
the information processing device and the communication device are arranged in a front-rear direction (as seen in Fig. 5), and
the communication device includes an electronic substrate (Fig. 14: 91; Para 0037) with the communication antenna attached on an obverse side thereof, and a case (Fig. 11: 72; Para 0027, 0037) to house the electronic substrate such that the obverse side faces in the same direction as a device front surface (Fig. 5: as seen annotated; Para 0026-0027) of the communication device, and the device front surface is positioned to face a space above a floor portion (Fig. 5: as seen annotated) located forward of the seat.
Re Claim 10, Arai et al. discloses:
the unit bracket includes an attachment member (Fig. 5: as seen annotated) attached to the attachment bracket, a vertical member (Fig. 5: as seen annotated) extending in an up-down direction and including an upper portion to which the attachment member is fixed, a first bracket member (Fig. 5: as seen annotated) fixed forward of the vertical member, and a second bracket member (Fig. 5: as seen annotated) fixed rearward of the vertical member, and
one of the information processing device and the communication device is attached to the first bracket member, and the other of the information processing device and the communication device is attached to the second bracket member (Fig. 5: as seen annotated).
Re Claim 11, Arai et al. discloses:
the attachment bracket is provided at an upper portion of the support bracket (Fig. 5: as seen annotated) such that the attachment bracket protrudes sideways from the support bracket away from the seat, and includes an attachment wall (Fig. 5: as seen annotated) including an attachment surface (Fig. 5: as seen annotated) facing in the up-down direction, and
the attachment member is attached to the attachment wall such that the attachment member and the attachment wall overlap each other in the up-down direction (Fig. 5: as seen annotated).
Re Claim 14, Arai et al. discloses:
a harness (Fig. 7: 64) connected to the communication unit (as seen in Fig. 7); and
a cover member (as seen annotated in Fig. 5) attached to the support bracket to cover a side of the harness that faces the seat.
PNG
media_image2.png
843
854
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Arai et al. (JP 2021150509 B1)
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.
Claims 15-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (JP 2021150509 B1) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Nishigori et al. (JP 6946172 B2).
Re Claim 15, Arai et al. discloses a working machine that includes a machine body, a seat, a console located at sideward of the seat, and a communication unit that comprises an information processing device, a communication device, and a communication antenna configured to transmit data.
But Arai et al. does not explicitly disclose that the seat is provided at a position deviated from the center of the machine body, or that the communication unit is located rearward and sideward of the seat, or that the working machine also comprises a prime mover and a hood to cover the prime mover and the communication unit is located above the hood.
However, Nishigori et al. discloses that the seat is located away from the center in the machine-body width direction (as seen in Fig. 2: 6 of Nishigori et al.), and that the communication unit is located rearward and sideward of the seat (as seen annotated in Fig. 6 of Nishigori et al.) and that the working machine further comprises a prime mover in the rear of the machine body and a hood to house the prime mover (as seen annotated in Fig. 6 of Nishigori et al.) and that the communication unit is located above the hood (as seen annotated in Fig. 6 of Nishigori et al.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the working machine of Arai et al., by orientating the prime mover covered by the hood to be located behind the seat, and the communication unit to be located above the hood and the seat being offset from the center, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the space inside the working machine will be efficiently utilized and the operator of the working machine will experience maximum comfort while operating in such compact spaces.
Re Claim 16, Arai et al. discloses:
a seat protector (as seen annotated in Fig. 15) provided on the machine body;
a unit support (as seen annotated in Fig. 15) to support the communication unit; and
a support frame (as seen annotated in Fig. 15) provided on the machine body to support the hood (as seen annotated in Fig. 15), wherein
the seat protector includes an attachment frame (as seen annotated in Fig. 15) attached to the support frame, and
the unit support includes an attachment member (as seen annotated in Fig. 15) attached to the attachment frame.
PNG
media_image3.png
590
731
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 15 of Arai et al. (JP 2021150509 B1)
Re Claim 17, Arai et al. discloses:
the unit support includes a first device bracket (as seen annotated in the magnified Fig. 15 below) to which the communication device is attached with a device front surface (as seen annotated in the magnified Fig. 15 below) of the communication device facing rearward (as seen annotated in the magnified Fig. 15 below), and
a second device bracket (as seen annotated in the magnified Fig. 15 below) to which the information processing device is attached.
PNG
media_image4.png
833
707
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Magnified Figure 15 of Arai et al. (JP 2021150509 B1)
Re Claim 19, Arai et al. discloses:
the seat protector (as seen annotated in Fig. 15) is a cabin surrounding the seat, and
the unit support includes a support member (as seen annotated in Fig. 15) attached to a pillar (as seen annotated in Fig. 15) of the cabin.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. and Nishigori et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Miyazaki (US 20170101134 A1).
While Arai et al. and Nishigori et al. disclose the limitations of the independent claim 15, Arai et al. and Nishigori et al. do not disclose a lamp member, a lamp stay and a lamp stay attachment portion.
On the other hand, Miyazaki discloses a lamp member, a lamp stay to which the lamp member is attached, wherein the unit support includes a lamp stay attachment portion to which the lamp stay is attached (Para 0072-0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the working machine, as disclosed by Arai et al. and Nishigori et al., by including a lamp member, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the working machine would be able to indicate visible intent to those outside the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 7-8, 12-13, 20 are 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 primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 2-3 are the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to a pin in combination with a bolt and its position in a bracket. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, Arai et al, do not teach or suggest the pin and bolt combination within the bracket as claimed. There is no suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make such a modification to the device of Arai et al.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 7 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to the direction of the arrangement of the attached and attaching section. While the attached and attaching sections along with the attachment tool are met by the prior art of record, the orientation of the bracket is not taught by the art. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, Arai et al, do not teach or suggest the orientation of the attaching and attached sections as claimed. There is no suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make such a modification to the device of Arai et al.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 8 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to a harness guide to restrict movement. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, Arai et al, do not teach or suggest the harness guide as claimed. There is no suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make such a modification to the device of Arai et al.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 12-13 are the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to a fixing member and a fixing bracket to which the support bracket is attached. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record, Arai et al, do not teach or suggest the fixing member as claimed. There is no suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make such a modification to the device of Arai et al.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 20 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitations directed to grease gun system. While the grease gun system is known in the art, the placement of the system is not known without impermissible hindsight reasoning. The prior arts of record, Arai et al. or Nishigori et al, do not teach or suggest the grease gun system placement as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references all disclose a working machine:
Otsu (US 20250347087 A1) disclose a work machine that has a machine body which includes a communication device with an antenna.
Sawayama et a. (EP 4567200 A1) disclose a construction machine that reduces the obstruction of the field of view for an operator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASMINE J THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/JASMINE JAMES THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612 September 15, 2026
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights