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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 45m. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 applied references (Nakayama, Nakamura, and Kuramoto) have a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, they constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 20220377959 to Nakayama et al. in view of U.S. 4886135 to Nakamura et al.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Nakayama discloses an electric work vehicle comprising:
a body having a frame structure comprising a front part and a rear part (At least body frame 2 supported by front wheels 10 and rear wheels 11; Par. [0032]),
the front part providing for a power section (At least cover 12 at front portion; Par. [0033]),
the rear part providing for a drive section (At least driver section behind cover 12; Par. [0033]);
a battery in the power section (At least cover 12 accommodates travel battery 4; Par. [0038]);
an electric motor for traveling configured to receive electric power from the battery (At least motor M is driven on electric power supplied by travel battery 4; Par. [0039]); and
a cooling fan (At least cooling fan 17; Par. [0100]), and wherein:
the power section has an air flow space therein (At least body frame 2 and travel battery 4 define ventilation space S therebetween; Par. [0045]),
the air flow space has a length in a front-rear direction greater than a length in the front-rear direction of the battery (Air flow space from air inlet section 12a through ventilation space S, including second space S2, has a greater front-rear length than the front-rear length of travel battery 4; Fig 1-2) and comprises
a rear end region and a front end region (At least ventilation space S includes first space S1 and second space S2; Par. [0111]),
the electric motor for traveling is in the air flow space (At least motor M and the travel battery 4 define a second space S2 therebetween, second space S2 being part of ventilation space S; Par. [0053]).
Nakayama does not disclose the proper locations for an air inlet and an air outlet in the air flow space, nor that the cooling fan is adjacent to the air outlet.
Nevertheless, Nakamura teaches that
the rear end region of the air flow space has an air inlet (At least air inlets 13a and 13b comprise a main inlet 13a defined on a top surface of the hood 1 adjacent the end thereof opposed to the driver's seat 5, and auxiliary inlets 13b defined in opposite lateral surfaces of the hood 1 adjacent the same rearward end thereof; page 5 column 3 lines 32-40),
the front end region of the air flow space has an air outlet (At least air outlet 19 defined in the front of hood 1; Fig. 1).
the cooling fan is adjacent to the air outlet (There are no other elements in the way of the cooling fan 17 and air outlet 19; Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have modified the electric work vehicle of Nakayama to have a rear air inlet and a front air outlet and to have a cooling fan located near an air outlet, as taught by Nakamura, in order to improve cooling efficiency by creating a low pressure zone behind the fan for continuously drawing cool and less turbulent air into the power section (Nakamura, page 4 column 2 lines 3-13).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the combination of Nakayama/Nakamura teaches that
the air outlet is positioned lower than a position of the air inlet (Nakamura; Air outlet 19 is positioned lower than a position of air inlets 13a and 13b on top and in lateral surfaces of rearward end of hood 1; pg. 5 col. 3 lines 32-37, Fig 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have modified the electric work vehicle of Nakayama to have the air outlet positioned lower than a position of the air inlet, as taught by Nakamura, in order to improve cooling efficiency by directing air in an optimal angle for cooling components in the power section (Nakamura, page 4 column 2 lines 46-52).
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 20220377959 to Nakayama et al. in view of U.S. 20060243505 to Kuramoto et al.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Nakayama discloses an electric work vehicle comprising:
a body having a frame structure comprising a front part and a rear part (At least body frame 2 supported by front wheels 10 and rear wheels 11; Par. [0032]),
the front part providing for a power section (At least cover 12 at front portion; Par. [0033]),
the rear part providing for a drive section (At least driver section behind cover 12; Par. [0033]);
a battery in the power section (At least cover 12 accommodates travel battery 4; Par. [0038]);
an electric motor for traveling configured to receive electric power from the battery (At least motor M is driven on electric power supplied by travel battery 4; Par. [0039]); and
a cooling fan (At least cooling fan 17; Par. [0100]), and wherein:
the power section has an air flow space therein (At least body frame 2 and travel battery 4 define ventilation space S therebetween; Par. [0045]),
the air flow space has a length in a front-rear direction greater than a length in the front-rear direction of the battery (Air flow space from air inlet section 12a through ventilation space S, including second space S2, has a greater front-rear length than the front-rear length of travel battery 4; Fig 1-2) and comprises
a rear end region and a front end region (At least ventilation space S includes first space S1 and second space S2; Par. [0111]),
the electric motor for traveling is in the air flow space (At least motor M and the travel battery 4 define a second space S2 therebetween, second space S2 being part of ventilation space S; Par. [0053]).
Nakayama does not disclose the proper locations for an air inlet and an air outlet in the air flow space, nor that the cooling fan is adjacent to the air outlet.
Nevertheless, Kuramoto teaches that
the rear end region of the air flow space has an air inlet (At least outside air is introduced through ventilation opening 14 in center cover 12, which is mounted to rear wall of engine portion 5; Par. [0026]-[0027]),
the front end region of the air flow space has an air outlet (At least air flows outside through ventilation openings 15 in the front face of engine hood 4; Par. [0027]).
the cooling fan is adjacent to the air outlet (The cooling fan 9 is adjacent to lateral ventilation openings 15; Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have modified the electric work vehicle of Nakayama to have a rear air inlet and a front air outlet and to have a cooling fan located near an air outlet, as taught by Kuramoto, in order to discharge heated air through the front of the power section instead of directly back towards the driver (Kuramoto, Par. [0027]).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the combination of Nakayama/Kuramoto teaches that
the air inlet faces the drive section (Kuramoto; Ventilation opening 14 faces driver’s seat 6; Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have modified the electric work vehicle of Nakayama to have the air inlet face the drive section, as taught by Kuramoto, in order to reduce debris introduced into the air flow space through a front opening of the power section while operating a connected work device (depicted as a front loader) (Kuramoto, Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the combination of Nakayama/Kuramoto teaches
a panel (Kuramoto; At least center cover 12; Par. [0027]), and
wherein a rear end of the rear end region is defined by the panel (Kuramoto; At least center cover 12 is mounted to rear wall of engine portion 5; Par. [0026]), and
the panel has the air inlet (Kuramoto; At least ventilation opening 14 in center cover 12; Par. [0027]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have modified the electric work vehicle of Nakayama to have a panel that defines the rear end air flow region and that contains the air inlet, as taught by Kuramoto, in order to separate the driver from moving machinery without limiting cooling to components in the rear end region of the power section (Kuramoto, Par. [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the combination of Nakayama/Kuramoto teaches
a steering wheel (Kuramoto; At least rotatively actuated steering handle 36; Par. [0037]), and wherein
the panel is forward of and below the steering wheel (Kuramoto; Center cover 12 is located forward of and below steering handle 36; Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have modified the electric work vehicle of Nakayama to have a steering wheel with the panel being located below and forward of the steering wheel, as taught by Kuramoto, in order to maintain accessibility into the rear region of the power section for replaceable components such as the battery that would otherwise be difficult to reach from the front hood (Kuramoto, Par. [0036], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the combination of Nakayama/Kuramoto teaches
a floor panel provided for the drive section (Kuramoto; At least step 29 in feet area of driver’s seat 6; Par. [0034]), and wherein
the air inlet is above the floor panel (Kuramoto; Ventilation opening 14 is located above step 29; Fig 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have modified the electric work vehicle of Nakayama to have a floor panel in the drive section with the air inlet being above the floor panel, as taught by Kuramoto, in order reduce debris agitated by the wheels from being introduced into the air flow space through the air inlet (Kuramoto, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the combination of Nakayama/Kuramoto teaches
an inverter disposed in the air flow space (Nakayama: At least inverter 14 and the travel battery 4 define a first space S1 therebetween, first space S1 being part of ventilation space S; Par. [0052])
and configured to receive electric power from the battery and supply the electric power to the electric motor for traveling (Nakayama; At least inverter 14 converts electric power from travel battery 4 and supplies electric power to motor M; Par. [0049]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 20220377959 to Nakayama et al. in view of U.S. 20060243505 to Kuramoto et al. and in further view of U.S. 5794733 to Stosel et al.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the combination of Nakayama/Kuramoto does not teach a grating that covers the air inlet.
Nevertheless, Stosel teaches that
the panel is provided with a grating that covers at least a part of the air inlet (Stosel; at least a grating 32 is disposed within the hood inlet opening; page 7 column 3 lines 58-61).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have modified the work vehicle combination of Nakayama/Kuramoto to have grating at least partially covering the air inlet in the panel, as taught by Stosel, in order to reduce unwanted foreign material being introduced to the air flow space (Stosel, page 6 column 3 lines 38-41).
Regarding the limitation "electric work vehicle," the prior art of Kuramoto, Nakamura, and Stosel is directed to work vehicles with internal combustion engines. However, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claims is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHLOE MORGAN BULLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5627. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0730-1700 with first Friday off.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/C.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights