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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 2 of the Applicant’s remarks, the applicant claims that the bracket (100) of Carton (US Patent Publication US 2024/0018744 A1) and bracket (3) of Nakashima (US Patent Publication US 2015/0305177 A1) does not isolate one space from another space in the equipment housing chamber. However, the very presence of the brackets isolates the upper region of a space of the brackets from the lower region of a space of the bracket. For example, the bracket (100) of Carton isolates the motor (61) positioned in the upper region of a space from occupying the lower region of a space of the bracket where the hydraulic pump is positioned. The Examiner maintains the rejections to the claims.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carton (US Patent Publication US 2024/0018744 A1) in view of Nakashima (US Patent Publication US 2015/0305177 A1).
With regards to Claim 1: Carton teaches a working vehicle comprising: a hydraulic pump (71); an electric motor (61) configured to drive the hydraulic pump, an output shaft of the electric motor being connected to an input shaft of the hydraulic pump (para [0055]); an inverter (63) configured to control the electric motor; a bracket (100) having a top surface (at 121 as seen in Figs 5 and 6), the electric motor and the inverter being mounted on the top surface of the bracket (seen in Fig 5); and an equipment housing chamber (44) that houses the hydraulic pump, the electric motor, and the inverter, wherein the electric motor is disposed in an upward direction with respect to the hydraulic pump (via Fig 5); the bracket includes a horizontal plate (121), the horizontal plate isolates an upper region of a space in the equipment housing chamber from a lower region of the space, and the electric motor and the invertor are disposed in the upper region of the space (seen in Fig 5), and the hydraulic pump is disposed in the lower region of the space (seen in Fig 5).
Carton does not teach the electric motor and the inverter being directly mounted on the top surface of the bracket.
Nakashima teaches a working vehicle comprising: an electric motor (40 and 5); an inverter (20 and 30) configured to control the electric motor; a bracket (3, Collins Dictionary defines a bracket as “pieces of metal, wood, or plastic that are fastened to a wall in order to support something such as a shelf”; https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bracket ) having a top surface, the electric motor and the inverter being directly mounted on the top surface of the bracket (via Fig 1); and an equipment housing chamber (2) that houses the electric motor and the inverter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the working vehicle disclosed in Carton with the electric motor and the inverter being directly mounted on the top surface of the bracket as taught in Nakashima with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allotted for more space within the equipment housing chamber for the plurality of equipment.
With regards to Claim 10: Carton teaches a working vehicle comprising: a hydraulic pump (71); an electric motor (61) configured to drive the hydraulic pump, an output shaft of the electric motor being connected to an input shaft of the hydraulic pump (para[0055]); an inverter (63) configured to control the electric motor; a bracket (100) having a top surface (121 as seen in Fig 6), the electric motor and the invertor being mounted on the top surface of the bracket; and an equipment housing chamber (44) that houses the hydraulic pump and the electric motor, wherein the electric motor is disposed in an upward direction with respect to the hydraulic pump (via Fig 5), and an entirety of the hydraulic pump is disposed under the bracket (via Fig 5); the bracket includes a horizontal plate (121), the horizontal plate isolates an upper region of a space in the equipment housing chamber from a lower region of the space, and the electric motor and the invertor are disposed in the upper region of the space (seen in Fig 5), and the hydraulic pump is disposed in the lower region of the space (seen in Fig 5).
Carton does not teach the electric motor and the invertor being directly mounted on the top surface of the bracket.
Nakashima teaches a working vehicle comprising: an electric motor (40 and 5); an inverter (20 and 30) configured to control the electric motor; a bracket (3, Collins Dictionary defines a bracket as “pieces of metal, wood, or plastic that are fastened to a wall in order to support something such as a shelf”; https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bracket ) having a top surface, the electric motor and the inverter being directly mounted on the top surface of the bracket (via Fig 1); and an equipment housing chamber (2) that houses the electric motor and the inverter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the working vehicle disclosed in Carton with the electric motor and the inverter being directly mounted on the top surface of the bracket as taught in Nakashima with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allotted for more space within the equipment housing chamber for the plurality of equipment.
The combination of Carton and Nakashima does not teach an entirety of the hydraulic pump is disposed under the bracket.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the working vehicle disclosed in the combination of Carton and Nakashima such that an entirety of the hydraulic pump is disposed under the bracket with a reasonable expectation of success because it would place the pump in the desired placement for interacting with the remainder of the motor vehicle. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carton (US Patent Publication US 2024/0018744 A1) in view of Nakashima (US Patent Publication US 2015/0305177 A1) and in further view of Hirokawa (WIPO Patent Publication WO 2012104953 A1).
With regards to Claim 5: The combination of Carton and Nagashima teaches the working vehicle according to claim 1, but does not teach the hydraulic pump (Carton 71) includes a plurality of hydraulic pumps, and the hydraulic pumps are connected in series.
Hirokawa teaches a hydraulic pump (13); a motor (11) for driving the hydraulic pump wherein the hydraulic pump includes a plurality of hydraulic pumps connected in series (page 4 para 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the working vehicle disclosed in the combination of Carton and Nagashima with the plurality of hydraulic pumps arranged in series taught in Hirokawa et al with a reasonable expectation of success because having a plurality of pumps in series provides redundancy for uninterrupted operation of the hydraulic circuit.
With regards to Claim 12: The combination of Carton and Nagashima teaches the working vehicle according to claim 10, but does not teach the hydraulic pump (Carton 71) includes a plurality of the hydraulic pumps, and the plurality of the hydraulic pumps are connected in series.
Hirokawa teaches a hydraulic pump (13); a motor (11) for driving the hydraulic pump wherein the hydraulic pump includes a plurality of hydraulic pumps connected in series (page 4 para 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the working vehicle disclosed in the combination of Carton and Nagashima with the plurality of hydraulic pumps arranged in series taught in Hirokawa et al with a reasonable expectation of success because having a plurality of pumps in series provides redundancy for uninterrupted operation of the hydraulic circuit.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Ganci whose telephone number is (571)272-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/MATTHEW JOSEPH GANCI/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights