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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19/365,265 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because two applications are directed to working vehicles with a position detector supported by a support frame that is rotatably coupled to left and right pillars by coupling portions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2021-100392.
JP 2021-100392 discloses a working vehicle comprising a position detector (13) to detect a position of a vehicle body (3), as disclosed in paragraph [0012], a support frame (31) that supports the position detector (13) and extends over left and right pillars (41,42) of a cabin, and a coupling portion (38) that rotatably couples the support frame (31) to each of the left and right pillars (41,42), as shown in Figures 5 and 6 and disclosed in paragraph [0041].
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.
Claims 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanada (US 2020/0251809) in view of JP 2021-100392.
Hanada discloses a working vehicle comprising a position detector (50) to detect a position of a vehicle body, a support frame (100) that supports the position detector (50) and extends over left and right pillars (201) of a cabin, and a coupling portion (112,150) that couples the support frame (100) to each of the left and right pillars (201), as shown in Figures 1-15.
In reference to claim 2, both ends of the support frame (100) are located outside the left and right pillars (201), as shown in Figures 3 and 5.
In reference to claim 11, the support frame (100) includes a main body including a bar-shaped structure that is bent in A U-shape, as shown in Figure 5. The intended use “to avoid contact with a muffler” is given little patentable weight since the claimed structure is disclosed.
However, Hanada does not disclose the coupling portion rotatably couples the support frame to the left and right pillars.
JP 2021-100392 teaches forming a coupling portion (38) as a fastener fixed to each pillar (42) and a support attached to the fastener and rotatably supporting the support frame (31), as shown in Figures 5 and 6.
PNG
media_image1.png
212
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the coupling portion of Hanada as a rotatable coupling with a fastener and support, as taught by JP 2021-100392, with a reasonable expectation for success to allow the position detector to move from a raised, in-use position and a lowered, stored position to help protect the position detector when not in use.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hanada (US 2020/0251809) and JP 2021-100392, as applied to claim 1, in view of JP 2020-100233.
Hanada, as modified, discloses wiring (80) extending from the position detector and into the cabin, as shown in Figures 14 and 15 and disclosed in paragraph [0129].
However, Hanada, as modified, does not disclose the takeout port is located in the vicinity of a rotation shaft of the support frame.
JP 2020-100233 teaches providing a takeout port (12a) in the cabin for wiring (33) in a vicinity of the coupling portion of the support frame (23), as shown in Figure 3.
In reference to claim 9, a cover (34) is provided on the support frame (23) to cover at least a portion of the wiring (33), as shown in Figure 3.
In reference to claim 10, the support frame (23) has a left-right asymmetrical shape due to the inclusion of the cover (34), as shown in Figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a takeout port in a vicinity of the rotation shaft of the support frame and a cover on the support frame to cover the wiring of Hamada, as modified, as taught by JP 2020-100233, with a reasonable expectation for success to better protect the wiring and reduce the overall length of wiring while allowing the support frame to move while maintaining the connection between the position detector and the interior of cabin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 4 is the second support hole having a larger inner diameter than the first support hole, which is not found in the prior art of record. The ends of the support frame of JP 2021-100233 are not inserted into holes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Horai et al. (US 2022/0097626) discloses a position detector supported by a support frame with ends that are located outside of left and right pillars (48), as shown in Figure 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 September 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights