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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Novotny et al.
For claim 1, Novotny et al. (8998253) disclose a work vehicle, comprising:
an occupant space (150, FIG.1) configured to accommodate an occupant;
an arch-shaped frame (49, FIG.1) extending over the occupant space and comprising:
a lateral frame portion (not numbered, FIGS.1 and 2) extending laterally relative to a body of the work vehicle;
a left vertical frame portion extending downward from a left end portion of the lateral frame portion; and
a right vertical frame portion extending downward from a right end portion of the lateral frame portion;
PNG
media_image1.png
383
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a front seat (152,158) in the occupant space;
a back seat (164) in the occupant space and backward of the front seat relative to the body; and
a handrail (not numbered but seen in FIG.2) usable by an occupant on the back seat and comprising:
a first section extending laterally relative to the body;
a second section extending forward from a left end portion of the first section; and
a third section extending forward from a right end portion of the first section,
PNG
media_image2.png
475
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the second section is coupled to the left vertical frame portion, and
wherein the third section is coupled to the right vertical frame portion.
For claim 3, the first section has an upper end below an upper end of the front seat.
For claim 4, the handrail is made of metal (implicit).
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hokes et al.
For claim 1, Hokes et al. (11267384) disclose a work vehicle, comprising:
an occupant space (FIG.1) configured to accommodate an occupant;
an arch-shaped frame (36,42, FIG.1) extending over the occupant space and comprising:
a lateral frame portion (36) extending laterally relative to a body of the work vehicle;
a left vertical frame portion (42) extending downward from a left end portion of the lateral frame portion; and
a right vertical frame portion (42) extending downward from a right end portion of the lateral frame portion;
PNG
media_image3.png
561
653
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a front seat (22) in the occupant space;
a back seat (23) in the occupant space and backward of the front seat relative to the body; and
a handrail (61,80) usable by an occupant on the back seat and comprising:
a first section (64) extending laterally relative to the body;
a second section (71) extending forward from a left end portion of the first section; and
a third section (76) extending forward from a right end portion of the first section,
PNG
media_image4.png
373
585
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the second section is coupled to the left vertical frame portion, and
wherein the third section is coupled to the right vertical frame portion.
For claim 3, the first section has an upper end below an upper end of the front seat.
For claim 4, the handrail is made of metal (Col 4, lines 60-62; Col 10, lines 1-5).
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 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novotny et al. or Hokes et al. in view of Kathol et al. and the well known prior art.
For claim 5, Novotny et al. and Hokes et al. are silent as to a drink holder attached to the first section.
Kathol et al. (2024/0025326) teach the use and desirability of providing drink holders to occupants in rear seats (FIG.4).
PNG
media_image5.png
416
483
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In addition, the examiner takes official notice that well known prior art is replete with examples of drink holders attached to horizontal bars. Johnson et al. (2019/0086027) teaches a drink holder (below, LEFT) attached to a horizontal bar (as seen in FIGS. 11-12). Gu (12279709) additionally teaches a drink holder (below, RIGHT) attached to a horizontal bar (FIG.4).
PNG
media_image6.png
367
375
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
336
441
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, McConnell et al. (6390427) provides the same, as seen in FIG.1.
PNG
media_image8.png
417
673
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Additional cited references of the prior art including Lynch (5752687)(FIG.3) and Trautman et al. (6942131)(FIG.1) provide the same.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided at the center section of the handrail of either of Novotny et al. or Hokes et al. a drink holder as taught by Kathol et al. capable of being attached to the center section as taught by the well known prior art in order to allow occupants seated in the rear seats to secure beverages when not in use.
Applicant may seasonally challenge, for the official record in this application, this and any other statement of judicial notice in a timely manner in response to this office action. Please specify the exact statement to be challenged. Applicant is reminded, with respect to the specific challenge put forth, of the duty of disclosure under Rule 56 to disclose material which is pertinent to patentability including claim rejections challenged by applicant. Examiner has proactively set forth instant and unquestionable evidence with the references discussed above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novotny et al. or Hokes et al. in view of Barecki (3323835).
For claim 2, neither Novotny et al. nor Hokes et al. further provides a coupler extending from the handrail to the front seat and coupling the handrail to the front seat, a feature known from Barecki as seen in FIGS. 2 and 4 where a centrally located coupler is provided.
PNG
media_image9.png
304
325
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
378
352
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided a coupler as taught by Barecki for use with the handrail of either Novotny et al. or Hokes et al. in order to provide an additional point of securement for the handrail to the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights