DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 12/12/2024, 10/24/2025, and 11/6/2025 have been fully considered.
Priority
The foreign priority claim to JP2022-103779 filed on 6/28/2022 is acknowledged. However, on 1/20/2025 the office failed to retrieve the priority document. Searching the document on google patents, this appears to be the wrong document. JP2022-103779 pertains to a mouthpiece of a fuel tank and contains fundamentally different figures from the current application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 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.
Regarding claim 7, Song teaches the work vehicle according to claim 6, as set forth in the obviousness rejection below.
However, Song does not teach a storage battery is on the third portion. Song has a battery already, but that battery is not on the support, and what it is on cannot be reimagined to be a third portion while teaching the other limitations that this claim depends upon. Upon further searching, no reference or obvious combination of references were found that could teach all the limitations of claim 7. Thus, claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 8-9, these claims depend upon claim 7 and thus inherit its allowable subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 210133014 U).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches a work vehicle (taught by figure 1) comprising: a fuel cell power generation system (31 “fuel cell device” taught by figure 1 and the abstract);
an inverter connected to the fuel cell power generation system (51 “motor controller” taught by figure 2 and the specification “AC power the electric machine can be understood by those skilled in the art that the power device 50 of the rotating speed of the device 52 with the motor controller 51 into the frequency of energy related, so the power device 50 of the motor controller 51 by adjusting the AC power frequency energy so as to adjust the motor rotating speed of the device 52, so as to adjust the output power of the power device 50”);
a motor connected to the inverter (taught as part of the power device 50 in the specification “the power device 50 comprises a motor controller 51 and at least one motor device”);
a vehicle frame supporting the fuel cell power generation system, the inverter, and the motor, the vehicle frame rotatably supporting left and right front wheels and left and right rear wheels (taught by figure 1);
wherein the vehicle frame includes a transmission case housing a transmission to transmit a driving force from the motor to the rear wheels (61 “transmission device” taught by figure 2); and
the inverter is at a side of the transmission case (taught by figure 2).
Regarding claim 2, Song teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Song also teaches a driver seat supported by the vehicle frame (taught by figure 1); and
a cabin surrounding the driver seat (taught by figure 1);
wherein the inverter is below the cabin (taught by figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Song teaches the work vehicle according to claim 2, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Song also teaches a wherein the vehicle frame includes a front frame on which the front wheels are mounted (taught by figures 1-2); and
the front frame is fixed to a front portion of the transmission case (taught by figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Song teaches the work vehicle according to claim 3, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Song also teaches a support fixed to the transmission case to support the inverter (10 “tractor body” taught by figure 1 and the specification “wherein the tractor body 10 is used for bearing and fixing the power supply device 30. said electric energy processing device 40, the power device 50 and the transmission device 60”).
Regarding claim 10, Song teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Song also teaches a wherein the work vehicle is an agricultural machine (taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Song teaches the work vehicle according to claim 10, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Song also teaches a further comprising a power take-off shaft to be driven by the motor (63 “power output shaft” taught by figure 2).
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(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 210133014 U).
Regarding claim 5, Song teaches the work vehicle according to claim 4, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Song also teaches a wherein the inverter is on the support.
However, Song does not teach wherein the support includes a first portion connected to a lower portion of the transmission case and a second portion extending parallel or substantially parallel to the transmission case in a plan view; and
the inverter is on the second portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the support into two portions, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 6, Song teaches the work vehicle according to claim 5, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Song also teaches a wherein the support supports electrical equipment other than the inverter (52 “motor device” taught by figure 2).
However, Song does not teach wherein the support includes a third portion to support electrical equipment other than the inverter.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the support into three portions, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613