DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 01/17/2025, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 01/17/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to FR 2207543, filed on 07/22/2022; and is a 371 of PCT/FR2023/050927, filed on 06/21/2023. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, lines 6, 9, 12, 13 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the chassis” should read, “the automotive chassis”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4, line 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the chassis” should read, “the automotive chassis”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5, lines 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the chassis” should read, “the automotive chassis”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, lines 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the chassis” should read, “the automotive chassis”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7, line 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the chassis” should read, “the automotive chassis”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8, line 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the controller” should read, “the drive controller”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation is the “mechanical power transmission means” in claim 1. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
the “system” in claim 1, because A) the word “system” is used as a generic placeholder for “means”, since “system” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“for handling”), C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
the “lighting device” in claim 1, because A) the word “device” is used as a generic placeholder for “means”, since “device” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“to light”), C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
the “handling system” in claim 8, because A) the word “system” is used as a generic placeholder for “means”, since “system” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“to handle”), C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “system” will be interpreted as a lifting arm, and a basket or bucket or handling forks or any other accessory which permits handling of a load { “at least one lifting arm 51 coupled at one of its ends to the chassis 2, and carrying at its opposite end a basket 52, inside which an operator can take his place. The presence of a basket permits handling of a person and optionally of a load. As a variant, the basket can be replaced by a bucket, handling forks, or any other accessory which permits only handling of a load” [0027]}.
The “lighting device” will be interpreted as “a strip of light-emitting diodes” [0045].
The “handling system” will be interpreted as a lifting arm, and a basket or bucket or handling forks or any other accessory which permits handling of a load { “at least one lifting arm 51 coupled at one of its ends to the chassis 2, and carrying at its opposite end a basket 52, inside which an operator can take his place. The presence of a basket permits handling of a person and optionally of a load. As a variant, the basket can be replaced by a bucket, handling forks, or any other accessory which permits only handling of a load” [0027]}.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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 1-2, 4-7, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonnefoy (US 2018/0362313), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Bonnefoy discloses a machine {1} for handling one or more of a load and a person, the machine {1} comprising:
an automotive chassis {3} equipped with front and rear wheels {Fig. 1} for traveling along a ground surface {“members for connecting to the ground, such as wheels” [0024]};
a system {7+9: “a lift structure 7 and a platform 9, shown in FIGS. 2, 3 and 4, supported by the lift structure 7. The platform 9 comprises a wire floor 90 surrounded by a guardrail 92” [0024]} for handling one or more of the load and the person carried by the chassis {3},
at least one lighting device {52, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105: “The control console 50 is provided with a lighting device 52, which may comprise one or several light sources, such as LEDs” [0043]; “the first lighting device comprises two light sources 100 and 101, for example light-emitting diodes (hereinafter LEDs), fastened on the control console 94” [0032]; “This third lighting device advantageously comprises a light source 103, for example an LED” [0040]; “the second lighting device comprises two light sources 104 and 105 fastened on the control console 94” [0038]}; and
a controller {94} for driving the automotive chassis {3: “The platform 9 is equipped with a control console 94 making it possible to control the aerial lift 1” [0028]}, the controller {94} being remotely positionable from the chassis {3 (Figs. 1-3)}, wherein
the automotive chassis {3} extends longitudinally from a front to a rear of the chassis {3} and includes, on at least one lateral flank {5 (flank portion of 5 at both lateral sides of the base of 7 in Fig. 1)}, taken in relation to a front/rear direction of the chassis {3}, at least one technical compartment {Fig. 3 (III in Fig. 2)} and a cover {96: “foldable protective cover 96” [0039]} for closure of the technical compartment {Fig. 3 (III in Fig. 2)}, wherein the cover {96} is moveable between an open position {Figs. 1-3} and a closed position {“a foldable protective cover 96 making it possible to protect the control members and the other components outside usage ranges of the aerial lift 1. The cover 96 is shown open in FIGS. 1, 2 and 3” [0039]},
at least one of the lighting devices {104, 105 (97): “An inner face of the foldable cover 96 comprises reflective surfaces 97 located across from light sources 104 and 105 such that the reflective surfaces 97 diffuse the light produced by the light sources 104 and 105 on the control console 94, as shown by the light flows F3 and F4 in FIG. 3” [0039]} is fitted on the cover {96}, and
the at least one lighting device {52, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105} is configured,
in the closed position {or open position} of the cover {96}, to light part of a space positioned at a rear of the front wheels {via 52 (Fig. 1)}, taken in relation to the front/rear direction of the chassis {3}, and,
in the open position {Figs. 1-3}, to light an interior of the technical compartment {Fig. 3 (III in Fig. 2), via 104+105 (97): “An inner face of the foldable cover 96 comprises reflective surfaces 97 located across from light sources 104 and 105 such that the reflective surfaces 97 diffuse the light produced by the light sources 104 and 105 on the control console 94, as shown by the light flows F3 and F4 in FIG. 3, which allows the operator to distinguish the control console 94 clearly enough to view the state of the machine and use the switches and manual control members in the low lighting configuration” [0039]}.
Regarding claim 2, Bonnefoy discloses the lighting device {52, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105} includes a strip of light-emitting diodes {“The control console 50 is provided with a lighting device 52, which may comprise one or several light sources, such as LEDs” [0043]; “the first lighting device comprises two light sources 100 and 101, for example light-emitting diodes (hereinafter LEDs), fastened on the control console 94” [0032]; “This third lighting device advantageously comprises a light source 103, for example an LED” [0040]; “the second lighting device comprises two light sources 104 and 105 fastened on the control console 94” [0038]}.
Regarding claim 4, Bonnefoy discloses the cover {96} pivots about a longitudinal axis extending in the front/rear direction of the chassis {3 (when the platform 9 is positioned to the left or right of the chassis): via the “turret 5 rotatable relative to the chassis 3 along an axis perpendicular to the rotation axes of the wheels” [0024]}.
Regarding claim 5, Bonnefoy discloses when the controller {94} is positioned remotely from the chassis {3 (Fig. 1)}, the controller {94} has at least one configuration in which the controller is fitted on the system {7+9 (Figs. 2-3)}.
Regarding claim 6, Bonnefoy discloses the system {7+9} includes at least one lifting arm {7} coupled at a first end to the chassis {3 (Fig. 1)}, and, at a second end, the at least one lifting arm {7} carries a basket {9} for an operator {Fig. 1}, and, when the controller {94} is positioned remotely from the chassis {3}, the controller {94} has at least one configuration in which the controller {94} is coupled to the basket {9 (Figs. 2-3)}.
Regarding claim 7, Bonnefoy discloses the controller {94} is a remote control {“The platform 9 is equipped with a control console 94 making it possible to control the aerial lift 1” [0028]} with a radius of action of at least two meters in relation to the chassis {3 (Fig. 1)}.
Regarding claim 15, Bonnefoy discloses a handling machine {1}, comprising:
a chassis {3};
front and rear wheels {Fig. 1} rotatably connected to the chassis {3: “a chassis 3 equipped with members for connecting to the ground, such as wheels or tracks” [0024]};
a lifting arm {7} pivotably coupled to the chassis {3};
an operator basket {9} pivotably coupled to the lifting arm {7};
a technical compartment {Fig. 3 (III in Fig. 2)} mounted to the chassis {3 (via 5+7+9)};
a cover {96: “foldable protective cover 96” [0039]} pivotably connected to the technical compartment {Fig. 3 (III in Fig. 2)};
a lighting device {52, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105: “The control console 50 is provided with a lighting device 52, which may comprise one or several light sources, such as LEDs” [0043]; “the first lighting device comprises two light sources 100 and 101, for example light-emitting diodes (hereinafter LEDs), fastened on the control console 94” [0032]; “This third lighting device advantageously comprises a light source 103, for example an LED” [0040]; “the second lighting device comprises two light sources 104 and 105 fastened on the control console 94” [0038]} mounted to the cover {96 (via 5+7+9 for 52, via 9+94 for 103, and via 94 for 101+102+104+105)}; and
a remote drive controller {94} configured to control movement of the chassis {3: “The platform 9 is equipped with a control console 94 making it possible to control the aerial lift 1” [0028]}, the remote drive controller {94} being selectively mountable to one of the chassis {3 (via 7+9)} and the operator basket {9 (Figs. 2-4)}.
Regarding claim 16, Bonnefoy discloses the lighting device {52, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105} includes a strip of light-emitting diodes {“The control console 50 is provided with a lighting device 52, which may comprise one or several light sources, such as LEDs” [0043]; “the first lighting device comprises two light sources 100 and 101, for example light-emitting diodes (hereinafter LEDs), fastened on the control console 94” [0032]; “This third lighting device advantageously comprises a light source 103, for example an LED” [0040]; “the second lighting device comprises two light sources 104 and 105 fastened on the control console 94” [0038]}.
Regarding claim 18, Bonnefoy discloses the cover {96} pivots about a longitudinal axis of the chassis {3 (when the platform 9 is positioned to the left or right of the chassis): via the “turret 5 rotatable relative to the chassis 3 along an axis perpendicular to the rotation axes of the wheels” [0024]}.
Regarding claim 19, Bonnefoy discloses the remote drive controller {94} has a radius of action of at least two meters relative to the chassis {3 (Fig. 1)}.
Regarding claim 20, Bonnefoy discloses the lighting device {52, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105} is configured to
light a space between the front and rear wheels {via 52 (Fig. 1)} when the cover {96} is closed relative to the technical compartment {and when the cover is open as well}, and
light an interior of the technical compartment {Fig. 3 (III in Fig. 2)} when the cover {96} is open relative to the technical compartment {Fig. 3 (III in Fig. 2), via 104+105 (97): “An inner face of the foldable cover 96 comprises reflective surfaces 97 located across from light sources 104 and 105 such that the reflective surfaces 97 diffuse the light produced by the light sources 104 and 105 on the control console 94, as shown by the light flows F3 and F4 in FIG. 3, which allows the operator to distinguish the control console 94 clearly enough to view the state of the machine and use the switches and manual control members in the low lighting configuration” [0039]}.
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 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnefoy in view of Taguma (US 2016/0214671).
Regarding claim 3, Bonnefoy discloses at least part {104, 105} of the lighting device {52, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105} is secured on the cover {96} by a central island {95 (Fig. 3): “central island 95” [0038]}.
However, Bonnefoy does not explicitly disclose at least part of the lighting device is secured on the cover by a lug.
Taguma teaches at least part of the lighting device {62} is secured on the cover {50} by a lug {56: “engagement of the lug 56 with the taillight unit 62 attaches the rear center lower cover 50 and the taillight unit 62 together” [0050]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the machine for handling one or more of the load and the person, as disclosed by Bonnefoy, such that at least part of the lighting device is secured on the cover by a lug, as taught by Taguma, in order to attach the lighting device and the cover together using a well-known and reliable method [0050], since applicant has not disclosed that at least part of the lighting device being secured to the cover by a lug solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with a lug.
Regarding claim 17, Bonnefoy discloses the lighting device {104, 105} is at least partially secured to the cover {96} by a central island {95 (Fig. 3): “central island 95” [0038]}.
However, Bonnefoy does not explicitly disclose the lighting device is at least partially secured to the cover by a lug.
Taguma teaches a lighting device {62} is at least partially secured to the cover {50} by a lug {56: “engagement of the lug 56 with the taillight unit 62 attaches the rear center lower cover 50 and the taillight unit 62 together” [0050]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handling machine, as disclosed by Bonnefoy, such that the lighting device is at least partially secured to the cover by a lug, as taught by Taguma, in order to attach the lighting device and the cover together using a well-known and reliable method [0050], since applicant has not disclosed that at least part of the lighting device being secured to the cover by a lug solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with a lug.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art of record is Bonnefoy (US 2018/0362313). Examiner attempted two different interpretations of Bonnefoy in order to arrive at all of the limitations of claim 8, however, both came up short in different ways.
Under the first interpretation, Bonnefoy discloses a handling machine {1}, comprising:
a chassis {3} equipped with front and rear wheels {Fig. 1} to move along a ground surface {“an aerial lift 1 comprising a lower part including a chassis 3 equipped with members for connecting to the ground, such as wheels or tracks” [0024]};
a handling system {7+9: “a lift structure 7 and a platform 9, shown in FIGS. 2, 3 and 4, supported by the lift structure 7. The platform 9 comprises a wire floor 90 surrounded by a guardrail 92” [0024]} mounted to the chassis {3} and configured to handle one or more of a load and a person {Fig. 1};
a drive controller {94} configured to control movement of the chassis {3} along the ground surface {“The platform 9 is equipped with a control console 94 making it possible to control the aerial lift 1” [0028]}, the controller {94} being remotely positionable from the chassis {3};
a technical compartment {50} positioned on a lateral flank {5 (flank portion of 5 at both lateral sides of the base of 7 in Fig. 1)} of the chassis {3: “a control console 50, for example provided on one side of the turret 5” [0043]};
a cover {outer portion of 5 surrounding 50 (Fig. 1)} connected to the technical compartment {50}; and
a lighting device {52: “The control console 50 is provided with a lighting device 52, which may comprise one or several light sources, such as LEDs” [0043]} mounted to the cover {outer portion of 5 surrounding 50 (Fig. 1)}, the lighting device {52} being configured to
light a space rearward of the front wheels when the cover {outer portion of 5 surrounding 50 (Fig. 1)} is in the closed position {Fig. 1}.
However, in the first interpretation, Bonnefoy does not disclose a cover connected to the technical compartment and moveable between an open position and a closed position; or the lighting device being configured to light an interior of the technical compartment when the cover is in the open position (emphasis added).
Under the second interpretation, Bonnefoy discloses a handling machine {1}, comprising:
a chassis {3} equipped with front and rear wheels {Fig. 1} to move along a ground surface {“an aerial lift 1 comprising a lower part including a chassis 3 equipped with members for connecting to the ground, such as wheels or tracks” [0024]};
a handling system {7+9: “a lift structure 7 and a platform 9, shown in FIGS. 2, 3 and 4, supported by the lift structure 7. The platform 9 comprises a wire floor 90 surrounded by a guardrail 92” [0024]} mounted to the chassis {3} and configured to handle one or more of a load and a person {Fig. 1};
a drive controller {94} configured to control movement of the chassis {3} along the ground surface {“The platform 9 is equipped with a control console 94 making it possible to control the aerial lift 1” [0028]}, the controller {94} being remotely positionable from the chassis {3};
a technical compartment {Fig. 3 (III in Fig. 2)} positioned on the chassis {3 (via 5+7+9)};
a cover {96: “foldable protective cover 96” [0039]} connected to the technical compartment {Fig. 3 (III in Fig. 2)} and moveable between an open position {Figs. 1-3} and a closed position {“a foldable protective cover 96 making it possible to protect the control members and the other components outside usage ranges of the aerial lift 1. The cover 96 is shown open in FIGS. 1, 2 and 3” [0039]}; and
a lighting device {52+101+102+103+104+105: “The control console 50 is provided with a lighting device 52, which may comprise one or several light sources, such as LEDs” [0043]; “the first lighting device comprises two light sources 100 and 101, for example light-emitting diodes (hereinafter LEDs), fastened on the control console 94” [0032]; “This third lighting device advantageously comprises a light source 103, for example an LED” [0040]; “the second lighting device comprises two light sources 104 and 105 fastened on the control console 94” [0038]} mounted to the cover {96 (via 5+7+9 for 52, via 9+94 for 103, and via 94 for 101+102+104+105)}, the lighting device {52+101+102+103+104+105} being configured to
light a space rearward of the front wheels {via 52 (Fig. 1)} when the cover {96} is in the closed position {or open position}, and
light an interior of the technical compartment {Fig. 3 (III in Fig. 2), via 104+105 (97): “An inner face of the foldable cover 96 comprises reflective surfaces 97 located across from light sources 104 and 105 such that the reflective surfaces 97 diffuse the light produced by the light sources 104 and 105 on the control console 94, as shown by the light flows F3 and F4 in FIG. 3, which allows the operator to distinguish the control console 94 clearly enough to view the state of the machine and use the switches and manual control members in the low lighting configuration” [0039]} when the cover {96} is in the open position {Figs. 1-3}.
However, in the second interpretation, Bonnefoy does not disclose a technical compartment positioned on a lateral flank of the chassis.
Furthermore, this interpretation relies on a) the lighting device being interpreted as multiple lighting devices in order to arrive at the open and closed position lighting limitations, and b) several of the multiple lighting devices being mounted to the cover indirectly. The rejection of claim 1 in view of Bonnefoy relies on a) and b) as well, but the key difference is claim 1 states, “at least one lighting device”, which makes the interpretation of the lighting device as multiple lighting devices much more reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, regarding claim 8, none of the prior art of record, either alone or in obvious combination discloses a handling machine, comprising:
a chassis equipped with front and rear wheels to move along a ground surface;
a handling system mounted to the chassis and configured to handle one or more of a load and a person;
a drive controller configured to control movement of the chassis along the ground surface, the controller being remotely positionable from the chassis;
a technical compartment positioned on a lateral flank of the chassis;
a cover connected to the technical compartment and moveable between an open position and a closed position; and
a lighting device mounted to the cover, the lighting device being configured to
light a space rearward of the front wheels when the cover is in the closed position, and
light an interior of the technical compartment when the cover is in the open position (emphasis added).
Accordingly, claims 9-14 are allowable by virtue of dependence from claim 8.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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 on (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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights