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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,637,833 in view of Okazaki US Patent Application Publication 2024/0117606.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,637,833 teaches all the limitations except a first communication device that is disposed on one side of the occupant unit in a width direction.
However, Okazaki teaches a first communication device (3 Figs. 2, 3 Par. 0029) that is disposed on one side of the occupant unit in a width direction (side of 11R Fig. 2).
In this particular case, providing a first communication device that is disposed on one side of the occupant unit in a width direction is common and well known in the art as evident by Okazaki to operate the antenna and to easily attach it to the cabin / occupant unit (Par. 0007, 0028, 0058).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,637,833 with a first communication device that is disposed on one side of the occupant unit in a width direction based on the teachings of Okazaki in order to operate the antenna and to easily attach it to the cabin / occupant unit.
Regarding Claim 2, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,637,833 as modified teaches wherein the first communication device is located below the first antenna (Okazaki Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,637,833 as modified teaches wherein the first antenna and the first communication device are located at a same corner portion of the occupant unit in plan view (Okazaki Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,637,833 as modified teaches wherein the first communication device is located in front of the first antenna (Okazaki when seen in the left to right direction indicated in Fig. 2, communication device 3 is in front of antenna 2a).
Instant Invention
U.S. Patent No. 12,637,833
1. A work machine comprising: a machine body that includes an occupant unit capable of accommodating an occupant; a first antenna that is disposed on the occupant unit; and a first communication device that is disposed on one side of the occupant unit in a width direction.
1. A work machine comprising: a machine body that includes an occupant unit capable of accommodating an occupant; a first antenna and a second antenna configured to identify a position of the machine body, disposed on the occupant unit to be separated from each other in plan view, and located at corner portions of the occupant unit that are diagonally opposite in plan view; a first bracket that is supported by the occupant unit and supports the first antenna; and a second bracket that is provided separately from the first bracket, is supported by the occupant unit, and supports the second antenna.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okazaki US Patent Application Publication 2024/0117606.
Regarding Claim 1, Okazaki teaches a work machine (100 Figs. 2, 3) comprising:
a machine body (10 Figs. 2, 3 Par. 0026) that includes an occupant unit capable of accommodating an occupant (11 Figs. 2, 3 Par. 0049);
a first antenna (2a/2b Figs. 2, 3 Par. 0028) that is disposed on the occupant unit (Figs. 2, 3); and
a first communication device (3 Figs. 2, 3 Par. 0029) that is disposed on one side of the occupant unit in a width direction (side of 11R Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Okazaki teaches wherein the first communication device is located below the first antenna (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Okazaki teaches wherein the first antenna and the first communication device are located at a same corner portion of the occupant unit in plan view (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Okazaki teaches wherein the first communication device is located in front of the first antenna (when seen in the left to right direction indicated in Fig. 2, communication device 3 is in front of antenna 2a).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki US Patent Application Publication 2024/0117606 and Koga US Patent Application Publication 2022/0205221.
Regarding Claim 5, Okazaki teaches the work machine according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Okazaki is silent on further comprising an alarm device that is located behind the first communication device.
However, Koga teaches an alarm device (“The audio output device 43 may also include an alarm such as a buzzer” Par. 0033 Fig. 1) that is located behind the first communication device (G1 Fig. 1 Par. 0028).
In this particular case, providing an alarm device is common and well known in the art as evident by Koga to alert the occupant / user.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the work machine of Okazaki with an alarm device located behind the first communication device based on the teachings of Koga as a result effect in order to provide alerts the occupant / user as needed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki US Patent Application Publication 2024/0117606 and Hoshino et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0230835.
Regarding Claim 6, Okazaki teaches further comprising a first bracket (13 Fig. 2 Par. 0055) that is supported by the occupant unit and supports the first antenna.
Okazaki is silent on wherein the first communication device is supported by the first bracket.
However, Hoshino et al. teaches wherein the first communication device (modem in box 36 Par. 0045) is supported by the first bracket (38 Fig. 2 Par. 0045-0048).
In this particular case, providing the first communication device to be supported by the first bracket is common and well known in the art as evident by Hoshino et al. to obtain an integrated structure (Par. 0048).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the first communication device of Okazaki to be supported by the first bracket based on the teachings of Hoshino et al. as a result effect in order to obtain an integrated structure and simplify installation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 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:
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art of record, when taken alone or in combination, does not fairly teach nor render obvious the limitation “a second support portion that supports the first communication device and faces a side surface of the occupant unit on the one side” in combination with the structure as recited in the claim. Claims 8-12 depend therefrom.
Conclusion
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights