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 .
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al (US Patent Publication US 2021/0163089 A1) in view of Qin et al (CN Patent Publication CN 114987484 A).
With regards to Claim 1: Ishikawa et al teaches a work vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body including a loading portion (12) that is able to load a load; a plurality of drive wheels (2 in Fig 2) each located in front and rear on both right and left sides of the vehicle body, and configured to be steered separately (via 18); a steering angle detector to detect respective orientations of the plurality of drive wheels; and a controller (13) configured or programmed to perform drive control to drive each of the plurality of drive wheels and control to change the respective orientations of the plurality of drive wheels separately.
Ishikawa et al does not teach the controller is configured or programmed such that the respective orientations of a first drive wheel located on one of right and left sides of the vehicle body among the plurality of drive wheels and a second drive wheel located on the other of the right and left sides of the vehicle body among the plurality of drive wheels are different from each other when the drive control is stopped.
Qin et al teaches a vehicle teaches a vehicle comprising a plurality of drive wheels (61, 62, 63, and 64) wherein the controller (1) is configured or programmed such that the respective orientations of a first drive wheel located on one of right and left sides of the vehicle body among the plurality of drive wheels and a second drive wheel located on the other of the right and left sides of the vehicle body among the plurality of drive wheels are different from each other when the drive control is stopped (page 4 para 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the work vehicle in Ishikawa et al with the different wheel orientations when the drive control is stopped taught in Qin et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would keep the vehicle in the desired position for parking.
With regards to Claim 2: The combination of Ishikawa and Qin et al teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the controller (Ishikawa 13) is configured or programmed such that the respective orientations of the first drive wheel (Ishikawa 2 on left side of Fig 2) and the second drive wheel (Ishikawa 2 on left side of Fig 2) are different from each other to make the respective orientations opposite to each other with respect to a neutral orientation in which the vehicle body is caused to move straight or substantially straight when the drive control is stopped (per Qin page 4 para 6).
With regards to Claim 3: The combination of Ishikawa and Qin et al teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the controller (Ishikawa 13) is configured or programmed such that the orientations of all the plurality of drive wheels (Ishikawa 2) are different from each other when the drive control is stopped (per Qin page 4 para 6).
With regards to Claim 5: The combination of Ishikawa and Qin et al teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: an operation detector (Ishikawa Q) to detect a manual operation with respect to the plurality of drive wheels (Ishikawa 2); wherein the controller (Ishikawa 13) is configured or programmed such that the respective orientations of the first drive wheel and the second drive wheel are different from each other when a preset time elapses from a time when the operation detector detects no manual operation (per Ishikawa para [0271]).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al (US Patent Publication US 2021/0163089 A1) in view of Qin et al (CN Patent Publication CN 114987484 A) and in further view of Ishikawa et al 2 (US Patent Publication US 2020/0354003 A1).
With regards to Claim 4: The combination of Ishikawa and Qin et al teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1, but does not teach an inclination detector to detect an inclination state of the vehicle body; wherein the controller (Ishikawa 13) is configured or programmed such that the respective orientations of the first drive wheel (Ishikawa 2 on left side of Fig 2) located on a lower side in one of the right and left sides among the plurality of drive wheels and the second drive wheel (Ishikawa 2 on right side of Fig 2) located on a lower side on the other of the right and left sides among the plurality of drive wheels are different from each other based on the inclination state of the vehicle body.
Ishikawa et al 2 teaches a work vehicle comprising an inclination detector (S5) to detect an inclination state of the vehicle body; wherein the controller (9) is configured or programmed such that the respective orientations of the first drive wheel (Ishikawa 10 on left side of Fig 12) located on a lower side in one of the right and left sides among the plurality of drive wheels and the second drive wheel (Ishikawa 10 on right side of Fig 12) located on a lower side on the other of the right and left sides among the plurality of drive wheels are different from each other based on the inclination state of the vehicle body (para [0174]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the work vehicle taught in the combination of Ishikawa and Qin et al with the inclination sensor taught in Ishikawa et al 2 with a reasonable expectation of success because it would prevent the vehicle from toppling over on uneven terrain.
With regards to Claim 6: The combination of Ishikawa and Qin et al teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: a support (Ishikawa 4) supported by the vehicle body to support the plurality of drive wheels (Ishikawa 2) to be positionally changeable with respect to the vehicle body; a hydraulic motor (Ishikawa 6) to drive each of the plurality of drive wheels by using supply and discharge of hydraulic fluid as drive energy; a control valve (Ishikawa 11) to change supply and discharge amounts of the hydraulic fluid with respect to the hydraulic motor;
The combination of Ishikawa and Qin et al does not teach an inclination detector to detect an inclination state of the loading portion (Ishikawa 12); wherein the controller (Ishikawa 13) is configured or programmed to control an operation of the support such that the loading portion is in a horizontal posture based on the inclination state of the loading portion, and such that the drive control is stopped by closing the control valve (Ishikawa 11) to block the supply and discharge of the hydraulic fluid with respect to the hydraulic motor when the vehicle is stopped.
Ishikawa et al 2 teaches a work vehicle comprising an inclination detector (S5) to detect an inclination state of the vehicle body; wherein the controller (9) is configured or programmed such that the respective orientations of the first drive wheel (Ishikawa 10 on left side of Fig 12) located on a lower side in one of the right and left sides among the plurality of drive wheels and the second drive wheel (Ishikawa 10 on right side of Fig 12) located on a lower side on the other of the right and left sides among the plurality of drive wheels are different from each other based on the inclination state of the vehicle body (para [0174]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the work vehicle taught in the combination of Ishikawa and Qin et al with the inclination sensor taught in Ishikawa et al 2 with a reasonable expectation of success because it would prevent the vehicle from toppling over on uneven terrain.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al 2 (US Patent Publication US 2020/0354003 A1).
With regards to Claim 7: Ishikawa et al 2 teaches a work vehicle, comprising: a vehicle body (101); a plurality of drive wheels (107) to cause the vehicle body to travel; a plurality of auxiliary wheels (103) to assist traveling of the vehicle body; and a plurality of support legs (110) connected to the vehicle body to support the drive wheels and the auxiliary wheels.
Ishikawa et al 2 teaches different wheel types for the drive wheels and auxiliary wheels (seen in Fig 2) wherein lugs are provided on a tread portion of the drive wheel wherein the lugs on the wheels can be different tread widths (para [0245]).
Ishikawa et al 2 does not teach a tread portion of the auxiliary wheel has a different shape than that of the tread portion of the drive wheel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle disclosed in Ishikawa et al 2 with a tread portion of the auxiliary wheel having a different shape than that of the tread portion of the drive wheel with a reasonable expectation of success because it the various tread types would let the vehicle operate in various kinds of work modes as taught by Ishikawa et al 2 (para [0245]).
With regards to Claim 8: Ishikawa et al 2 teaches the work vehicle according to claim 7, wherein the lugs are provided only on the tread portion (per para [0245]) of the drive wheel (107)in the tread portion of the drive wheel and the tread portion of the auxiliary wheel (103).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle disclosed in Ishikawa et al 2 with a tread portion relationship as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success because it the different tread types would let the vehicle operate in various kinds of work modes.
With regards to Claim 9: Ishikawa et al 2 teaches the work vehicle according to claim 7, but does not teach the lugs are provided on the tread portion of the drive wheel (107) and the tread portion of the auxiliary wheel (103), respectively; and a height of the lug of the auxiliary wheel is lower than a height of the lug of the drive wheel (per para [0245]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle disclosed in Ishikawa et al 2 with a tread portion relationship as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success because it the different tread types would let the vehicle operate in various kinds of work modes.
With regards to Claim 10: Ishikawa et al 2 teaches the work vehicle according to claim 8, wherein the plurality of drive wheels includes the drive wheels on a front side (107 front side in Fig 12) and the drive wheels on a rear side (107 rear side in Fig 12).
Ishikawa et al 2 does not teach the lugs in the drive wheels on the front side and the lugs in the drive wheels on the rear side are arranged front- rear symmetrically.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle disclosed in Ishikawa et al 2 with a tread portion relationship as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success because it the different tread types would let the vehicle operate in various kinds of work modes.
With regards to Claim 11: Ishikawa et al 2 teaches the work vehicle according to claim 7, but does not teach an outer diameter of the auxiliary wheel (103) is smaller than an outer diameter of the drive wheel (107).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have an outer diameter of the auxiliary wheel smaller than an outer diameter of the drive wheel to have the vehicle operate on a variety of terrains. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al 2 (US Patent Publication US 2020/0354003 A1) in view of Collins (US Patent Publication US 2022/0097704 A1).
With regards to Claim 12: Ishikawa et al 2 teaches the work vehicle according to claim 7, but does not teach a plurality of mudguards to cover each of the plurality of drive wheels (107) from above; wherein the mudguards extend along an outer peripheral shape of the drive wheels.
Collins teaches a vehicle comprising a plurality of steerable wheels (102a, 102b, 102c, and 102d) plurality of mudguards to cover each of the plurality of drive wheels (seen in Fig 1) from above; wherein the mudguards extend along an outer peripheral shape of the drive wheels (seen in Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the work vehicle in Ishikawa et al 2 with the mudguards taught in Collins with a reasonable expectation of success because it would protect the components of the vehicle from dirt and debris during use of the vehicle.
With regards to Claim 13: The combination of Ishikawa 2 and Collins et al teaches the work vehicle according to claim 12, wherein the mudguards (per Collins Fig 1) are above rotation axis centers of the drive wheels (Ishikawa 107).
With regards to Claim 14: The combination of Ishikawa 2 and Collins et al teaches the work vehicle according to claim 12, wherein the drive wheels (Ishikawa 107) are operable to steer; and the mudguards (per Collins Fig 1) are supported by the support legs (Ishikawa 110).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Ganci whose telephone number is (571)272-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
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, Paul Dickson can be reached at (571) 272-7742. 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.
/MATTHEW JOSEPH GANCI/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/PAUL N DICKSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614