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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/27/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “travel device” (Claim 1; See below 35 USC 112 rejection), and “is provided in any of the plurality” (Claim 3 – all options must be shown; See below 35 USC 112 rejection), and “a portion of the support frame adjacent to the inverter has a shape that allows movement of the inverter in a horizontal direction” (Claim 5) and “attachable to and detachable from the right rear portion and the left rear portion of the support frame” (Claim 8) must all be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the floor section” (line 6) should be rewritten as: “a floor section.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation: "travel device", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. As best understood this term refers to wheel elements 1 and 2 and is not being interpreted under 112f. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation: "placed to be supported", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation: "suspended by", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation: " is provided in any of the plurality", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. However, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation: "a portion of the support frame adjacent to the inverter has a shape that allows movement of the inverter in a horizontal direction", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. However, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation: "attachable to and detachable from the right rear portion and the left rear portion of the support frame", which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. However, appropriate correction is required
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takaki et al. (US 10,023,039 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Takaki discloses: An electric work vehicle (See, e.g., Fig.1-14, 1) comprising: a travel device (See, e.g., Fig.1-14, 4);
a main frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-14, 1+10) supporting the travel device (See, e.g., Fig.1-14);
a battery (See, e.g., Fig.1-14, 9);
a support frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-14, 30+35+50+51+25+27+28+etc.) that is attached to the main frame and on which the battery is placed to be supported by the main frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-14); and
a motor (See, e.g., Fig.1-14, 8) operable with power supplied from the battery to drive the travel device (See, e.g., Fig.1-14);
wherein the motor is suspended by the support frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-14).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Takaki discloses: further comprising: a coupling portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-14, 54+56) that protrudes downward from the support frame and to which the motor is coupled (See, e.g., Fig.1-14); wherein a portion of the support frame above the coupling portion includes an opening that exposes the coupling portion upward (See, e.g., Fig.1-14).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Takaki discloses: wherein the support frame includes: a plurality of front-rear frames (See, e.g., Fig.1-14, 51+35+25+etc.) extending along a front-rear direction and spaced apart from each other in a left-right direction (See, e.g., Fig.1-14); and
a plurality of left-right frames (See, e.g., Fig.1-14, 50+27+29+28+etc.) extending along the left-right direction and spaced apart from each other in the front-rear direction (See, e.g., Fig.1-14); and
the opening is provided in any of the plurality of front-rear frames and the plurality of left-right frames (See, e.g., Fig.1-14).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Takaki discloses: wherein an upper portion of the motor is coupled to the support frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-14, 54+56), and a front portion or a rear portion of the motor is coupled to the main frame (See, e.g., Fig.1-14, 54+56).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The prior art of record when taken alone or in combination with another does
not teach or fairly suggest at this time at least, among other limitations: wherein the support frame includes: a base portion on which the battery is placed; and an upright portion extending upward from the base portion and surrounding an outer periphery of a lower portion of the battery; an inverter to supply power from the battery to the motor is provided next to the motor under the support frame; and a portion of the support frame adjacent to the inverter has a shape that allows movement of the inverter in a horizontal direction, as claimed in Claim 5 and similarly provided in Claim 8(emphasis added to allowable limitations not suggested or taught by the prior art).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights