DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part.
Applicant reiterates their traversal of the Examiner's interpretations of claim limitations “ground engaging members” and “mounting structure” invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), referencing and incorporating the arguments filed December 27, 2023.
The Examiner responds that Application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is driven by the claim language, not
by applicant's intent or mere statements to the contrary included in the specification or made during
prosecution (MPEP 2181(I)). The Examiner further notes that MPEP 2181(I) provides clear guidance for determining if a claimed limitation should be interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and provides a 3-pronged analysis (A-C below) for making that that interpretation. In the instant Application, claimed "substrate transfer mechanism" uses:
(A) the term "mechanism" 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);
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (or "substrate transfer"); and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function.
The Examiner further responds that “[t]he standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure” (MPEP 2181(I)(A). The cited MPEP section further gives examples of functional terms that have established sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure to one of ordinary skill in the art, such as “filters,” “brakes,” “clamp,” “screwdriver,” and “locks.” It is the Examiner's position that claimed limitations “ground engaging members” and “mounting structure” have not established sufficient definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function within the art.
With respect to the non-statutory Double Patenting rejection, Applicant traverses the rejections in view of the lack of indication of allowable subject matter, noting that “[t]he present claims remain subject to further amendment, whereby in such amended form these rejections may be inappropriate. Upon an indication of otherwise allowable subject matter and in the event these rejections are maintained, Applicant will provide an appropriate response.
The Examiner responds that independent Claims 23, 32, and 43 of the current claimed invention remains obvious in view of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,718098 in view of Baker. Thus, the non-statutory Double Patenting rejection is maintained.
With respect to the amended claim language of “a lift actuator operatively connected to the lift frame and to a forwardmost point of the rear lift arm and extending there between,” Applicant argues that “nothing in the cited references teaches or suggests all the elements as recited in independent claims 23, 32, and 43 as required for a primafacie case of obviousness thereof.”
The Examiner disagrees, noting that Baker (US 5,249,379) discloses “a lift actuator operatively connected to the lift frame and to a forwardmost point of the rear lift arm and extending there between,” and was made of record in the Office Action filed 03/22/2022.
Applicant argues that the claim amendments filed 03/09/2026 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent Claims 23, 32, and 43 based on Rorabaugh in view of Magni.
The Examiner agrees and has withdrawn the rejection. However, upon further review and consideration, the Examiner has issued a new rejection based on Rorabaugh in view of Baker.
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. 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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “ground engaging members” and “mounting structure.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 23-25, 27, 29-30, 32-33, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rorabaugh (US 2010/0168933) in view of Baker (US 5,249,379). Magni (US 4,553,899).
Rorabaugh discloses;
Claim 23. A utility loader comprising: a lift frame (16) carrying a prime mover (Par. 0014), the lift frame including left and right sides; ground engaging members (26) operatively attached to the lift frame, wherein at least one of the ground engaging members is powered by the prime mover to propel the lift frame over a ground surface; a control console (56) located at or near a rear end of the lift frame, the control console carrying controls (52) adapted to be manipulated by an operator either: standing on a platform (54) mounted near the rear end of the lift frame and extending rearward from the rear end of the lift frame; or walking behind the lift frame; and a lift arm assembly (18) attached to at least one of the left and right sides of the lift frame, wherein the lift arm assembly comprises: a rear lift arm (66) including a front end (62) and a rear end (60), wherein the rear end of the rear lift arm is pivotally attached to the lift frame; a front lift arm (64) also including a front end (end proximal to 20) and a rear end (end distal to 20), wherein the rear end of the front lift arm is telescopically engaged with the front end of the rear lift arm such that a distance between the rear end of the rear lift arm and the front end of the front lift arm is variable; a lift actuator (68) operatively connected to the lift frame and to the rear lift arm and extending therebetween, the lift actuator adapted to pivot the rear lift arm relative to the lift frame; and an extension actuator (108) adapted to extend or retract the front lift arm relative to the rear lift arm (Par. 0010-0027 and Fig. 1, 4, and 5).
Claim 32. A utility loader comprising: a lift frame (16) carrying a prime mover (Par. 0014), the lift frame including left and right sides; ground engaging members (26) operatively attached to the lift frame, wherein at least one of the ground engaging members is powered by the prime mover to propel the lift frame over a ground surface; a control console (56) located at or near a rear end of the lift frame, the control console carrying controls (52) adapted to be manipulated by an operator either: standing on a platform (54) mounted near the rear end of the lift frame and extending rearward from the rear end of the lift frame; or walking behind the lift frame; and a lift arm assembly (18) attached to at least one of the left and right sides of the lift frame, wherein the lift arm assembly comprises: a rear lift arm (66) including a front end (62) and a rear end (60), wherein the rear end of the rear lift arm is pivotally attached to the respective side of the lift frame; a front lift arm (64) also including a front end (end proximal to 20) and a rear end (end distal to 20), wherein the rear end of the front lift arm is telescopically received in the front end of the rear lift arm such that a distance between the rear end of the rear lift arm and the front end of the front lift arm is variable, wherein the front lift arm defines a first portion (portion between rear pivot and lift bracket) proximate the rear end extending along a first axis (annotated Fig. 1) and a second portion (portion between 122 and lift bracket) proximate the front end extending along a second axis (annotated Fig. 1), wherein the first axis is at an angle to the second axis; a lift actuator (68) operatively connected to the lift frame and the rear lift arm and extending therebetween, the lift actuator adapted to pivot the rear lift arm relative to the lift frame; and an extension actuator (108) adapted to extend or retract the front lift arm relative to the rear lift arm, wherein the extension actuator is attached to and located laterally inward of at least a portion (outer portion) of the front and rear lift arms, and wherein the extension actuator is positioned such that no portion protrudes above or below the rear lift arm (Fig. 4) (Par. 0010-0027 and Fig. 1, 4, and 5).
Claims 25 and 33. The loader of claim 23, wherein the prime mover is positioned on the lift frame at a location lateral to the lift arm assembly (Par. 0014 and Fig. 1).
Claims 27 and 35. The rear lift arm is pivotally attached to the lift frame at a lift arm pivot axis (70) located forward of the operator (Par. 0019 and Fig. 1).
Claims 28 and 36. The loader of claim 23, wherein the rear lift arm is pivotally attached to the lift frame at a lift arm pivot axis (70) (Par. 0019 and Fig. 1).
Claim 29. The loader of claim 23, wherein the lift arm assembly further comprises left and right lift arm assemblies attached to the left and right sides of the lift frame, respectively, wherein the prime mover is located at a position (inside of 46) on the lift frame that is between the left and right lift arm assemblies (Par. 0014 and Fig. 1 and 4).
Claims 30 and 37. A mounting structure (20) pivotally attached to the front end of the front lift arm, a tool assembly (22) carried on the front end of the front lift arm, and at least one tilt actuator (14) connected between the mounting structure and the front lift arm, wherein the tool assembly is carried on the mounting structure (Par. 0010 and Fig. 1 and 4).
Rorabaugh does not recite;
Claim 23. The lift actuator is operatively connected to the forwardmost point of the rear lift arm such that the forwardmost point defines a pivot axis between the lift actuator and the rear lift arm.
Claim 24. The loader of claim 23, wherein the rear lift arm comprises a bracket (illustrated in Fig. 1), and wherein the bracket defines the forwardmost point (Par. 0020 and Fig. 1).
Claims 32 and 43. The lift actuator is operatively connected to the lift frame at a forwardmost point of the rear lift arm.
However, Baker discloses a work machine (10) having a lift frame (15), a lift arm assembly (12) comprised of a rear lift arm (22) and a front lift arm (20) telescopically engaged with the rear lift arm, a lift actuator (32) operatively connected to the lift frame and to the rear lift arm and extending therebetween, the lift actuator adapted to pivot the rear lift arm relative to the lift frame; and further teaches the lift actuator operatively connected to a forwardmost point (connection between 32 and bracket 34) of the rear lift arm (Col. 4 and Fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Baker’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rorabaugh’s telescopic lift arm and lift actuator connection point with Baker’s teaching of a telescopic arm having the lift actuator connection point at a forwardmost point of the rear lift arm with a reasonable expectation of success to maximize the lift arm assembly lifting capacity for a given lifting force of the lift actuator.
Claims 26, 28, 34, 36, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rorabaugh in view of Baker, and further in view of Magni (US 4,553,899).
Rorabaugh discloses;
Claim 43. A utility loader comprising: a lift frame (16) carrying a prime mover (Par. 0014), the lift frame including left and right sides; ground engaging members (26) operatively attached to the lift frame, wherein at least one of the ground engaging members is powered by the prime mover to propel the lift frame over a ground surface; a control console (56) located at or near a rear end of the lift frame, the control console carrying controls (52) adapted to be manipulated by an operator either: standing on an operator platform (54) mounted near the rear end of the lift frame and extending rearward from the rear end of the lift frame; or walking behind the lift frame; and a lift arm assembly (18) attached to at least one of the left and right sides of the lift frame, wherein the lift arm assembly comprises: a rear lift arm (66) including a front end (62) and a rear end (60), wherein the rear end of the rear lift arm is pivotally attached to the lift frame at a lift arm pivot axis (70) located forward of the operator platform; a front lift arm (64) also including a front end (end proximal to 20) and a rear end (end distal to 20), wherein the rear end of the front lift arm is telescopically engaged with the front end of the rear lift arm such that a distance between the rear end of the rear lift arm and the front end of the front lift arm is variable; a lift actuator (68) operatively connected to the lift frame and the rear lift arm and extending therebetween, the lift actuator adapted to pivot the rear lift arm relative to the lift frame; and an extension actuator (108) adapted to extend or retract the front lift arm relative to the rear lift arm (Par. 0010-0027 and Fig. 1, 4, and 5).
Rorabaugh is silent to;
Claims 26 and 34. A forwardmost portion of the ground engaging members is forward of the front end of the rear lift arm regardless of a position of the rear lift arm.
Claims 28, 36, and 43. The rear lift arm is pivotally attached to the lift frame at a lift arm pivot axis located aft of a rearmost contact point between the ground surface and the ground engaging members.
However, Magni discloses a work machine (Fig. 1) having a lift frame (disclosed as “truck chassis”), ground engaging members (wheels illustrated in Fig. 1), a lift arm assembly (4) comprised of a rear lift arm (5) and a front lift arm (6) telescopically engaged with the rear lift arm, a lift actuator (8) operatively connected to the lift frame and to the rear lift arm and extending therebetween, the lift actuator adapted to pivot the rear lift arm relative to the lift frame (Col. 3-4 and Fig. 1), and further teaches;
Claims 26 and 34. A forwardmost portion of the ground engaging members is forward of the front end of the rear lift arm regardless of a position of the rear lift arm (Fig. 1).
Claims 28, 36, and 43. The rear lift arm is pivotally attached to the lift frame at a lift arm pivot axis (3) located aft of a rearmost contact point between the ground surface and the ground engaging members (Col. 4 and Fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Magni’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rorabaugh’s disclosure with the cited teachings of Magni’s such that the forwardmost portion of the ground engaging members is forward of the front end of the rear lift arm regardless of a position of the rear lift arm and the rear lift arm pivot axis is located aft of a rearmost contact point between the ground surface and the ground engaging members with a reasonable expectation of success to maximize the lift arm assembly length while positioning the payload center of mass as close as possible to the footprint of the work machine to maximize the payload capacity.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rorabaugh in view of Baker, and further in view of Mrozek (US 3,493,133).
Rorabaugh does not recite;
Claim 31. The rear lift arm comprises one or more threaded adjusters movably coupled to the rear lift arm and configured to contact the front lift arm.
However, Mrozek discloses a telescopic arm assembly (27) comprising a rear arm (28) and a front arm (43) telescopically engaged with the rear arm, and further teaches the rear lift arm comprises one or more threaded adjusters (46) movably coupled to the rear lift arm and configured to contact the front lift arm to facilitate alignment and realignment of the front arm with the rear arm (Col. 3-5 and Fig. 1-2).
Therefore, in view of Mrozek’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lull’s lift arm assembly to include one or more threaded adjusters with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate alignment and realignment of the front arm with the rear arm.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rorabaugh in view of Baker, and further in view of Pinther, II et al. (US 2006/0042131).
Rorabaugh does not recite;
Claim 38. The rear lift arm comprises one or more pads located within the rear lift arm and positioned between the rear lift arm and the front lift arm, and wherein the rear lift arm further comprises one or more threaded adjusters movably coupled to the rear lift arm and configured to contact the front lift arm.
However, Pinther discloses a telescopic boom having a rear lift arm (121) and a front lift arm (122), and further teaches the rear lift arm comprises one or more pads (140) located within the rear lift arm and positioned between the rear lift arm and the front lift arm (Fig. 2), and wherein the rear lift arm further comprises one or more threaded adjusters (146) movably coupled to the rear lift arm and configured to contact the front lift arm (Par. 0024-0030 and Fig. 1-2).
Therefore, in view of Pinther’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rorabaugh’s telescopic lift arm assembly to include one or more pads and one or more threaded adjusters with a reasonable expectation of success so that a mechanic could reduce the play between the front and rear lift arms.
With respect to the limitations that have been cited as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the structures cited in the art of record as disclosing or teaching these limitations are either structurally similar to the respective structure in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure or perform the same claimed function.
PNG
media_image1.png
744
1088
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 23 and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,975,543. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the cited claims.
Claims 23 and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,718098 in view of Baker.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,718098 anticipates all limitations of Claims 23 and 32 accept the lift actuator operatively connected to a forwardmost point of the rear lift arm.
However, Baker discloses a work machine (10) having a lift frame (15), a lift arm assembly (12) comprised of a rear lift arm (22) and a front lift arm (20) telescopically engaged with the rear lift arm, a lift actuator (32) operatively connected to the lift frame and to the rear lift arm and extending therebetween, the lift actuator adapted to pivot the rear lift arm relative to the lift frame; and further teaches the lift actuator operatively connected to a forwardmost point (connection between 32 and 34) of the rear lift arm (Col. 4 and Fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Baker’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lift actuator connection point of to the rear lift arm of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,718098 to be located at a forwardmost point of the rear lift arm with a reasonable expectation of success to maximize the lift arm assembly lifting capacity for a given lifting force of the lift actuator.
Previously cited Double Patenting Rejections will not be revisited and held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is to be found.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD P JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-8311. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/RONALD P JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652