Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/424,500

Counterweight Backhoe dredger

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Jul 21, 2021
Examiner
SCOVILLE, BLAKE E
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ihc Holland Ie B V
OA Round
5 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
6-7
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
95 granted / 130 resolved
+21.1% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+27.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
160
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
41.5%
+1.5% vs TC avg
§102
30.6%
-9.4% vs TC avg
§112
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 130 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments drawn to the counterweight: Examiner maintains the position that the counterweight is directly connected to the boom 21 in line with the longitudinal axis as depicted in the Annotated Figure 1 herein. The argued claim language related to the counterweight still contains the term “about”; as stated previously, Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification provides no definition of the term “about”, so Examiner is resorting to the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the term “about” which is determined to mean “in the vicinity” (Merriam-Webster). Examiner understands the counterweight to be in the vicinity of vertical alignment with the boom hinge axis. Under this interpretation, Examiner maintains that when the boom 21 pivots to put the bucket 27 in the lowest position, counterweight 26 is considered to be above and about vertically aligned with the hinge axis as the claim requires. Regarding Applicant’s arguments drawn to the boom cylinder of a hydraulic drive system: Examiner maintains the position that the boom cylinder is element 25. Applicant cites a passage from Yang stating “the pull rod oil cylinder (25) for driving the pull rod 23 so that rod 23 drives the element 22 rotate in the vertical plane so as to comprehensively adjust the rotating angle of the main arm frame 21” (emphasis added). This statement implies that cylinder 25 does drive the boom 21 in some capacity. Boom cylinder 25 is directly connected to the boom 21, so, at the least, the boom cylinder 25 drives the boom 21 relative to the pull rod 23. Further, Examiner maintains the boom cylinder 25 is on the inboard section. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-5 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 reasons for allowance for claims 4-5 outlined in the previous Office Action are still valid. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (CN 107201759). Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a vessel comprising an excavator for dredging or shifting soil for cleaning watercourses, the excavator comprising; a one-piece weight balanced boom hingeably supported around a boom hinge axis and extending along a boom longitudinal axis from a first end to a second end, wherein the boom hinge axis is positioned between the first end and the second end to form a boom outboard section from the boom hinge axis to the first end and a boom inboard section a from the boom hinge axis to the second end (boom 21; see Annotated Figure 1), a bucket-arm hingeably connected to the boom at a first end, and provided with a bucket and/or digging tool at a free end of the bucket-arm (arm 22 with bucket 27), wherein a counterweight is directly connected to the boom at the second end in line with the boom longitudinal axis, and wherein the counterweight is positioned with respect to the boom such that a centre of gravity of the counterweight is above and about vertically aligned with the boom hinge axis when the bucket and/or digging tool is at a lowest digging position (Fig 1; counterweight 26 is directly connected to second end of boom 21 and pull rod 23; when the boom 21 pivots to put the bucket 27 in the lowest position, counterweight 26 is considered to be above and about vertically aligned with the hinge axis as the claim language is broad; in this case, the term “about” is not adequately defined in the specification so Examiner is interpreting the term under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard; the plain meaning of the term “about” is understood to be “in the vicinity”), the vessel further comprising a hydraulic drive system having a boom cylinder coupled with the boom inboard section to drive the boom (there is stated to be a hydraulic system, Abstract; boom cylinder 25 is connected to the boom inboard section of the boom and assists to drive the boom), and wherein the boom cylinder is hingeably supported above the boom hinge axis (boom cylinder 25 is considered to be hingeably supported on both ends and either one or both of those ends are considered to be above the hinge axis during operation; Fig 1). PNG media_image1.png 454 410 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 1 Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses the vessel wherein the counterweight is fixedly connected with the boom (claim language is broad; counterweight 26 is rigid with the boom 21). Regarding claim 8, Yang discloses the vessel wherein the boom cylinder is coupled with the boom proximate a free end of the boom inboard section (boom cylinder 25 is considered to be coupled to the boom proximate the free end at 26). Regarding claim 10, Yang discloses the vessel wherein the excavator comprises a turntable for supporting the excavator and to allow the excavator to rotate around a vertical rotating axis, and wherein the centre of gravity of the counterweight is above the turntable when the bucket and/or digging tool is at its lowest digging position (it is stated that the main arm is hinged on a rotary turntable, para [0005]; the rotary table allows the arm to rotate 360 degrees which is considered to be a vertical axis, para [0009]. When the boom 21 pivots to put the bucket 27 in the lowest position, counterweight 26 is considered to be above the rotary turntable as the claim language is broad). Regarding claim 11, Yang discloses the vessel wherein the centre of gravity of the counterweight is about vertically aligned with the vertical rotating axis when the bucket and/or digging tool is at its lowest digging position (When the boom 21 pivots to put the bucket 27 in the lowest position, counterweight 26 is considered to be about vertically aligned with the vertical axis as the claim language is broad). Regarding claim 12, Yang discloses the vessel wherein the vessel comprises equipment coupled with the excavator for driving the excavator, wherein the equipment is at least partly, in particular entirely, arranged below a deck level (claim language is broad; “deck level” is not well defined in the claims and could be considered to be the deck of the excavator; see Annotated Figure 2; in this case, the turntable would be considered below deck level). PNG media_image2.png 306 304 media_image2.png Greyscale Annotated Figure 2 Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET). 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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached on (571) 272-0547. 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. /BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671 /CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 21, 2021
Application Filed
May 02, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jul 10, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 16, 2024
Final Rejection — §102
Oct 04, 2024
Interview Requested
Oct 16, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 16, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 06, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jun 13, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Nov 18, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601130
MOVABLE BACK DRAG BLADE FOR SNOW BLOWER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599052
Soil cultivation device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582055
TURF ROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575472
ROW UNIT OVERLAP AVOIDANCE SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571175
CUTTING EDGE SYSTEMS FOR SNOWPLOW MOLDBOARDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+27.6%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 130 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month