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
Applicant’s amendment including claim, drawing, and specification amendments filed 12/15/25 (hereinafter Response) has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 9, 10, 13, 20, and 22 have been amended and claim 14 has been cancelled. Claims 1-13 and 15-28 remain pending in the application with claims 23-28 withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
Based on Applicant’s remarks, the drawing objections raised in the non-final office action mailed 9/15/25 (Office Action) are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Based on the amendment to claim 20 the claim objection raised in the Office Action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Based on the amendment to claim 22 the 112(b) rejection raised in the Office Action is withdrawn.
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 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0368162 A1 to Agnew et al (hereafter Agnew).
Regarding claim 18, Agnew discloses a drive assembly retrofit kit for a power machine configured as a mini-loader having a mini-loader frame that supports a power source and a work element and that defines a front end opposite a rear end, and a first side opposite a second side (Figs. 1 and 5-9 & Abstract and [0002]), the drive assembly retrofit kit comprising:
at least one motor (526A/B) (Figs. 5-9 & [0061] as discussed above);
a first endless track pod (419A) configured to be mounted to the mini-loader frame (310/510) with the first endless track pod (419A) adjacent the front end of the mini-loader frame (310/510) on the first side of the mini-loader frame (310/510) (Figs. 5-9 & [0028], [0033], and [0058]-[0061]);
a second endless track pod (419B) configured to be mounted to the mini-loader frame (310/510) with the second endless track pod (419B) adjacent the rear end of the mini-loader frame (310/510) on the first side of the mini-loader frame (310/510) (Figs. 5-9 & [0028], [0033], and [0058]); and
a drive chain assembly (Fig. 9) operatively connecting the at least one motor (526A) with the first endless track pod (419A) and the second endless track pod (419B) to provide tractive power at the first and second endless track pods (419A/B) (Figs. 7 and 9 & [0059] and [0061]).
Regarding claim 20, depending on 18, Agnew further discloses wherein the at least one motor (526A) is configured to be extend inboard of the mini-loader frame (310/510), through a hole (A) in the mini-loader frame (310/510), when the at least one motor (526A) is operatively mounted to the mini-loader frame (310/510) (Figs. 6-9 and Annotated Fig. 2 depict a hole in the frame 210/310/510 through which the motor 526A shown in Fig. 9 extends inboard of and is mounted to the frame. Figs. 6-8 also show the hole however, being a grayscale drawings, Fig. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
685
919
media_image1.png
Greyscale
gives a clearer representation.).
Regarding claim 21, depending on claim 18, Agnew further discloses:
at least one chain enclosure (subsection of frame 510 shown in Fig. 9) configured to enclose one or more drive chains (532) of the drive chain assembly and to secure the first and second endless track pods (419A/B) to the mini-loader frame (310/510) (Figs. 6-9 and [0058]-[0061]);
wherein the at least one motor (526A) is configured to be mounted to the mini-loader frame (310/510) by the at least one chain enclosure (subsection of frame 510 shown in Fig. 9) (Figs. 6-9 and [0060]-[0061]).
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.
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 1-5, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnew in view of WO 84/02153 A1 to Whiffin et al (hereinafter Whiffin).
Regarding claim 1, Agnew discloses a power machine configured as a mini-loader (Fig. 6 and Abstract & [0004] a compact loader is interpreted as being a “mini-loader” under a broadest reasonable interpretation without further specification in the claim itself.), the power machine comprising:
a mini-loader frame (310) defining a front end opposite a rear end and a first side opposite a second side, the mini-loader frame being a rigid frame with an operator station … (Figs. 5-6 & [0033] and [0059] as depicted the operator station, e.g., the seat for the operator);
at least one first-side motor (526A) supported by the first side of the mini-loader frame (310) ([0007] discloses the loaders 300/400 include a first motor 226A and [0061] discloses that loader 500 can be the same loader as 300/400, therefore numerals are interpreted as being equivalent/interchangeable. Further, Figs. 6, 8, & 9 and [0051] and [0061] disclose the motor is supported by the frame);
at least one second-side motor supported by the second side of the mini-loader frame (Fig. 9 and [0061] disclose the same structure shown for frame 510 and motor 526A exists on the opposite side, i.e., a second side frame and for motor 526B); and
four endless track pods including a first endless track pod (419A) rigidly supported by the first side of the mini-loader frame, a second endless track pod (419B) rigidly supported by the first side of the mini-loader frame, a third endless track pod (419C) rigidly supported by the second side of the mini-loader frame, a fourth endless track pod (419D) rigidly supported by the second side of the mini-loader frame (Figs. 6-9 & [0033] and [0028]);
wherein endless tracks (434) of the first and second endless track pods (419A/B) are powered by the at least one first-side motor (526A), and endless tracks (434) of the third and fourth endless track pods (419C/D) are powered by the at least one second-side motor (526B) to propel the power machine (Figs. 6-9 & [0007] and [0061]).
Agnew does not appear to disclose that a mini-loader includes a frame with an operator station at the rear end.
Whiffin teaches that it was old and well known in the art of skid-steer earth moving machines, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for mini-loader/skid steer to be configured as a mini-loader including a frame with an operator station (13) at the rear end (Fig. 1 and p. 3 lns 17-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of skid-steer earth moving machines before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operation station of the skid-steer earth moving machines disclosed by Agnew to be an operator station at the rear end as taught by Whiffin in order to provide a skid-steer with an operator station that is very compact yet capable allowing an operator to ride on the skid-steer or to walk behind the machine, e.g., see Whiffin p. 1 lns 7-25, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Agnew/Whiffin further discloses wherein one or more of:
each of the four endless track pods (Agnew - 419A-D) is forward of the operator station (Whiffin – 13) (Agnew – Figs. 6-9; Whiffin - Fig. 1 and p. 3 lns 17-21); or
the at least one first-side motor (Agnew - 526A) and the at least one second-side motor (Agnew - 526B) are forward of the operator station (Whiffin – 13) (Agnew – Figs. 6-9; and Whiffin - Fig. 1 and p. 3 lns 17-21).
It would have been obvious to have modified Agnew in view of the teachings of Whiffin for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Agnew further discloses:
at least one first drive chain (532A) that operatively connects the at least one first-side motor (526A) with the first and second endless track pods (419A/B) (Figs. 6-9 and [0061]); and
at least one second drive chain (532B) that operatively connects the at least one second-side motor (526B) with the third and fourth endless track pods (419C/D) (Figs. 6-9 and [0061]).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 3, the modified combination of Agnew/Whiffin further disclose wherein the at least one first drive chain (Whiffin – 16a) includes a first continuous drive chain (Whiffin - 16a) that extends from the at least one first-side motor (Agnew – 526A) to each of the first and second endless track pods (Agnew - 419A/B) (Agnew – Figs. 6-9 and [0061]; and Whiffin - Fig. 1 and p. 3 lns 22-29 teach a single chain connecting the drive motor (not shown) and the first and second wheels. Whiffin - p. 1 lns 30-35 further teaches that the wheels can alternatively be tracks); and
wherein the at least one second drive chain (Whiffin - 16a) includes a second continuous drive chain (Whiffin - 16a) that extends from the at least one second-side motor (Agnew – 526B) to each of the third and fourth endless track pods (Agnew - 419C/D) (Agnew – Figs. 6-9 and [0061]; and Whiffin - Fig. 1 and p. 3 lns 22-29 as discussed above disclose the same components are duplicated on the opposite side even if separate numbers are not provided.).
It would have been obvious to have modified Agnew in view of the teachings of Whiffin for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 3, Agnew further discloses wherein the at least one first drive chain (532) includes a first continuous drive chain (532) that extends from the at least one first-side motor (526A) to the first endless track pod (419A) and a second continuous drive chain (532) that one of: extends from the first at least one motor (526A) to the second endless track pod (419B), or (Fig. 9 and [0058]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Agnew/Datta further discloses wherein the at least one first-side motor is configured to power at least one of the first (Agnew – 419A) or second endless track pods directly (Agnew- Figs. 6-9; Whiffin – Fig. 1 and p. 3 lns 22-29 disclose the front axles are each driven by a respective motor and a chain 16a connects and drives the rear axle. Using the teaching of Whiffin, the motor of Whiffin would directly drive track pod 419A and a chain would connect and drive the rear track pod 419B); and
wherein the at least one second-side motor is configured to power at least one of the third (419C) or fourth endless track pods directly (Agnew- Figs. 6-9; Whiffin – Fig. 1 and p. 3 lns 22-29 disclose the front axles are each driven by a respective motor and a chain 16a connects and drives the rear axle. Using the teaching of Whiffin, the motor of Whiffin would directly drive track pod 419C and a chain would connect and drive the rear track pod 419D).
It would have been obvious to have modified Agnew in view of the teachings of Whiffin for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 1, Agnew further discloses wherein the at least one first-side motor (526A) and the at least one second-side motor (526B) substantially extend inboard of the first and second sides of the mini-loader frame (310/510), respectively (Fig. 9 depicts the motor as being inboard of the frame).
Alternatively, claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnew in view of US 2015/0084301 A1 to Johnson.
Regarding claim 1, Agnew discloses a power machine configured as a mini-loader (Fig. 6 and Abstract & [0004] a compact loader is interpreted as being a “mini-loader” under a broadest reasonable interpretation without further specification in the claim itself.), the power machine comprising:
a mini-loader frame (310) defining a front end opposite a rear end and a first side opposite a second side, the mini-loader frame being a rigid frame with an operator station … (Figs. 5-6 & [0033] and [0059] as depicted the operator station, e.g., the seat for the operator);
at least one first-side motor (526A) supported by the first side of the mini-loader frame (310) ([0007] discloses the loaders 300/400 include a first motor 226A and [0061] discloses that loader 500 can be the same loader as 300/400, therefore numerals are interpreted as being equivalent/interchangeable. Further, Figs. 6, 8, & 9 and [0051] and [0061] disclose the motor is supported by the frame);
at least one second-side motor supported by the second side of the mini-loader frame (Fig. 9 and [0061] disclose the same structure shown for frame 510 and motor 526A exists on the opposite side, i.e., a second side frame and for motor 526B); and
four endless track pods including a first endless track pod (419A) rigidly supported by the first side of the mini-loader frame, a second endless track pod (419B) rigidly supported by the first side of the mini-loader frame, a third endless track pod (419C) rigidly supported by the second side of the mini-loader frame, a fourth endless track pod (419D) rigidly supported by the second side of the mini-loader frame (Figs. 6-9 & [0033] and [0028]);
wherein endless tracks (434) of the first and second endless track pods (419A/B) are powered by the at least one first-side motor (526A), and endless tracks (434) of the third and fourth endless track pods (419C/D) are powered by the at least one second-side motor (526B) to propel the power machine (Figs. 6-9 & [0007] and [0061]).
Agnew does not appear to disclose that a mini-loader includes a frame with an operator station at the rear end.
Johnson teaches that it was old and well known in the art of earth moving work machines, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for mini-loader/skid steer to be configured as a mini-loader including a frame with an operator station (18) at the rear end (Fig. 1 and [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of skid-steer earth moving machines configurable with wheels or tracks, e.g., see [0014], before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operation station of the skid-steer earth moving machines disclosed by Agnew to be an operator station at the rear end as taught by Johnson in order to provide a vehicle with higher performing attachments, e.g., see Johnson [0013]-[0014], to improve ease of entry to the operator stator by not having to climb over the front end of the vehicle, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 9, the modified combination of Agnew/Johnson further discloses wherein a first drive motor (Johnson - 80) of the at least one first-side motor is configured to directly power the first endless track pod (Agnew – 419A/Johnson - 72), a second drive motor (Johnson - 80) of the at least one first-side motor is configured to directly power with the second endless track pod (Agnew – 419B/Johnson - 76), a third drive motor (Johnson - 80) of the at least one second-side motor is configured to directly power the third endless track pod (Agnew – 419C/Johnson - 60), and a fourth drive motor (Johnson - 80) of the at least one second-side motor is configured to directly power the fourth endless track pod (Agnew – 419D/Johnson - 64) (Agnew Figs. 6-9; Johnson Fig. 1 & [0014] teaches the depicted wheels may be tracks; Johnson Figs. 1-3 & [0018] and [0029] teaches directly driving each of the wheel/track assemblies).
It would have been obvious to have modified Agnew in view of the teachings of Johnson for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Agnew/Johnson further discloses wherein the at least one first-side motor (Agnew - 526A/Johnson - 80) and the at least one second-side motor (Agnew – 526B/Johnson - 80) substantially extend inboard of the first and second sides of the mini-loader frame (Agnew – 310/510; Johnson – 12,22,24,58,68), respectively (Agnew – Fig 9 & [0061]; Johnson – Figs. 1-3 & [0030]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnew in view of Whiffin and further in view of US 3,915,252 A to Datta et al (hereinafter Datta)
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 3, Data further discloses wherein the first and third endless track pods (419A/C) are supported adjacent to the front end of the mini-loader frame (310/510), and the second and fourth endless track pods (419B/D) are supported adjacent to the rear end of the mini-loader frame (310/510) (Figs. 5-9);
wherein the at least one first-side motor (526A) is secured to the first side of the mini-loader frame (310/510) and is disposed above … the first endless track pod (419B) and the second endless track pod (419B); and
wherein the at least one second-side motor (526B) is secured to the second side of the mini-loader frame (310/510) and is disposed … between the third endless track pod (419C) and the fourth endless track pod (419D) (Figs. 6-9 & [0059] and [0061] disclose the motor is positioned between the drive axles on each side respectively).
Agnew does not appear to disclose wherein the drive motor is disposed above and between the drive axles.
Datta teaches that it was old and well known in the art of skid-steers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the drive motor (42) on each side of the frame is disposed above and between the drive axles (64) (Figs. 1-3 and col 2 ln 43 – col 3 ln 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of skid steers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive motor positioning of the skid steer disclosed by Agnew to incorporate the drive motor on each side of the frame is disposed above and between the drive axles as taught by Datta in order to increase mobility and maintain proper lubrication of the vehicle, e.g., see Datta col 1 lns 6-34, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 6, the modified combination of Agnew/Whiffin/Datta further discloses wherein the at least one first drive chain (Agnew – 532/Datta – 36/38) operatively connects the at least one first-side motor (Agnew – 526A/Datta - 42) to the first and second endless track pods (Agnew – 419A/B) with a first triangular chain path (Agnew – Figs. 6-9 and [0061]; Datta Annotated Fig. 2 – depicts that both chains 36/38 individually form a triangular chain path), and
wherein the at least one second drive chain (Agnew – 532/Datta – 36/38) operatively connects the at least one second-side motor (Agnew – 526B/Datta - 42) to the third and fourth endless track pods (Agnew – 419C/D) with a second triangular chain path (Agnew – Figs. 6-9 and [0061] discloses the same applies to the second side; Datta Annotated Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious to have modified Agnew in view of the teachings of Datta for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 13 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 6, Agnew further discloses wherein each the at least one first-side motor (526A) and the at least one second-side motor (526B) substantially extends to the inside of the first and second sides of the mini-loader frame (310/510), respectively (Fig. 9 depicts the motor as being inboard of the frame).
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Agnew/Whiffin does not appear to disclose wherein the at least one first-side motor and the at least one second-side motor substantially extend outboard of the first and second sides of the mini-loader frame, respectively.
Datta teaches that it was old and well known in the art of work vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the at least one first-side motor and the at least one second-side motor to substantially extend outboard of the first and second sides of the mini-loader frame respectively (Figs. 1-3 & col 2 ln 43 – col 3 ln 18 teach that each side motor 42 is mounted to the chain enclosure 14 and not to the main frame 12, therefore it is mounted substantially outboard of the first/second sides of the frame respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of work vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of the mini-loader disclosed by Agnew/Whiffin to incorporate for the at least one first-side motor and the at least one second-side motor to substantially extend outboard of the first and second sides of the mini-loader frame respectively as taught by Datta in order to in order to increase mobility and maintain proper lubrication of the vehicle, e.g., see Datta col 1 lns 6-34, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnew in view of Datta.
Regarding claim 13, Agnew discloses a drive assembly for a power machine having a frame defining a first side, and a front end opposite a rear end, the drive assembly (Figs. 6-9 & Abstract and [0007]) comprising:
a drive motor (526A) configured to be supported by the frame (510) ([0007] discloses the loaders 300/400 include a first motor 226A and [0061] discloses that loader 500 can be the same loader as 300/400, therefore numerals are interpreted as being equivalent/interchangeable. Further, Figs. 6, 8, & 9 and [0051] and [0061] disclose the motor is supported by the frame);
a first endless track pod (419B) configured to be positioned adjacent the rear end of the frame (510) (Figs. 5-9 & [0007], [0061] disclose track pod 419B, equivalent to position of wheel 319B of Fig. 5 is located adjacent the rear end of the frame 510/310);
a second endless track pod (419A) configured to be positioned adjacent the front end of the frame (510) (Figs. 5-9 & [0007], [0061] disclose track pod 419a, equivalent to position of wheel 319a of Fig. 5 is located adjacent the front end of the frame 510/310);
a drive chain (532) configured to operatively connect the drive motor (526A) to the first (419A) and the second (419B) endless track pods (Figs. 6-9 & [0009] and [0061] noting that the drive chain 532 is a first and second drive chain in line with dependent claim 15); and
a chain enclosure configured to enclose the drive chain (532) (Figs. 6-9 and [0051] and [0061] disclose the chain is enclosed by the frame),
wherein the drive motor (526A) is configured to be secured to the first side of the frame (510) of the power machine, to be positioned … between drive axles (528A/B) of the first endless track pod (419B) and the second endless track pod (419A) (Figs. 6-9 & [0059] and [0061] disclose the motor is positioned between the drive axles).
Agnew does not appear to disclose wherein the drive motor is configured … to be positioned above and between the drive axles; and that the drive chain forms a triangular chain path.
Datta teaches that it was old and well known in the art of skid-steers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a chain enclosure (14) configured to enclose the drive chain (36/38), and for the drive motor (42) to be configured to be positioned above and between the drive axles (64) (Figs. 1-3 and col 2 ln 43 – col 3 ln 18); and for the drive chain (36/38) to form a triangular chain path (Fig. 2 and Datta Annotated Fig. 2 teach that each chain path of each chain can be considered to be a triangular chain path, e.g., Annotated Fig. 2 depicting the triangular chain path of chain 36).
PNG
media_image2.png
544
689
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of skid steers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive motor positioning of the skid steer disclosed by Agnew to incorporate the chain enclosure configured to enclose the drive chain, and for the drive motor to be configured to be positioned above and between the drive axles as taught by Datta in order to increase mobility and maintain proper lubrication of the vehicle, e.g., see Datta col 1 lns 6-34, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, depending on claim 13, the modified combination of Agnew/Datta further disclose wherein the drive chain is a first drive chain (Agnew – 532/Datta - 36) and is configured to operatively connect the drive motor (Agnew – 526A/Datta – 42) to one of the first or second endless track pods (Agnew – 419B); and
wherein a second drive chain (Agnew – 532/Datta - 38) is configured to one of:
operatively connect the one of the first or second endless track pods to the other of the first or second endless track pods; or
operatively connect the drive motor (Agnew – 526A) to the other of the first or second endless track pods (Agnew – 419B) (Agnew – Figs. 6-9 and [0061].
It would have been obvious to have modified Agnew in view of the teachings of Datta for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 13 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 16, depending on claim 13, Agnew further discloses wherein the drive motor (526) is configured to substantially extend inboard of the frame (310/510) when secured to the first side of the frame (310/510) (Fig. 9 depicts the motor as being inboard of the frame).
Regarding claim 17, depending on claim 15, the modified combination of Agnew/Datta further disclose:
a chain enclosure (Datta - 14) configured to couple with the frame (Agnew – 510/Datta - 12) of the power machine (Agnew – Figs. 6-9 and [0061]; Datta – Figs. 1-3 and col 2 lns 14-41), and to couple with the first and second endless track pods (Agnew - 419A/B), to support the first and second endless track pods (Agnew - 419A/B) relative to the frame (Agnew – 310/510/Datta – 12), with the chain enclosure (Datta – 14) disposed between first side of the frame (Agnew – 310/510/Datta – 12) and the first and second endless track pods (Agnew - 419A/B) (Agnew – Figs. 6-9 and [0061]; Datta – Figs. 1-3 and col 2 lns 14-41).
It would have been obvious to have modified Agnew in view of the teachings of Datta for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 13 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 19, depending on claim 18, Agnew further discloses:
at least one chain enclosure (510) configured to enclose one or more drive chains (532) of the drive chain assembly (Fig. 9) and to secure the first and second endless track pods (419A/B) to the mini-loader frame (310/510) (Figs. 5-9 and [0058]-[0061] disclose the frame encloses the chains and secures the track pods to the frame);
wherein the at least one motor (526A) is configured to be mounted to directly to the mini-loader frame (310/510) … (Figs. 5-9 and [0058]-[0061]).
Agnew does not appear to disclose that the motor is configured to be mounted … separately from the at least one chain enclosure.
Datta teaches that it was old and well known in the art of skid steers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a chain enclosure (14) configured to enclose one or more drive chains (36/38) of the drive chain assembly (Figs. 1-3 and col 2 ln 43 – col 3 ln 18); the motor (42) is configured to be mounted separately from the at least one chain enclosure (14) (Figs. 1-3 and col 2 ln 43 – col 3 ln 18, particularly Fig. 3 depicts the motor being mounted outside the chain enclosure 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of skid steers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify motor/chain enclosure mounting of the skid steer disclosed by Agnew to incorporate for the motor to be configured to be mounted separately from the at least one chain enclosure as taught by Datta in order to increase mobility and maintain proper lubrication of the vehicle, e.g., see Datta col 1 lns 6-34, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnew in view of US 2003/0205424 A1 to Felsing et al (hereinafter Felsing).
Regarding claim 22, depending on claim 18, Agnew further discloses:
a third endless track pod (419C) configured to be mounted to the mini-loader frame (310/510) with the third endless track pod (419C) adjacent the front end of the mini-loader frame (310/510) on the second side of the mini-loader frame (310/510) (Figs. 5-9 & [0028], [0033], and [0058]-[0061]);
a fourth endless track pod (419D) configured to be mounted to the mini-loader frame (310/510) with the fourth endless track pod (419D) adjacent the rear end of the mini-loader frame (310/510) on the second side of the mini-loader frame (Figs. 5-9 & [0028], [0033], and [0058]-[0061]); and
Although Agnew discloses the four endless track pods being mounted to the frame, Agnew is thin on specifics of the structural layout of the frame. Therefore, Agnew does not appear to specifically disclose, a base frame that supports each of the first, second, third, and fourth endless track pods and is configured to be mounted below the mini-loader frame to operatively couple the first, second, third, and fourth endless track pods to the mini-loader frame.
Felsing teaches that it was old and well known in the art of skid steers, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a mini-loader/skid steer to include a base frame that supports each of the first, second, third, and fourth … pods and is configured to be mounted below the mini-loader/skid steer frame to operative couple the first, second, third, and fourth endless … pods to the mini-loader frame (Annotated Fig. 6 depicts an upper frame U and a lower frame L. See generally Figs. 1,2, and 6 and [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of skid steers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of the work vehicle disclosed by Agnew to incorporate the frame including an upper and lower, i.e., base frame as taught by Felsing in order to provide a secure structure to connect the four axles, i.e., pods, e.g., see [0033], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response directed toward the 35 USC §102 rejection of claims 18, 20, and 21 under Agnew in view of Whiffin have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See Response pp. 12-14.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant takes issue with the disclosure of Agnew anticipating the claimed “retrofit kit” taking the position that the kit of Agnew does not include the drive chain assembly or motor. See p. 13 of the Response. Examiner disagrees. While Applicant points to ¶¶[0013], [0028], [0058]-[0063] as supporting this argument, none of the cited passages exclude the drive chain and motor from the disclosed kit of ¶ [0002]. Instead, these paragraphs merely discuss conversion from wheeled to tracked systems. ¶ [0058] even supports the kit including the motor and chains by stating “The power system of loader 400 can be identical to that of loader 300. This allows for the possibility of loader 300 being converted from a skid-steer loader to a quad track skid-steer loader simply by removing the wheels and replacing them with track assemblies.” Although they can be identical, as disclosed they do not have to be.
On p. 13 of the Response, Applicant further presents an argument toward the rejection of claim 20 based on the claimed hole. Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s position because a kit claim is not a method claim, therefore explicit disclosure of the motor passing through the hole is not required. Instead, the clause is considered to be intended use as it is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed kit is intended to be employed and thus is given no patentable weight because the recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114.
On p. 14 Applicant similarly presents an argument toward the claimed at least one chain enclosure of claim 22. Examiner disagrees. This argument is not persuasive for at least the same reasons discussed above with relation to claim 18 and 21.
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response directed toward the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 1 under Agnew in view of Whiffin have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See Response pp. 14-16.
Applicant takes the position on p. 15 that although Whiffin does disclose a frame with an operator station at the rear end, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to “simply substitute Agnew’s operator station with Whiffin’s footplate at the rear side of Agnew’s loader” because of the significant rework that might be required to do so. Examiner disagrees with this position because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, the exact “complex frame and control structures” of Whiffin need not be bodily incorporated into the vehicle of Agnew, instead Whiffin is merely relied upon for teaching, suggesting, motivating a person of ordinary skill in the art viewing their Winslow tableau including Agnew and Whiffin would recognize the advantages of a rear operator station, e.g., being compact yet capable and/or allowing a person to talk behind or ride on the skid steer, and thus would find it obvious to try combining the teachings of Whiffin with Agnew resulting in the claimed structure of claim 1.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s substantially similar argument with regard to the combination of Agnew and Johnson as the combination of Agnew and Whiffin are is not persuasive for at least the same reasons discussed above with regard to the combination of Agnew and Whiffin.
On p. 16, Applicant takes the position that the modified combination of Agnew/Whiffin fails to disclose a continuous drive chain that extends from the motor to each of the first and second endless track pods because in particular Whiffin discloses a “direct-power configuration … in which a motor drives a front axle and chains connect the front axle to a rear axle.” Examiner disagrees with this position at a minimum because Whiffin Fig. 1 clearly depicts only a single chain connecting the front axle to the rear axle. Further, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it is unclear why a motor that directly drives the front axle but also has a continuous chain running from the front axle to the rear axle would not also be considered to extend from the motor to each of the first and second track pods. While the structure is different from that shown in Applicant’s Fig. 12, that amounts to a feature which has not specifically been claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On pp. 16-17 Applicant takes the position that the modified combination of Agnew/Whiffin/Datta does not disclose the claimed “triangular chain path” arguing that the annotated triangle of Datta Annotated Fig. 2 is not actually a chain path. This argument is found persuasive and the rejection of claim 7 has been updated to reflect this. However, the rejection of claim 7 also took the position that each chain 36/38 individually form a triangular chain path and thus disclose the limitation. This is particularly true because the claim recites at least one first drive chain. Here two chains connect the motor to their respective track pods each forming a triangular chain path. At a minimum this alternative rejection of claim 7 is maintained because no argument was presented against it. Although Applicant states the chains form “elliptical chain paths” it is unclear how the shape of the chains could be considered to be elliptical as an ellipse requires the shape to have four equal quadrants. Instead, the chain paths are considered to be triangular as shown above in the rejection of claim 13. Applicant’s Fig. 5 shows a similar triangular chain path. Examiner notes the chain path is “triangular” not that the chain path explicitly forms “a triangle” because the corners are rounded.
Examiner notes that the arguments directed toward amended claim 13 are also not persuasive for the same reasons as those discussed with respect to claim 7.
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 CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611