DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendment filed 03/23/2026 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claim 1 have been amended and claim 5 has been cancelled, while all other claims are maintained as previously presented on office action (mailed 12/23/2025). In view of amendment, all the drawing objections and rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC §112(b) have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejections under 35 USC § 102 and 103 (details below). Accordingly, claims 1-4 and 6-12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 regarding all claim rejections under 35 USC §112(b) have been withdrawn and the rejection of claims 1-12 under §102/103 and §103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In view of argument [ ‘Remarks’, page 7], the applicant submits to introduce “ at least part of the second hydraulic hose is placed in a position lower than the liquid level of the hydraulic oil with portions of the second hydraulic hose on a side of the hydraulic pump and on a side of the hydraulic device relative to the part positioned higher than the liquid level of the hydraulic oil, wherein the hydraulic pump is disposed rearward of the engine, and wherein the hydraulic equipment is disposed forward of the engine.” are fully considered but are not found persuasive.
As depicted in figs. 1-3 of Adachi, the prior art expressly teaches a work vehicle having a hydraulic tank (17), a hydraulic pump (12, 14) connected to the tank through the suction conduit (suction pipe, 15), and hydraulic equipment such as the power-steering device (13) connected to the pump. Adachi further shows the pump (12, 14) are mounted on the engine (24) side above the oil level of the tank (fig. 3), while the suction piping includes lower-lying portions such as the tank-side horizontal section (15a) and S-shaped section (equivalent to second hydraulic hose portion15c), which are positioned below the oil level to promote air separation. Adachi expressly teaches at least part of second hydraulic hose (15c) is placed in a position; lower than the liquid level of the hydraulic oil. Fig. 3 clearly shows the second hydraulic hose 15 and its portion 15c on the side of pump 12 and 14. Furthermore, the portion is positioned at one side of the hydraulic equipment (11, 13) wherein pump 12, 14 are disposed rear side of engine 24 and hydraulic equipment are disposed forward of the engine. Thus, Adachi anticipates limitation of claim 1(details below).
The applicant argument (‘Remarks’; pages 8-9) regarding claim rejections under 35 USC §103 that Adachi in view of Azuma not being able to fill the gap left by Adachi, the examiner disagrees. Adachi teaches a level gauge, equivalent to hydraulic extraction block 7 as depicted in fig. 2 where a portion of second hydraulic hose15c is position below block 7. Although the applicant may contend the rejection of claim 7 is deficient, the record does not support that position. To address the alleged gap, the Examiner has relied on Azuma, which provides a secondary teaching that expressly discloses the missing explicit feature of “a level gauge”. As outlined in MPEP §2143 and MPEP §2144, an examiner may properly combine references where one reference supplies the element lacking in another. Azuma clearly teaches the very feature the applicant asserts is absent; therefore, the rejection remains well-founded.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter merely rearranges known mechanical components- a hose, pipe, and hydraulic arrangement- each of which is well established in the art. A simple reconfiguration of the familiar parts, performing their expected and predictable functions, does not rise to the level of a patentable invention. Under MPEP§2144.0 and the controlling precedent of KSR V. Telefax, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination of known elements that yield no more than predictable results is considered obvious. Accordingly, the proposed arrangement can’t be regarded as patentable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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.
Claims 1-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 12-13 recite the phrase: “relative to the part”. Claim limitations must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. The relational definition to “relative to the part” corresponds to the “second hydraulic hose” is not specified anywhere on the specification. The claim recites “at least part of the second hydraulic hose is placed in a position lower than the liquid level of the hydraulic oil” whereas claim 1 again recites “on a side of the hydraulic device relative to the part positioned higher than the liquid level of the hydraulic oil.” It is unclear what specific structure the terms “relative to the part” and “at least part of the second hydraulic hose” refer to. The claim does not specify whether these portions correspond to the same part or a different part and if it refers back to the same part, then one lies above the liquid level and the same part again positioned below the liquid level is impossible. As written, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot identify the boundaries of the claimed portions “relative to the part” with reasonable certainty. Fig. 4 of the applicant clearly shows some portions (“H2, H2a) of the second hose is positioned at downstream below the hydraulic oil level. The internal inconsistency prevents a precise determination of the claim scope.
The relative positional phrase “positioned higher than the liquid level of the hydraulic oil” is ambiguous without a clear identified reference point. It is unclear whether the recited position to be completely above the liquid level, partially above (as depicted in fig. 4) at an elevation that intersects the level. The specification does not provide an explicit definition of these terms sufficient to resolve the ambiguity.
Accordingly, because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be reasonably determined, the claim fails to satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). For the purpose of further prosecuting the claims, the phrase: “relative to the part” is understood to be equivalent to “relative to the oil tank”.
Any claim not specifically addressed under §112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under §112(b).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adachi Makoto (JP2006170330 A; hereinafter “ Adachi”).
Regarding claim 1, Adachi teaches: a work vehicle (1, fig. 1-3) comprising:
a hydraulic oil tank (17) that tanks a hydraulic oil (oil tank, [Abstract]);
a hydraulic pump (12 or 14, [Abstract]) connected via a first hydraulic hose (suction pipe 15a of hose 15, fig. 3) to the hydraulic oil tank (17); and
a hydraulic equipment (hydraulic lift device 11 or steering device 13) connected via (suction pipe) a second hydraulic hose (15c connected with 15d, fig. 3) to the hydraulic pump (12 and 14, fig. 3, [0001]); and
an engine (24, [0009]) disposed on one side (at rear side of tank 17 as depicted in fig. 3) of the hydraulic oil tank (17) in a width direction of the hydraulic oil tank (17) [ note that: as depicted in figs. 1 and 3, engine 24 has structural body width and is positioned rear of tank 17 in vehicle width direction],
wherein the hydraulic pump (12 or 14) and the hydraulic equipment (hydraulic lift device 11 or steering device 13) are placed in a position higher [fig. 3 shows pump 12 or 14 and hydraulic equipment are positioned above the tank 17] than a liquid level of the hydraulic oil (fig. 3) in the hydraulic oil tank (17, fig. 3 and annotated fig. 3 below),
at least part of the second hydraulic hose (lower part of 15c) is placed in a position lower than the liquid level of the hydraulic oil [ It should be understood from fig. 3 that the lower portion of hose 15c is positioned beneath the liquid level of the hydraulic oil when the tank is filled (see the annotated fig. 3 of Adachi below) with portions of the second hydraulic hose (portion of 15c; also see annotated fig. 3 of Adachi below) on a side of the hydraulic pump (front side of pump 12 or 14, see annotated fig. 3 of Adachi below) and a side of the hydraulic device (11 and 13; see annotated fig. 3 of Adachi below) rear side of relative to the part (part of 15c; see §112(b) rejection above) positioned higher than the liquid level of the hydraulic oil (liquid level, annotated fig. 3 below shows hydraulic pump and hydraulic device rear side of relative to the part is above the liquid level of the hydraulic oil),
wherein the hydraulic pump (12 or 14) is disposed rearward (fig. 3 shows 12 or 14 are positioned rear side of the engine 24) of the engine (24), and wherein the hydraulic equipment (11 or 13) is disposed forward (fig. 3) of the engine (24). Therefore, Adachi anticipates the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3 of Adachi
Regarding claim 2, Adachi further teaches that the second hydraulic hose (15c connected with 15d) and has a middle portion (15a, annotated fig. 3 above) placed in a position lower than the liquid level (liquid level at 17), a first connection portion (connection between 15a and 15c at ‘A’ annotated fig. 3 above) that is placed between (15a and 15c) the middle portion (15a) and the hydraulic equipment (11), and that is placed at a height higher than [fig 2 shows 11 above the connection A] or equal to the liquid level [as shown in fig 3; S curve of 15c is above or equal to liquid level], and a second connection portion ( connection ‘B’ at 15b and 15d, see annotated fig. 3 above) that is placed between the middle portion (15a) and the hydraulic pump (12 or 14), and that is placed at a height higher than or equal to the liquid level [ Shown in annotated fig. 3 above, connection ‘B’ is positioned at the height above or equal to the liquid level.]
Regarding claim 3, Adachi further teaches that the second hydraulic hose (15c) has plural bent portions (‘S’ bent; note that: S shape has plural bent portions, [0011]), the plural bent portions (bents of S shaped hose) have a first bent portion (lower bent, fig. 3) that reciprocally bends in a first direction (when looking at fig. 3; lower bent portion of S shape faces towards left direction), and
a second bent portion (upper bent, fig. 3) that reciprocally bends in a second direction [ when looking at fig. 3; upper bent portion of S shape faces towards right direction, thus forming second direction) different from the first direction [ fig. 3 shows bent are opposite, thus different], and the first bent portion (lower bent) and the second bent portion (upper bent) are provided at different positions [ shown in fig. 3, lower bent portion and upper bent portion at different positions.]
Regarding claim 4, Adachi includes all the limitations of claim 3 and further teaches that the support portion (portion at extension pipe 15e, [0012]) that supports (‘stabilize’, [0012]) the second hydraulic hose (15c connected with 15d), wherein the support portion (portion at 15e) supports at least any of the plural bent portions [ It should be understood that support 15e is securely connected at location B in the annotated fig. 3 above, and via connection portion A, it supports at least any of the plural bent portions of the S- shaped hose].
Regarding claim 6, Adachi further teaches that the second hydraulic hose (15c connected with 15d, fig. 3) is placed along an outer face of the hydraulic oil tank (17) [shown in fig. 3; 15c along with 15d is positioned outer face of tank 17.]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi in view of Azuma et al. (US 20150016932 A1; hereinafter, (“Azuma”)).
Regarding claim 7, Adachi includes all the limitations of claim 1 and discloses the hydraulic oil tank (17) and at least part of the second hydraulic hose (part 15c of 15, fig. 3) is placed in a position lower than the level gauge (hydraulic extraction block 7 in fig. 2 is being interpreted as level gauge of Adachi where 15c is position below block 7), but Adachi doesn’t appear to explicitly teach that the tank has a level gauge; however,
Azuma, in another construction machine, similar to Adachi teaches that the hydraulic oil tank (20) has a level gauge (at 20G, fig. 7, level gauge, [0077]), and at least part of the second hydraulic hose is placed in a position lower than the level gauge [ It should be understood that para. 0052 of Azuma teaches that a hydraulic pump 9 is located on the lower side of the exhaust gas purifying device 19, thus all the hose arrangement from pump to the tank is positioned lower than the level gauge on the tank].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified oil tank of Adachi to incorporate the teaching of Azuma’s level gauge and provide the hydraulic hose arrangement that is being placed lower than the level gauge in order to advantageously improve suction efficiency, simplifies visual checks and preventing air ingress while delivering the pressurized hydraulic oil from the hydraulic oil tank [ 0052 of Azuma].
Regarding claim 8, Adachi as modified above further teaches that the hydraulic oil tank (17) has a holding portion (C, annotated fig. 3 of Adachi above) that holds the second hydraulic hose (15c).
Regarding claim 9, Adachi as modified above further teaches that the hydraulic pump (12 or 14) is placed on the hydraulic oil tank's (17’s) one side [at one side when looking at the figure 3] in a width direction [fig.1 and 3 shows vehicle width direction], relative to the hydraulic oil tank (17). See figs. 1-3 of Adachi.
Regarding claim 10, Adachi as modified above further teaches that the hydraulic equipment (11) is placed on the one side [equipment11 is positioned on one side when looking at fig. 2] in the width direction [fig. 1 and 2 shows in the width direction], relative to the hydraulic oil tank (17).
Regarding claim 11, Adachi as modified above further teaches that the holding portion (C, annotated fig. 3 of Adachi above), in the hydraulic oil tank (17), is placed on another side [opposite side to pump 12] in the width direction [fig. 1 and 3 of Adachi shows in the vehicle width direction].
Regarding claim 12, Adachi as modified above further teaches that holding portion (C) includes a low holding portion (C1, annotated fig. 3 above) that is placed in a position lower than the level gauge [ see claim rejection 7 above where the hydraulic hose (15c of hose 15, fig. 3) is placed in a position lower than the level gauge and fig. 3 of Adachi shows the low holding portion C1 as specified in annotated fig. 3 above is placed lower than the level gauge.]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180238020 A1 to Hirasawa discloses: a hydraulic oil to the hydraulic cylinders 4d to 4f and the like of the front working mechanism 4, a compressor 19 for air conditioning of the inside of the cab 7, an alternator 25, a level gauge 26, a reserve tank 30, a hydraulic oil tank 16 that stores a hydraulic oil supplied to the hydraulic pump 12, and a fuel tank 15 that stores fuel of the engine 13.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on (571) 272-. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights