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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 22, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 15-21, 26, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman et al. (11,725,363) in view of Woo (US 2022/0243873) and Haughom (US 2023/0151585).
Regarding claims 1-3, 26, and 28-31, Gorman discloses a hydrogen-powered excavator comprising:
a hydrogen fuel cell (15, see e.g., Col. 5, lines 5-7 describing how the power source can be a fuel cell);
a hydrogen storage unit (310; see Col. 15, lines 51-59) for supplying hydrogen to the hydrogen fuel cell;
a chassis (22) configured to house the entire hydrogen storage unit (see e.g., Figs. 1 and 6);
a working arm (10) coupled to the chassis; and
a counterweight (226) located proximal a rear of the chassis for counter-balancing the working arm;
wherein the hydrogen storage unit (310) is positioned proximal to the rear of the chassis of the vehicle, in front of the counterweight (226; see Fig. 8 and Col. 15, lines 47-51 describing how the power supply 310 is located in front of the rear-disposed counterweight 226) and extends in both lateral directions relative to a central longitudinal line (see Fig. 8).
While Gorman discloses that its hydrogen storage unit is disclosed within the excavator and inherently occupies space in three dimensions, including transversely to the longitudinal vehicle axis, it does not explicitly provide that the storage unit(s) extend transversely across the chassis.
Further, as discussed above, Gorman discloses that the hydrogen storage unit is proximal to the rear of the vehicle and Gorman discloses that the power supply 310 may be located in a hollowed out counterweight 226, which implies that the power supply may also not be in a hollowed out portion. Nevertheless, Gorman does not explicitly disclose that the hydrogen tanks are “fully” in front of the counterweight.
Woo teaches a hydrogen-powered excavator having its hydrogen fuel cell tanks (30) arranged within the vehicle’s body (see Fig. 1) and oriented such that they extend transversely to a longitudinal axis of the excavator’s chassis (see Fig. 1 showing the side view of the vehicle with the round ends of each tank facing the side of the vehicle, while Fig. 2 shows the tanks having an elongated shape resulting in these tanks extending transverse to the vehicle).
Haughom teaches another fuel-cell powered excavator (see Fig. 1) having a hydrogen storage unit (8) located in a more forward position relative to the rear/counterweight (9) of the excavator’s slewing upper structure, but fully in front of the counterweight. The storage tank (8) is disposed between the counterweight and the excavator’s fuel cell (11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the excavator of Gorman to have its operating hydrogen storage tanks oriented in the transverse direction as taught by Woo and to have these tanks positioned more forward in the excavator body, such that the tanks are fully in front of the rear counterweight as taught by Haughom, while still being proximal to the rear of the vehicle and generally centrally located as disclosed by Gorman, to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be nothing more than a matter of design choice for the arrangement of parts from one known location (positioning the hydrogen tanks forward of, but potentially overlapping, the rear-disposed counterweight) to another (forward of the counterweight) while arranging the centrally-located tanks to be oriented laterally across the centerline. To this point, the Applicant is informed that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. As noted by the courts, "it is well-settled that more than mere change of form or rearrangement of parts is necessary for patentability." See Span-Deck, Inc., v. Fab-Con, Incorporated et al., 215 USPQ 835, 841. The particular configuration taught by the Applicant "appears to be no more than a logical and obvious step forward which accomplishes no new and unexpected result, but which is admittedly of economic importance." Id.
Regarding claim 5, Gorman further discloses that the fuel cells hydrogen storage is provided in plural “tanks” (see Col. 15, lines 53-56) which reads upon a plurality of sub-units.
Regarding claim 6, while Gorman discloses that multiple hydrogen tanks can be co-located, it does not disclose how they are arranged/stacked.
Woo teaches a hydrogen-powered excavator’s hydrogen fuel cell tanks (30) can be vertically stacked (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the excavator of the Gorman combination to have its hydrogen tanks stacked vertically as taught by Woo to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (stacked plural hydrogen tanks in a storage portion on a chassis) for another (non-specifically arranged plural hydrogen tanks in a storage portion on a chassis) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a vehicle maximizing available storage space).
Regarding claims 15, 17 and, 20, Gorman further discloses that the vehicle chassis includes front, rear, and sides to define an internal volume (228; see e.g., Fig. 4-5) that houses the power core/fuel cell (15, 310; see bottom of Col. 15 describing how the various power source embodiments, including fuel cells and batteries, can be located in the chamber).
Regarding claim 16, while Gorman discloses that the excavator includes a hydrogen fuel cell (15) inside the internal volume, it does not specifically recite that the fuel cell is disposed proximal to a second side.
Haughom teaches that the fuel-cell (11) of an excavator located proximal to the side opposite of the cab (6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to dispose the transversely arranged fuel cell(s) of the Gorman combination to be nearer to one side of the excavator as taught by Haughom to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success, since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation being to ease loading and unloading the tanks within the internal volume.
Regarding claims 18-19, Gorman further discloses a cooling pack (342) housed within the internal volume (see Fig. 8) and located at a side of the vehicle. Examiner notes that this cooling pack (342) can deemed a “first” pack or “second” pack as no further structure is recited indicating that more than one cooling pack is being claimed in either claim 18 or 19.
Regarding claim 21, Gorman further discloses a cab (224) located on the same first side of the vehicle as the cooler 342 (see e.g., Fig. 6).-
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman in view of Woo and Haughom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (8,037,963).
Regarding claim 7, Gorman discloses that the excavator includes a fan-based air cooling system (342) with the cooler located and its intake port on one side of the excavator and drawing air laterally from a port in that side of the excavator (see Fig. 8), but it does not disclose that a second port on the opposite side is in fluid communication with the first port.
Nishimura teaches another excavator (1) having a cooling system having a vertical inlet port (12; see Fig. 8 showing an air inlet port in door 41 – see also Col. 5, lines 28-38 describing how the cooling inlet can be formed in the door) and with a vertical outlet/exhaust hole on the opposing side (see Fig. 8 showing the air from the intake passing through the excavator and out the opposite side and Col. 5, line 33-35) of the excavator. A fan (19) directs airflow between the two ports across the chassis of the excavator with respect to its longitudinal axis.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the excavator of the Gorman combination to have two fluidly connected opposing air flow ports on opposite lateral sides of the excavator as taught by Nishimura to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., improving air flow through the use of both an inlet and an outlet), and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (e.g., cooling the internal compartment of an excavator); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g., cooling the power unit of the excavator).
Claim 8-11, 13-14, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman in view of Woo, Haughom, and Nishimura as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Pfohl et al. (9,586,473).
Regarding claims 8-9, 13-14, and 27, while the Gorman combination of claim 7 provides an excavator includes a fan-based air cooling system (342) with the cooler located and its intake port on one side of the excavator and drawing air laterally from a port in that side of the excavator (see Fig. 8) to cool the interior housing the fuel tanks and power unit (310) and to direct the air to and from the opposite side, it does not disclose that a second port on the opposite side is in fluid communication with the first port and that the fan can be rotated in different directions to direct the air flow in either direction between the ports to clear dirt build-up.
Pfohl teaches another excavator where a cooling fan (208) is periodically (see Col. 5, line 62 to Col. 6, line 10) rotated in a first direction to direct cooling airflow (arrows F, see Figs. 1A, 1C, and 3) in one direction and can be rotated in a reverse direction (arrows R to push or pull air through the two opposing air inlet/outlet screens (304/306) to direct the cooling air in the opposite direction to clear dirt build up.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the excavator of the Gorman combination to run the cooling fan in either direction to create bi-directional airflow to clear debris from the ports as taught by Pfohl to create a through-excavator bi-directional cooling air path that traverses the centralized hydrogen storage unit to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., improving air flow through the use of both an inlet and an outlet while taking into account external factors, such as dirt/debris build up), and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (e.g., cooling the internal compartment of an excavator); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g., maximizing the cooling capability for the power unit of the excavator).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman in view of Woo and Haughom as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (10,000,908).
Regarding claim 22, while Gorman discloses that the excavator includes the well-known expedient of hydraulic actuators that necessarily use control valves (50, it does not specifically recite that the valves are centrally disposed in the internal volume.
Ota teaches another excavator with the hydraulic control valves (11) at a covered (see body panels/covers 21, 22) centrally located position (see e.g. Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to dispose the hydraulic actuators of the Gorman combination at a central location as taught by Ota to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation being to collect the directional control valves at a location that is both proximate to the boom/arm and the drive system.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorman in view of Woo and Haughom as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang (KR 20110003940, see previously provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 24, Gorman discloses that the excavator includes a slew motor (46) for rotating the chassis and that the pivot point is enclosed/protected (see Fig. 1, 4, 6), but it does not specifically recite that the slew motor is centrally disposed in the internal volume.
Hwang teaches another excavator with the well-known expedient of a swing/slew motor (260) at the covered centrally located pivot point of the upper chassis (see e.g. Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to dispose the slew motor of the Gorman combination at the center pivot point as taught by Hwang to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation being to locate the pivot drive proximate to the pivot point.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Particularly, independent claim 1 has been amended to include that the hydrogen storage unit extends transversely to the longitudinal direction of the excavator. As discussed above, the base Gorman reference discloses that the hydrogen tanks inherently have a width, which suggests that at least part of the tank extend laterally, but to further compact prosecution, the examiner has provided a secondary reference (Woo) that teaches a fuel cell powered excavator can have its hydrogen tanks running laterally.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights