DETAILED ACTION
The Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 02/16/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 and 5-12 are pending, with claims 11-12 being newly added. Despite the substantive amendments, the previous 103 rejection of all pending claims is maintained as detailed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-12 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-10 are rejected because claim 1 defines “a second element” twice. See claim 1, lines 2, 16. Are these elements the same? This double inclusion is improper and confusing.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected because both independent claims also define “a second element” twice. Are these elements the same? This double inclusion is improper and confusing.
Claim 12 is further rejected because it refers to “the boom” but this term lacks sufficient antecedent basis. See claim 12, line 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Sasaki in view of Short
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (WO 2013/114451) in view of Short (U.S. Patent No. 3,664,527). Sasaki is directed to a construction machine. See Abstract. Note: this is an “X” reference in the cited EPO Written Opinion. Short is directed to a material handling apparatus. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Sasaki discloses construction equipment (10) [Figs. 1, 3] including a first element comprising one or more of a platform (105), an arm (102), and a tool (103) and a second element comprising one or more of a boom (101) and the arm, wherein when the second element comprises the boom, the first element comprises the platform or the arm, wherein when the second element comprises the arm, the first element comprises the tool, the construction equipment further including at least one electric actuator (20) comprising an electric motor (24, 20bc) and a mechanism (21-23, 25-27) configured to transmit a torque from the electric motor to the boom, the arm, or the tool of the construction equipment in order to move the boom, the arm, or the tool in a desired direction, wherein said mechanism includes a rod (20b) extending along a longitudinal axis, a sliding member (20bb, 23 on right-side of 27) configured for moving along the rod upon activation of the electric motor, and a damper rod (23 on left-side of 27, 27) configured to absorb shock applied to the construction equipment, wherein the damper rod comprises a first end configured to articulate on the sliding member and a second end configured to articulate on the first element of the construction equipment to move the first element relative to a second element or vice versa. See Figs. 1, 3.
Sasaki discloses all the limitations of this claim except for the rod, sliding member and electric motor being “housed or encased inside the second element.” Short discloses construction equipment [Fig. 1] where the actuator, including a rod (70), sliding member (68), and electric motor (46) are housed or encased inside the boom arm (42). See col. 2, lines 6-28 (“hydraulic cylinder or motor”); see also Figs. 3, 5, 6. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include these various components of the actuator ‘mechanism’ within/integrated in the boom/arm because this has numerous design advantages, including ensuring the actuator is protected from the elements and dirt/debris encountered during construction/use. This is especially true since Sasaki already discloses these various elements being encased within a housing [see Figs. 3A-3C (only the damper rod extends outside the housing, just like the instant application)], hence housing them within the boom arm (i.e., the “second element”) would be an alternative means to achieve this protective function, reducing the number of parts required. In addition, it would be obvious to try given that only two possibilities exist here —the actuator is either inside or outside the boom.
Claim 3: Sasaki discloses guiding means for guiding the movement of the sliding member along the longitudinal axis. See Fig. 3.
Claim 5: Sasaki discloses that the damper rod consists of two imbricated cylinders or tubes. See Fig. 3.
Claim 6: Sasaki discloses that the damper rod consists of two parts (21) between which is interposed a deformable member (27) capable of absorbing shocks. See Fig. 3.
Claim 7: Sasaki discloses that the damper rod is configured so that it can retract and/or extend depending on shock direction. See Fig. 3.
Claims 8-10: It is inherent that based on the “impact mitigation device 27” selected (i.e., depending on the strength of the “elastic body,” or magnitude of the spring constant of the “spring”), the damper rod will axially translate only if a specific threshold is exceeded, and will otherwise be rigid, therefore moving as a function of forces it is subject to. In other words, any device 27 selected in Sasaki will have a certain threshold such that the damper rod will have a force curve.
Claims 11-12: see claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/16/26 with respect to claim(s) 1, 3 and 5-12 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the combination because of alleged deficiencies with the teaching reference Short, pointing solely to Figures 1 and 3, where element 38 protrudes from an arm during one of its positions, hence it is not “housed or encased” inside the second element. See Remarks, pages 9-10. In response, Applicant failed to consider the other figures cited in the rejection. Specifically, Figures 5 and 6 of Short demonstrate that a rod (70), sliding member (68), and electric motor (46) are “housed or encased inside” the boom arm (42). See col. 2, lines 6-28 (“hydraulic cylinder or motor”). This is true for all movements/positions of boom arm sections 40/42. As stated in the rejection above, this combination is obvious because it ensures that these components are protected from the elements during construction/use, and this is especially true since Sasaki already discloses these various components being encased within a housing [see Figs. 3A-3C (only the damper rod extends outside the housing, just like the instant application)].
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims remain rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 February 24, 2026