DETAILED ACTION
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, see Remarks filed 04/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment – are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kisse and Azure (US 20160244937 A1).
Claims 1-18 and 20-27 remain pending in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/12/2023 are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,8-11, 20-21, 23, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisse (US 2010/0089668) in view of Azure (US 20160244937 A1).
(Examiner’s Note: For clarity of the record, underlined portions below indicates new rejections in light of the claimed subject matter).
Regarding claim 1, Kisse teaches a compact utility loader 86, (Fig 12) comprising:
a frame 10,80 (Fig 11) including a lower portion 10 (Fig 2, para 0018) and an upper portion 80 (Fig 11, para 0029) ,[ wherein a width of the lower portion 10 (Fig 2, para 0018) is less than a width of the upper portion 80 (Fig 11, para 0029)] (Figs 11 and 12 show a view of the frame where the upper portion 80 is wider than the lower portion 10),
a first track 68 (Fig 1, para 0023) and a second track 68 (Fig 1, para 0023) configured to [support the loader on the ground] (“A track 68 is illustrated on the undercarriage transmission assembly 10 in FIGS. 10, 11 and 12, and as shown, it is mounted over the track tensioning roller 60 and the idler roller 64, and also over a drive sprocket 70.” para 0028),
a pair of rotatable sprockets 70 (Fig 12, para 0028) [wherein each of the sprockets is configured to actuate one of the tracks] (“The drive sprocket 70 on each side of the transmission housing is drivably mounted on an output shaft of a motor assembly 73 that includes gear housing section 72 that is part of the motor assembly 73 and is driven by a respective hydraulic drive motor section 74 of the motor assembly.” para 0028),
a pair of hydraulic motors 73,74 (Fig 11, para 0028) [each being configured to rotate one of the sprockets] (“The drive sprocket 70 on each side of the transmission housing is drivably mounted on an output shaft of a motor assembly 73 that includes gear housing section 72 that is part of the motor assembly 73 and is driven by a respective hydraulic drive motor section 74 of the motor assembly.”, para 0028), wherein each motor 73 (Figs 10 and 11) is connected to one side of the frame 42 (Fig 11, “The hydraulic drive motor sections 74, as can be seen, are on the interior side of the mounting flanges 22, and reinforcement plates 42 so that the motor sections 74 are on the interior of the undercarriage transmission assembly.” para 0028 ) [and at least partially extends outward from the lower portion 42 (Fig 1) of the frame] (“The drive sprocket 70 on each side of the transmission housing is drivably mounted on an output shaft of a motor assembly 73. “ para 0028 -Annotated Kisse Fig 9 showing element 73 extending partially beyond frame element 42-Emphasis Added).
PNG
media_image1.png
782
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kisse Fig 9 shows the motor element 73 extending partially beyond the frame element 42 and is flush to frame element 82.
Additionally, Kisse teaches a cross section of the frame 10 (Fig 12) has a T-shape (Annotated Kisse Fig 7 below shows a general T shape of the frame 10 element).
PNG
media_image2.png
433
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kisse Fig 7 shows the lower frame element 10 having a T-Shape configuration.
Kisse does not explicitly teach wherein each of the tracks has a width of at least 7.5 inches and wherein the compact utility loader has an overall width of no more than 36 inches, or a pair of loader arms configured to raise and lower an attachment, wherein the loader arms are configured to support various interchangeable attachments that are operably connected with front ends of the loader arms; a platform positioned at a rear of the compact utility loader and configured to support an operator standing on the platform while operating the compact utility loader.
Azure (US 20160244937 A1) teaches an equivalent vehicle 2 (Fig 2) that is small (“Loader 2 comprises a small chassis or frame 4 that mounts a pair of driven, ground engaging endless tracks 6 on opposite sides thereof.” para 0024) [wherein a pair of loader arms 14 (Fig 2, para 0027) [configured to raise and lower an attachment 16]), [wherein the loader arms are configured to support various interchangeable attachments that are operably connected with front ends of the loader arms] (“In the embodiment of loader 2 shown herein, the implement comprises a pivotal dump bucket 16 for scooping up dirt, mulch or other materials and for then subsequently dumping the materials at another location, such as into a dump truck. Many other outdoor maintenance or work implements, such as trenchers, augers, chippers, fork lifts, etc., could be interchangeably used on the front end of loader arm assembly 14 in place of dump bucket 16.” para 0026), and the loader arms 14 (Fig 3) are configured for a vertical-lift configuration (Fig 3, para 0028), and a platform 12 (Fig 1)[ positioned at a rear of the compact utility loader and configured to support an operator standing on the platform while operating the compact utility loader] (“Control console 10 is directly in front of a foot platform 12 that allows the operator to ride on loader 2 in a standing position at the rear of loader 2.” para 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the loader arms, platform and overall vehicle width of Azure with the compact loader frame of Kisse with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for easier manipulation and control of the vehicle. By making the overall width of the vehicle less than 36 inches, the vehicle is more compact and can operate in a smaller footprint overall. Additionally, the use of front vertical loading arms and a platform makes it easier for the user to operate the machine and control the loader arms in order to effectively manipulate materials in front of the vehicle.
Additionally, Kisse and Azure disclose the claimed invention except for the width of the tracks are at least 7.5 inches and the overall width is smaller than 36 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the width of the tracks to be greater than 7.5 inches and to have the overall width is less than 36 inches so as to achieve an optimal ground contact coverage between the tracks and the ground (given that the extent/coverage of ground contact is correlated to track width, as a result effective variable – see MPEP 2144.05 – II Routine Optimization) since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, Kisse and Azure fully teaches the frame Kisse-10 (Fig 1) includes a pair of motor housings Kisse-22 (Fig 10, para 0028) [ on either side of the frame Kisse-42 (Fig 11)] (“The motor assembly 73 is shown in position on the motor mounting flange 22 in FIG. 8. The hydraulic drive motor sections 74, as can be seen, are on the interior side of the mounting flanges 22, and reinforcement plates 42 so that the motor sections 74 are on the interior of the undercarriage transmission assembly.” para 0028 ) , and wherein each hydraulic motor Kisse-73 (Fig 10) [is at least partially enclosed within one of the motor housings] (“The hydraulic drive motor sections 74, as can be seen, are on the interior side of the mounting flanges 22, and reinforcement plates 42 so that the motor sections 74 are on the interior of the undercarriage transmission assembly.” (emphasis added) para 0028).
Regarding claim 3, Kisse and Azure fully teaches the frame Kisse-10,80 (Fig 11) [presents an interior compartment Kisse-80 (Fig 11, para 0029) ], wherein said compact utility loader additionally comprises a hydraulic pump Kisse-92 (Fig 11, para 0032) [positioned within the interior compartment] (Fig 11 show the pump being installed and supported in an internal compartment of upper frame element 80, “that suitable hydraulic lines 90 are protected by being on the interior of the side walls 20 of the transmission housing 16 and they are also easily connected to hydraulic connections such as a pump 92, through valves 94. The pump 92 is driven from an engine represented only schematically at 96. The engine 96 provides the power for the track driven machine.”, para 0032) and wherein the hydraulic pump Kisse-92 (Fig 11) is positioned between the hydraulic motors Kisse-73 (Fig 11- shows the hydraulic pump 92 that sits between the hydraulic motors).
Regarding claim 4, Kisse and Azure fully teach said compact utility loader Kisse-86, (Fig 12) additionally comprises an engine Kisse-96 (Fig 11, para 0032) [positioned within the interior compartment rearward of the hydraulic pump] ( Fig 11 shows a schematic where the engine is positioned further back from hydraulic pump but is still contained within the upper frame element 80).
Regarding claim 8, Kisse and Azure fully teach said compact utility loader Kisse-86, (Fig 12) has a cross section of the frame that is a T-shape (See Annotated Kisse Fig 7 above in discussion of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kisse and Azure teach the compact utility loader Kisse-86, (Fig 12) has a lower portion Kisse-10 (fig 12) and an upper portion of the frame Kisse-80 (Fig 12). Kisse and Azure do not teach a ratio of the width of the upper portion of the frame to the lower width of the frame is between 3.5 and 4.5. However, finding the ratio of the width of the upper and lower frames of Kisse/ Azure would be considered routine optimization. In order to design a frame width ratio between 3.5 and 4.5 so that the loader width is smaller and therefore easier to move the loader through tight spaces (given that maneuverability and the overall width of the vehicle is correlated to frame width ratio, as a result effective variable – see MPEP 2144.05 – II Routine Optimization) . Since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific width ratio of the vehicle yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, Kisse and Azure fully teach a pair of track frames Kisse-24 (Figs 10 and 11, para 0023) [extending from either side of the lower portion Kisse-10 (Fig 10) of the frame] (Figs 10 and 11 show the track frames extending from a side of the lower portion 10 of the frame ), wherein the track frames Kisse-24 (Figs 10 and 11) [are welded to the lower portion of the frame] (“Right and left track frame or pods 24 can be welded together as subassemblies… that are welded to the side wall 29 of the inverted channel 26, and which will be welded against the respective transmission housing side wall 20.”. para 0023), and wherein the tracks Kisse-68 (Fig 10) [are supported on the track frames] ( “The track frame or pod 24 on each side of the transmission assembly is provided with a front tensioning roller 60 which is mounted on a suitable spring loaded slide arm 62. A rear idler roller 64 is mounted on the side walls 29 of the track frame channel 26, below cross wall 28.” para 0028).
Regarding claim 11, Kisse and Azure fully teach the tracks Kisse-68 and 24 (Figs 11 and 12) [extend at least partially underneath the upper portion Kisse-80 (Fig 12) of said frame] (Kisse-Fig 12 shows the track being partially underneath the exterior of the upper portion 80 ).
Regarding claim 20, Kisse and Azure fully teach the loader arms are configured in a vertical-lift configuration (See modification of Kisse in view of Azure in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 21, Kisse and Azure fully teach the loader further comprising first and second rear idler wheels Kisse-60,64 (Fig 11 para 0028) engaging the first and second tracks Kisse-68 (Fig 11 para 0028) respectively, wherein the pair of rotatable sprockets 70 (Fig 11) include a first drive sprocket 70 (Fig 11) and [a second drive sprocket 70 (Fig 11) for engaging the first and second tracks 68 (Fig 11) respectively] (“The track frame or pod 24 on each side of the transmission assembly is provided with a front tensioning roller 60 which is mounted on a suitable spring loaded slide arm 62. A rear idler roller 64 is mounted on the side walls 29 of the track frame channel 26, below cross wall 28. The bogie wheels 66 are mounted in the lower mounting slots in side walls 29 of the track frame channel 26. A track 68 is illustrated on the undercarriage transmission assembly 10 in FIGS. 10, 11 and 12, and as shown, it is mounted over the track tensioning roller 60 and the idler roller 64, and also over a drive sprocket 70.” para 0028-the track assembly is the same on both sides of the compact loader machine), [wherein the first drive sprocket 70 (Fig 11) is elevated relative to the first rear idler wheel 64 (Fig 11) and the second drive sprocket 70 (Fig 11) is elevated relative to the second rear idler wheel 60 (Fig 11)] (Fig 11 shows a track system where the drive sprocket 70 is installed at a height greater than the front and rear idler wheels 60 and 64).
Regarding claim 23, Kisse, and Azure teach the compact utility loader with the loader arms at an extended vertical position but do not explicitly teach the arms have a maximum vertical height of at least 80 inches and a maximum horizontal reach of at least 6 inches.. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle so as to achieve a maximum loader arm height of 80 inches and a maximum horizontal reach of 6 inches or more. By adjusting the maximum amount of vertical and horizontal range of the arm loaders, the vehicle is less likely to tip or move due to an imbalance of force applied when the arms are loaded with material at an extended height. (given that the maximum vertical distance and maximum horizontal distance and amount of material applied to the arms correlates to the changing location of the center of gravity of the vehicle as a result effective variable – see MPEP 2144.05 – II Routine Optimization). Additionally, it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 25, Kisse and Azure fully teach [the lateral positions of the tracks 68 (Fig 11) are fixed relative to the frame 10,80 (Fig 11)] (“A track 68 is illustrated on the undercarriage transmission assembly 10 in FIGS. 10, 11 and 12, and as shown, it is mounted over the track tensioning roller 60 and the idler roller 64, and also over a drive sprocket 70.” para 0028- Figure 11 shows the track in a fixed position relative to the lower end of the frame).
Regarding claim 27, Kisse fully teaches each hydraulic motor 73,74 (Fig 9) [includes a driveshaft extending laterally from the frame 42 (Fig 9)] (“The drive sprocket 70 on each side of the transmission housing is drivably mounted on an output shaft of a motor assembly 73 that includes gear housing section 72 that is part of the motor assembly 73 and is driven by a respective hydraulic drive motor section 74 of the motor assembly.” Para 0028);
each sprocket 70 (Fig 9) [is monolithic and includes a circular base and a hub] (Figs 9 and 10 show the sprocket as one piece with teeth surrounding a circular base and hub, “A track 68 is illustrated on the undercarriage transmission assembly 10 in FIGS. 10, 11 and 12, and as shown, it is mounted over the track tensioning roller 60 and the idler roller 64, and also over a drive sprocket 70.” para 0028);
[the base of each sprocket includes a plurality of teeth that engages one of the tracks] (Fig 12 shows the track 68 riding around the sprocket teeth (shown in Fig 10), para 0028); and
[an end of each driveshaft is configured to be secured directly to the hub of one of the sprockets] (“The drive sprocket 70 on each side of the transmission housing is drivably mounted on an output shaft of a motor assembly 73 that includes gear housing section 72 that is part of the motor assembly 73 and is driven by a respective hydraulic drive motor section 74 of the motor assembly.” para 0028).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisse and Azure and Yasuda et al (US 2011/0091307).
Regarding claim 5, Kisse and Azure teach the compact loader with an engine Kisse-96 (Fig 11) inside an interior of the frame Kisse-10,80 (Fig 11).
Kisse and Azure do not teach a flywheel positioned within the interior compartment, and wherein the flywheel is connected to a forward end of the engine.
Yasuda teaches an equivalent vehicle 4 (Fig 2) with a flywheel 104 (Fig 21) [positioned within the interior compartment, and wherein the flywheel is connected to a forward end of the engine 101 (Fig 21, para 0227)] (“As shown in FIGS. 5-8, on a rear side above the bottom wall 6 of the body frame 1, the engine 101 is provided. Specifically, the engine 101 is mounted on the bottom wall 6, the right/left side walls 7 covers lateral sides of the engine 101” para 0124- the engine is installed in an interior of the frame of the vehicle- see also “Referring to FIGS. 21-23, on the rear side above the bottom wall 6 of the body frame 1, the engine 101 is provided. On a front end side of the engine 101, a flywheel 104 is attached.” para 0227).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the flywheel location of Yasuda with the compact loader frame of Kisse and Azure with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a heavy mass to control the vibrations of the engine while in operation. By using the flywheel on the front of the engine, the vibrations of the engine are dampened by the flywheel and the flywheel can behave as an output shaft of the engine.
Regarding claim 6, Kisse/Azure and Yasuda discloses the claimed invention except for the flywheel is positioned between the hydraulic pump and the engine It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to position the pump in front of the flywheel that is attached to the front of the engine since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisse and Azure and Yanmar (Yanmar L series brochure and specifications [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2026 Jan 14]. Available from: https://media.greenmountaingenerators.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/02032645/Yanmar-L-Series-Brochure-and-Specifications.pdf).
Regarding claim 7, Kisse and Azure teach a loader vehicle with an engine 96 (Fig 11).
Kisse and Azure do not explicitly teach wherein the engine is a diesel engine and includes one or more turbos, wherein the engine is rated at less than 30 horsepower, and wherein the engine is configured to propel said compact utility loader to a ground speed of at least 4.8 miles per hour.
Yanmar teaches the engine is a diesel engine (pg 2 , “Since 1969, Yanmar has been producing diesel engines ranging from 4.5 to 10.0 horsepower…”) and includes one or more turbos, wherein [the engine is rated at less than 30 horsepower] (Rated output of the L48N model is 4.7 HP, pg 6 ), and [wherein the engine is configured to propel said compact utility loader to a ground speed of at least 4.8 miles per hour] (the current power output of the L48N series engine is 3600 RPM, See pg 6 of manual).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the engine specifications of Yanmar with the compact loader frame of Kisse and Azure with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a small compact diesel engine that provides enough power output to drive the loader. By using the engine of Yanmar, the engine provides enough output to power the tracks of the vehicle without being oversized for the vehicle.
Additionally, the combination of Kisse/ Azure with the engine of Yanmar would be considered routine optimization to install an engine that outputs enough power to rotate the drive sprockets of the track at 4.8 mph or greater, so as to achieve the optimal power output of the engine (given that the power output of an engine is correlated to the speed output of the drive sprockets as a result effective variable – see MPEP 2144.05 – II Routine Optimization) . Since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed ground speed of the vehicle yields any previously unexpected results.
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisse and Azure in further view of Guhr (US 2006/0120848).
Regarding claim 12, Kisse and Azure teach the compact utility loader Kisse-86 (Fig 12).
Kisse and Azure do not explicitly teach the compact utility loader weighs between 3000 and 3400 pounds, and wherein the tracks are configured to exert a pressure of no more than 4.2 psi onto the ground.
Guhr teaches a prior art skid steer 10 (Fig 1) that is rated up to 3600 pounds (“It should be understood in this art that a standard sized skid steer is one that has a rated operating load up to 3600 pounds.” para 0037)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the skid steer weight specification with the compact loader frame of Kisse and Azure with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have ample weight to prevent tipping due to low weight of the vehicle. By using the skid steer weight that is at maximum 3600 lbs, the force needed to move the vehicle would be less but still sturdy enough to prevent the vehicle from falling or tipping due to low, unbalanced weight.
Additionally, Kisse/Azure and Guhr do not explicitly teach that the maximum weight of the vehicle and subsequent pressure of the tracks on the ground are within a range of 3000 to 3500 lbs and a max ground pressure of 4.2 psi. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle to be within 3000 to 3500 lbs so as to achieve an optimal ground pressure (no more than 4.2 psi) between the track surface and the ground. By adjusting the width of the track and the overall weight of the vehicle, the optimal downward pressure (no more than 4.2 psi) of the tracks can be controlled to prevent undo forces from being applied to the ground and compacting the ground unnecessarily beneath the tracks (given that the max ground pressure is correlated to the track width (also known as the amount of contact area) and overall weight of the vehicle as a result effective variable – see MPEP 2144.05 – II Routine Optimization) . Since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 24, Kisse and Azure teach the compact utility loader of claim 19 but do not explicitly teach the tracks exert a pressure of no more than 4.0 psi on the ground. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle so as to achieve an optimal ground pressure (no more than 4.0 psi) between the track surface and the ground. By adjusting the width of the track and the overall weight of the vehicle, the optimal downward pressure (no more than 4.0 psi) of the tracks can be controlled to prevent undo forces from being applied to the ground and compacting the ground unnecessarily beneath the tracks, (given that the max ground pressure is correlated to the track width (also known as the amount of contact area) and overall weight of the vehicle as a result effective variable – see MPEP 2144.05 – II Routine Optimization). Since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisse and Azure and Buchanan (US 20170233018 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kisse and Azure teach the compact utility vehicle with disc-shaped sprockets Kisse 70 (Fig 11) .
Kisse and Azure do not teach the sprockets each have a conical shape, with a diameter of each sprocket becoming larger as the sprocket extends from outboard to inboard.
Buchanan teaches equivalent sprockets 68,70 (Fig 5, para 0035) each have [a conical shape] (Fig 5 shows the conical shape of the sprockets, see also para 0035 “Each half sprocket 68, 70 can be disc-shaped and include a generally frusto-conical profile with a generally hollow interior space.”) with a diameter of each sprocket 68,70 (Fig 5) [becoming larger as the sprocket extends from outboard to inboard] (Fig 5 shows the sprocket diameter increasing in size as the sprocket extends from outboard to inboard of the vehicle, see Figs 1 and 2). Additionally, Buchanan teaches the sprockets 68,70 (Fig 2) engage with the tracks 130 (Fig 8) at an inboard-most portion of the sprockets (“The endless track 130 is looped around the drive sprocket 66”, para 0040, Fig 8 shows the sprockets engaging with the track element at an inboard (further inwards) of the sprocket design).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the sprocket design of Buchanan with the compact loader vehicle of Kisse and Azure with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a compact sprocket configuration that is axially supported along the conical shape of the sprocket. By using the conical shape of the sprockets inside the track assembly of Kisse and Azure, the sprockets engage the track element and the conical shape of the sprockets provide axial support along the center axis of the sprockets.
Regarding claim 14, Kisse/Azure and Buchanan fully teach the sprockets engage with their respective tracks at an inboard-most portion of the sprockets (See modifications of Kisse/Azure in view of Buchanan in claim 13 above).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisse and Azure in further view of Okamoto (Machine Translation and Original Patent of CN 1817705 A provided in present OA).
Regarding Claim 15, Kisse and Azure teach a compact utility vehicle Kisse-86 (Fig 12) with a track system 68 (Fig 11) and a drive sprocket Kisse-70 (Fig 11) .
Kisse and Azure do not teach at least one stop element configured to extend from the frame into selective engagement with one of the sprockets to inhibit rotation of the sprocket.
Okamoto teaches at least one stop element 74 (Fig 41) configured to extend from the frame [into selective engagement with one of the sprockets 11 (Fig 3) to inhibit rotation of the sprocket] (“A brake mechanism 74 is formed in the vicinity of the output shaft 102, and braking of the output shaft 102 is performed by the brake mechanism 74. The output shaft 102 is connected to the sun gear that drives the drive sprocket 11 via the transmission shaft 45. By stopping the output shaft 102, the drive of the drive sprocket 11 can be stopped and braking can be performed.” pg 8 para 6 ). Okamoto teaches the stop element 74 (Fig 41) [behaves as a brake mechanism to prevent actuation of the tacks and movement of the vehicle] (“By stopping the output shaft 102, the drive of the drive sprocket 11 can be stopped and braking can be performed.” pg 8 para 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the stop element of Okamoto with the compact loader vehicle of Kisse and Azure with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a mechanical means to stop rotation of the sprocket. By using the stop element inside the track assembly of Kisse and Azure, the sprockets engage the stop element and prevent rotation via a physical connection between the sprocket and the stop mechanism.
Regarding claim 16, Kisse/Azure and Okamoto fully teach the stop element of claim 15 wherein the stop element functions as a brake to prevents actuation of the tracks and movement of said compact utility loader (See modifications of Kisse and Azure in claim 15 above).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisse and Azure in further view of Kisse et al (US 20100107453 A1) (Hereinafter “Kisse-Two”).
Regarding claim 17, Kisse and Azure teach a compact utility loader 86 (Fig 12) of claim 1.
Kisse and Azure do not explicitly teach a center of gravity of said compact utility loader is positioned rearward of a midpoint of a length of said compact utility loader.
Kisse-Two teaches a center of gravity 220 (Fig 3 para 0023) of said compact utility loader (Fig 1) with a distal end (42 Fig 1, “An accessible engine compartment is located toward the distal end 42 of the power machine 10.” para 0016) [is positioned rearward of a midpoint of a length of said compact utility loader] (“An accessible engine compartment is located toward the distal end 42 of the power machine 10.” Para 0016 and “The power system 200 has a center of gravity 220. The center of gravity 220 is illustratively the center point of the mass of the power system 200, including the engine 206 and the transmission system 208.” Para 0023- thus making the center of gravity of the vehicle further back (towards the distal end) of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the center of gravity of Kisse-Two with the compact loader vehicle of Kisse and Azure with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide an opportunity to balance the vehicle while a load is applied to the front of the vehicle. By using the center of gravity of Kisse-Two with the vehicle of Kisse and Azure, the center of gravity can compensate for a working load applied to the front of the vehicle and prevent tipping of the vehicle while in operation.
Regarding claim 18, Kisse/Azure and Kisse-Two do not explicitly teach a first distance is present between a front of said compact utility loader and the center of gravity and a second distance is present between a rear of the compact utility loader and the center of gravity, wherein a ratio of the first distance with respect to the second distance is between 60:40 to 70:30. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle to achieve a ratio of the distance between the center of gravity and the front and rear ends of the vehicle to be 60:40 to 70:30, in order to account for excess loading on the front of the vehicle while in operation and prevent tipping or unbalancing of the vehicle. Since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges for the center of gravity until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisse and Azure in further view of Brandt (US 6,785,596).
Regarding Claim 22, Kisse and Azure teach the compact utility loader of claim 1 Kisse-86 (Fig 12).
Kisse and Azure do not teach a control interface through which a passcode is entered to start the compact utility loader without using a physical key.
Brandt teaches a control interface 52 (Fig 2) [through which a passcode is entered to start the compact utility loader without using a physical key] (“…controller 52 implements a number of password features. In one embodiment, when the password protection is enabled, proper passwords must be entered to start the engine as well as enabling other loader features, such as traction drive and hydraulic lift and tilt cylinders” Col 12 lines 65- col 13 line 2 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the control interface and password management of Brandt with the compact loader vehicle of Kisse and Azure with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for settings and additional security to modify and bypass different controls to operate the vehicle. By including only a passcode to operate the vehicle, there is improved security of the vehicle by not having a physical key to override operations of the vehicle.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisse and Azure and Yanmar (Yanmar L series brochure and specifications [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2026 Jan 14]. Available from: https://media.greenmountaingenerators.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/02032645/Yanmar-L-Series-Brochure-and-Specifications.pdf) in further view of Guhr (US 2006/0120848).
Regarding claim 26, Kisse and Azure teach a compact utility loader Kisse-86 (Fig 1) further comprising first and second rear idler wheels Kisse-60,64 (Fig 11 para 0028) engaging the first and second tracks Kisse-68 (Fig 11 para 0028) respectively, wherein the pair of rotatable sprockets 70 (Fig 11) include a first drive sprocket 70 (Fig 11) and [a second drive sprocket 70 (Fig 11) for engaging the first and second tracks 68 (Fig 11) respectively] (“The track frame or pod 24 on each side of the transmission assembly is provided with a front tensioning roller 60 which is mounted on a suitable spring loaded slide arm 62. A rear idler roller 64 is mounted on the side walls 29 of the track frame channel 26, below cross wall 28. The bogie wheels 66 are mounted in the lower mounting slots in side walls 29 of the track frame channel 26. A track 68 is illustrated on the undercarriage transmission assembly 10 in FIGS. 10, 11 and 12, and as shown, it is mounted over the track tensioning roller 60 and the idler roller 64, and also over a drive sprocket 70.” para 0028-the track assembly is the same on both sides of the compact loader machine), [wherein the first drive sprocket 70 (Fig 11) is elevated relative to the first rear idler wheel 64 (Fig 11) and the second drive sprocket 70 (Fig 11) is elevated relative to the second rear idler wheel 60 (Fig 11)] (Fig 11 shows a track system where the drive sprocket 70 is installed at a height greater than the front and rear idler wheels 60 and 64).
Kisse and Azure do not teach a diesel engine with less than 25 horsepower for powering the compact utility loader, wherein the diesel engine incorporates a turbo, wherein the diesel engine is configured to propel the compact utility loader to a ground speed of at least 4.8 miles per hour, nor a pair of loader arms configured to raise and lower an attachment, wherein the loader arms have a maximum vertical height of at least 80 inches, wherein the tracks exert a pressure of not more than 4.0 psi on the ground.
Yanmar teaches the engine is a diesel engine (pg 2 , “Since 1969, Yanmar has been producing diesel engines ranging from 4.5 to 10.0 horsepower…”) and includes one or more turbos, wherein [the engine is rated at less than 25 horsepower] (Rated output of the L48N model is 4.7 HP, pg 6 ), and [wherein the engine is configured to propel said compact utility loader to a ground speed of at least 4.8 miles per hour] (the current power output of the L48N series engine is 3600 RPM, See pg 6 of manual).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the engine specifications of Yanmar with the compact loader frame of Kisse and Azure with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a small compact diesel engine that provides enough power output to drive the loader. By using the engine of Yanmar, the engine provides enough output to power the tracks of the vehicle without being oversized for the vehicle.
Additionally, the combination of Kisse/ Azure with the engine of Yanmar would be considered routine optimization to install an engine that outputs enough power to rotate the drive sprockets of the track at 4.8 mph or greater, so as to achieve the optimal power output of the engine (given that the power output of an engine is correlated to the speed output of the drive sprockets as a result effective variable – see MPEP 2144.05 – II Routine Optimization). Since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed ground speed of the vehicle yields any previously unexpected results.
Additionally, Kisse/Azure and Yanmar teach the compact utility loader with the loader arms at an extended vertical position but do not explicitly teach the arms have a maximum vertical height of at least 80 inches and a maximum horizontal reach of at least 6 inches. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle so as to achieve a maximum loader arm height of 80 inches and a maximum horizontal reach of 6 inches or more. By adjusting the maximum amount of vertical and horizontal range of the arm loaders, the vehicle is less likely to tip or move due to an imbalance of force applied when the arms are loaded with material at an extended height (given that the maximum vertical distance and maximum horizontal distance and amount of material applied to the arms correlates to the changing location of the center of gravity of the vehicle as a result effective variable – see MPEP 2144.05 – II Routine Optimization). Additionally, it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Additionally, Kisse/Azure and Yanmar do not teach the tracks exert a pressure of no more than 4.0 psi on the ground. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle so as to achieve an optimal ground pressure (no more than 4.0 psi) between the track surface and the ground. By adjusting the width of the track and the overall weight of the vehicle, the optimal downward pressure (no more than 4.0 psi) of the tracks can be controlled to prevent undo forces from being applied to the ground and compacting the ground unnecessarily beneath the tracks (given that the max ground pressure is correlated to the track width (also known as the amount of contact area) and overall weight of the vehicle as a result effective variable – see MPEP 2144.05 – II Routine Optimization). . Since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
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 MORGAN M KNAUF whose telephone number is (703)756-4532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -4:30 PM.
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.
/M.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights