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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “when the loader arm is at least in the fully lowered position, an uppermost portion of the loader arm is above at least the third pivot connection at a vertical line passing through the third pivot axis” (emphasis added) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “41” and “43.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 57, the limitations “routing channel” and “hydraulic hoses” lack antecedence in the Specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ground engaging traction drive system” in claims 18 and 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 28-36 are 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 28 is indefinite for the limitation “a linkage arrangement including one or more members pivotally connected to the frame at a second pivot connection and a third pivot connection” (emphasis added). The phrase “one or more members” is an open-ended range which results in the limitation claiming an infinite number of members pivotally connected to the frame at second and third pivot connections. The limitation is further indefinite in that it includes the scope of one member pivotally connected to the frame at second and third pivot connections. It is unclear to the Examiner how a member can be pivotally connected to the frame at a second pivot connection and a third pivot connection.
Claim 28 is indefinite for the limitation “when the loader arm is at least in the fully lowered position, an uppermost portion of the loader arm is above at least the third pivot connection at a vertical line passing through the third pivot axis” (emphasis added). As understood by the Examiner, the “uppermost portion” of the loader arm is not above at least the third pivot connection at a vertical line passing through the third pivot axis (emphasis added, see annotated Fig. 2). Thus, the limitation is unclear to the Examiner.
Claim 31 is indefinite for the limitation “the linkage arrangement includes a first connecting arm and a second connecting arm.” As understood by the Examiner, the “or more members” of previously claimed “one or more members” in parent Claim 28 encompass at least one of disclosed first and/or second connecting arms. Thus, it is unclear to the Examiner if Applicant’s intent is to claim one or more members, and first and second connecting arms, or if Applicant’s intent is to claim that the “one or more members” comprises first and second connecting arms. To maintain compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret as the latter.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 18-25 and 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derruppe (US 3,209,930) in view of Azure (US 2008/0197588).
Derruppe discloses;
Claim 18. A compact utility loader (Fig. 3), which comprises:
a) a frame (3) carrying a prime mover (implicitly disclosed);
b) a powered, ground engaging traction drive system (illustrated wheels) carried by the frame to self-propel the frame;
c) a control console (region on machine with controls) with controls (implicitly) that are manipulated to operate the loader;
d) a linkage assembly (2, 4, and 5) having a front end configured to carry an outdoor work operation tool (1), the linkage assembly including a first member (4), a second member (5), and a third member (2) operably connected together, the linkage assembly having a first pivotal connection (8) to the frame, a second pivotal connection (7) to the frame, and a third pivotal connection (9 and 10) operably connecting the first and second members, wherein the first and second pivotal connection locations are proximate an end of the frame;
e) an actuator (6) for lifting and lowering the linkage assembly relative to the frame; and
f) wherein at least two (4 and 5) of the first, second, and third members are substantially parallel to one another, over fore-and-aft lengths, throughout their entire range of motion (Col. 1-2 and Fig. 3).
Claim 19. The loader of claim 18, wherein the first pivotal connection is located further rearward relative to the frame than the second pivotal connection.
Claim 20. The loader of claim 18, wherein a rearward pivot axis (axis of 9) of the first
Claim 21. The loader of claim 18, wherein the first and second pivotal connections and rearward pivot axes of the first and second members are positioned over the ground engaging traction drive system in a lowered position of the third member, remain over (see note below) the ground engaging traction drive system as the third member moves between the lowered position and a raised position thereof, and remain over the ground engaging traction drive system in the raised position of the third member (Fig. 3).
Note: The term “over” has a broad range of definitions, including “above or higher than something” (Cambridge online dictionary).
Claim 22. The loader of claim 21, wherein the actuator has a first end that pivots about a first pivot axis that is fixed relative to the frame (illustrated in Fig. 3) and a second end that pivots about a second pivot axis that is fixed relative to the third member but is movable relative to the frame (illustrated in Fig. 3), the actuator being extendable and collapsible so that the distance between the first and second pivot axes changes as the actuator lifts and lowers the third member, and wherein the first and second pivot axes of the actuator are also positioned over the ground engaging traction drive system in the lowered position of the third member, remain over the ground engaging traction drive system as the third member moves between the lowered and raised positions thereof, and remain over the ground engaging traction drive system in the raised position of the third member (Fig. 3).
Claim 24. The loader of claim 18, wherein the third member, the actuator, and the first and second members are provided in duplicate, laterally spaced sets, each set of third members, actuators, and first and second members being located along opposite sides of the frame with the outdoor work operation tool being conjointly carried on front ends of the third member (Col. 2, Ln. 22-23, and Fig. 3).
Claim 25. The loader of claim 24, further comprising:
a) the outdoor work operation tool carried on the front end of the third members ahead of a front end of the frame (Fig. 3).
Derruppe does not recite;
Claim 18. The control console is at a rear end of the frame carrying controls.
Claim 19. The loader of claim 18, wherein the first pivotal connection is located higher relative to the frame than the second pivotal connection.
Claim 21. The drive system includes an endless track having a lower ground engaging track run.
However, Azure discloses a compact loader (100) having a control console (126) and controls (128 and 130), and further teaches;
Claim 18. The control console is at a rear end of the frame (Par. 0032 and Fig. 3).
Claim 23. The loader of claim 18, further including a rear foot platform (200) carried on a rear end of the frame for permitting the controls to be accessible from behind by an operator who stands on the rear foot platform (Par. 0027 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, in view of Azure’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Derruppe’s disclosure to include the cited teachings of Azure with a reasonable expectation of success so an operator can either ride on or walk behind the compact loader.
Claim 19. Regarding the limitation the first pivotal connection is located higher relative to the frame than the second pivotal connection, Applicant has not disclosed criticality for this limitation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have positioned the first pivotal connection higher than the second pivotal connection to adjust the motion path of the outdoor work operation tool, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 28 (as best understood by the Examiner). A compact utility loader, which comprises:
a) a frame (3) carrying a prime mover (implicitly disclosed);
b) a powered, ground engaging traction drive system (illustrated wheels) carried by the frame to self-propel the frame;
c) a control console (region on machine with controls) frame carrying controls (implicitly disclosed) that are manipulated to operate the loader;
d) a loader arm (2) having a front end (end proximate to 1) and a rear end (end distal to 1), the front end being configured to carry an outdoor work operation tool (1), the loader arm being movable between a fully lowered position and a fully raised position;
e) an actuator (6) for lifting and lowering the loader arm relative to the frame, the actuator being pivotally connected to the frame at a first pivot connection (illustrated in Fig. 3); and
f) a linkage arrangement including one or more members (4 and 5) pivotally connected to the frame at a second pivot connection (8) and a third pivot connection (7) forward of the second pivot connection, the linkage arrangement being configured such that a first pivot axis of the first pivot connection is forward of one or both of a second pivot axis of the second pivot connection and a third pivot axis of the third pivot connection, the linkage arrangement being pivotally connected to the loader arm and being configured such that, when the loader arm is in the fully raised position, the rear end of the loader arm is raised and forward in comparison to when in the fully lowered position (illustrated in Fig. 3) and such that, when the loader arm is at least in the fully lowered position, an uppermost portion of the loader arm is above at least the third pivot connection at a vertical line passing through the third pivot axis (Col. 1-2 and Fig. 3).
Claim 31. The compact utility loader of claim 28, wherein the one or more members of the linkage arrangement are a first connecting arm (5) and a second connecting arm (4) (Col. 1 and Fig. 3).
Claim 32. The compact utility loader of claim 31, wherein each of the first and second connecting arms is pivotally connected to the loader arm and is pivotally connected to the frame (Fig. 3).
Claim 33. The compact utility loader of claim 32, wherein the first connecting arm is pivotally connected to the loader arm at a first loader arm pivot location (9), wherein the second connecting arm is connected to the loader arm at a second loader arm pivot location (10), and wherein the actuator is connected to the loader arm at a third loader arm pivot location (illustrated in Fig. 3) (Col. 2 and Fig. 3).
Claim 34. The compact utility loader of claim 33, wherein the first and second loader arm pivot locations are separated from each other by a distance that is less than a distance between the first and third loader arm pivot locations and that is less than a distance between the second and third loader arm pivot locations (illustrated in Fig. 3).
Derruppe does not recite;
Claim 28. The control console is at a rear end of the frame carrying controls.
Claim 29. The compact utility loader of claim 28, wherein the rear end of the loader arm is forward of at least a portion of the control console in both the fully lowered position and the fully raised position.
Claim 30. The compact utility loader of claim 28, wherein the rear end of the loader arm is vertically below a height of at least a portion of the control console in both the fully lowered position and the fully raised position.
However, Azure discloses a compact loader (100) having a control console (126) and controls (128 and 130), and further teaches;
Claim 29. The compact utility loader of claim 28, wherein the rear end of the loader arm is forward of at least a portion of the control console in both the fully lowered position and the fully raised position (Fig. 3).
Claim 30. The compact utility loader of claim 28, wherein the rear end of the loader arm is vertically below a height of at least a portion of the control console in both the fully lowered position and the fully raised position (Fig. 3).
Therefore, in view of Azure’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Derruppe’s disclosure to include the cited teachings of Azure with a reasonable expectation of success so as to maintain as low of a center of gravity as possible.
Claims 37-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azure in view of Derruppe.
Azure discloses;
Claim 37. A compact utility loader comprising:
a) a frame (102);
b) a rear standing platform (200) supported by the frame;
c) a differential drive and steering system (114) including a pair of traction members (left and right 116) located on opposite sides of the frame;
d) a linkage assembly (108, 110, and 112) operably coupled to the frame and carrying an implement (132), the linkage assembly being configured to substantially maintain a forward reach of the implement between uppermost and lowermost positions of the implement, the linkage assembly including:
i) a loader arm (110);
iv) an actuator (112) connected to the loader arm at a third pivot connection (annotated Fig. 3) having a third pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame,
e) a control console (annotated Fig. 3) for operating the linkage assembly and the differential drive and steering system (Par. 0023-0032 and Fig. 3-4).
Claim 38. The compact utility loader of claim 37, wherein the third pivot axis is below a height (upper-most height) of the control console in the lowermost position of the implement and is above a height (lower-most height) of the control console in the uppermost position of the implement (annotated Fig. 3).
Claim 39. The compact utility loader of claim 37, wherein the third pivot axis, in both the lowermost and uppermost positions of the implement, is located between first and second upward projections defined by first and second ends of the pair of traction members (Fig. 3).
Claim 40. The compact utility loader of claim 37, wherein a rear end of the loader arm, in both the lowermost and uppermost positions of the implement, is located below a height (upper-most height) of the control console (annotated Fig. 3).
Claim 43. A compact utility loader comprising:
a) a frame (102);
b) a rear standing platform (200) supported by the frame;
c) a differential drive and steering system (114) including a pair of traction members (left and right 116) located on opposite sides of the frame;
d) a linkage assembly (108, 110, and 112) operably coupled to the frame and carrying an implement (132), the linkage assembly being configured to substantially maintain a forward reach of the implement between uppermost and lowermost positions of the implement, the linkage assembly including:
i) a loader arm (110); and
iv) an actuator (112) connected to the loader arm at a third pivot connection (annotated Fig. 3) having a third pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame;
v) wherein at least two of the first connecting arm, the second connecting arm, and the actuator are pivotally connected to the frame between spaced-apart sidewall structures () of the frame; and
e) a control console (annotated Fig. 3) for operating the linkage assembly and the differential drive and steering system;
f) wherein the third pivot axis, in both the lowermost and uppermost positions of the implement, is located between first and second upward projections defined by first and second ends of the pair of traction members (Par. 0023-0032 and Fig. 3-4).
Claim 44. The compact utility loader of claim 43, wherein the first end is defined as the most forward portion of the traction members and the second end is defined as the most rearward portion of the traction members (Fig. 3).
Claim 45. The compact utility loader of claim 43, wherein the first end is defined as the most forward ground-engaging portion of the traction members and the second end is defined as the most rearward ground-engaging portion of the traction members (Fig. 3).
Claim 46. The compact utility loader of claim 43, wherein the traction members further comprise a track (116) and wheels (118), and wherein the first end is defined as the most forward point of the most forward wheel and the second end is the most rearward point of the most rearward wheel ().
Claim 47. The compact utility loader of claim 43, wherein the traction members further comprise a track and wheels (116 and 118), and wherein the first end is defined as the axis of the most forward wheel and the second end is defined as the axis of the most rearward wheel (Fig. 3).
Claim 48. The compact utility loader of claim 43, wherein a rear end of the loader arm, in both the lowermost and uppermost positions of the implement, is located below a height (upper-most height) of the control console (annotated Fig. 3).
Claim 51. A compact utility loader comprising:
a) a frame (102) supporting a prime mover (104);
b) a rear standing platform (200) located rearwardly from the prime mover and being supported by the frame;
c) a differential drive and steering system (114) including a pair of traction members (left and right 116) located on opposite sides of the frame;
d) a pair of linkage assemblies (108, 110, and 112) operably coupled to the frame and carrying an implement (132), the pair of linkage assemblies being configured to substantially maintain a forward reach of the implement between uppermost and lowermost positions of the implement, each of the pair of linkage assemblies including:
i) a loader arm (110);
iv) an actuator (112) connected to the loader arm at a third pivot connection (annotated Fig. 3) having a third pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame;
v) wherein rearmost ends of the loader arms are free of any cross members extending laterally between the loader arms that would otherwise prevent the pair of linkage assemblies from nesting around the prime mover when the linkage assembly is in the lowermost position; and
e) a control console (annotated Fig. 3) for operating the linkage assembly and the differential drive and steering system (Par. 0023-0032 and Fig. 3-4).
Claim 53. The compact utility loader of claim 51, wherein the third pivot axis, in both the lowermost and uppermost positions of the implement, is located between first and second upward projections defined by first and second ends of the pair of traction members (Fig. 3).
Claim 54. The compact utility loader of claim 51, wherein a rear end of the loader arm, in both the lowermost and uppermost positions of the implement, is located below a height (upper-most height) of the control console (annotated Fig. 3).
Azure does not recite;
Claim 37. ii) a first connecting arm pivotally connected to the loader arm at a first pivot connection () having a first pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame;
iii) a second connecting arm pivotally connected to the loader arm at a second pivot connection having a second pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame, the second pivot connection being laterally offset from the first pivot connection; and
iv) an actuator connected to the loader arm at a third pivot connection having a third pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame, the third pivot connection being laterally offset from at least one of the first and second pivot connections; and
Claim 41. The compact utility loader of claim 37, wherein the first pivot axis, in both the lowermost and uppermost positions of the implement, is located below a height of the control console.
Claim 42. The compact utility loader of claim 37, wherein the first pivot axis moves along a travel path from the lowermost position to the uppermost position of the implement, wherein at least a portion of the travel path includes a forward and upward motion.
Claim 43. ii) a first connecting arm pivotally connected to the loader arm at a first pivot connection () having a first pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame;
iii) a second connecting arm pivotally connected to the loader arm at a second pivot connection () having a second pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame;
Claim 49. The compact utility loader of claim 43, wherein the first pivot axis, in both the lowermost and uppermost positions of the implement, is located below a height of the control console.
Claim 50. The compact utility loader of claim 43, wherein the first pivot axis moves along a travel path from the lowermost position to the uppermost position of the implement, wherein at least a portion of the travel path includes a forward and upward motion.
Claim 51. ii) a first connecting arm pivotally connected to the loader arm at a first pivot connection () having a first pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame;
iii) a second connecting arm pivotally connected to the loader arm at a second pivot connection having a second pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame; and
iv) the third pivot axis is located forwardly of the first pivot axis and the second pivot axis;
Claim 52. The compact utility loader of claim 51, wherein the second pivot connection is laterally offset from the first pivot connection and the third pivot connection is laterally offset from at least one of the first and second pivot connections.
Claim 55. The compact utility loader of claim 51, wherein the first pivot axis, in both the lowermost and uppermost positions of the implement, is located below a height of the control console.
Claim 56. The compact utility loader of claim 51, wherein the first pivot axis moves along a travel path from the lowermost position to the uppermost position of the implement, wherein at least a portion of the travel path includes a forward and upward motion.
However, Derruppe discloses a compact utility loader comprising: a frame (3), a pair of traction members (illustrated wheels) located on opposite sides of the frame, a linkage assembly (2, 4, 5, and 6) operably coupled to the frame and carrying an implement (1), a control console (structure in front of driver’s seat supporting lower end of illustrated steering wheel and implicitly disclosed controls), an actuator (6) connected to the loader arm at a third pivot connection (illustrated in Fig. 3), and further teaches that the linkage assembly includes;
Claim 37. ii) a first connecting arm (5) pivotally connected to the loader arm at a first pivot connection (10) having a first pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame;
iii) a second connecting arm (4) pivotally connected to the loader arm at a second pivot connection (9) having a second pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame, the second pivot connection being laterally offset from the first pivot connection; and
iv) the actuator third pivot connection being laterally offset from at least one of the first and second pivot connections (Col. 1-2 and Fig. 3).
Claim 42. The compact utility loader of claim 37, wherein the first pivot axis moves along a travel path from the lowermost position to the uppermost position of the implement, wherein at least a portion of the travel path includes a forward and upward motion (Fig. 3).
Claim 43. ii) a first connecting arm (5) pivotally connected to the loader arm at a first pivot connection (10) having a first pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame;
iii) a second connecting arm (4) pivotally connected to the loader arm at a second pivot connection (9) having a second pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame (Col. 1-2 and Fig. 3).
Claim 50. The compact utility loader of claim 43, wherein the first pivot axis moves along a travel path from the lowermost position to the uppermost position of the implement, wherein at least a portion of the travel path includes a forward and upward motion (Fig. 3).
Claim 51. ii) a first connecting arm (5) pivotally connected to the loader arm at a first pivot connection (10) having a first pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame;
iii) a second connecting arm (4) pivotally connected to the loader arm at a second pivot connection (9) having a second pivot axis and pivotally connected to the frame; and
iv) the third pivot axis is located forwardly of the first pivot axis and the second pivot axis (Col. 1-2 and Fig. 3).
Claim 52. The compact utility loader of claim 51, wherein the second pivot connection is laterally offset from the first pivot connection and the third pivot connection is laterally offset from at least one of the first and second pivot connections (Fig. 3).
Claim 56. The compact utility loader of claim 51, wherein the first pivot axis moves along a travel path from the lowermost position to the uppermost position of the implement, wherein at least a portion of the travel path includes a forward and upward motion (Fig. 3).
Therefore, in view of Derruppe’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Azure’s disclosure to include the cited teachings of Derruppe with a reasonable expectation of success so as to obtain a flatter curve of the tool trajectory (Col. 1, Ln. 28-30, and Fig. 3).
Claims 41, 49, and 55. Regarding the limitation the first pivot axis, in both the lowermost and uppermost positions of the implement, is located below a height of the control console, Applicant has not disclosed criticality for this limitation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have positioned the first pivot axis to be below a height of the control console in both the lowermost and uppermost positions of the implement to make the compact utility loader center of gravity as low as possible to increase stability, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 26-27 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derruppe in view of Azure, and further in view of Dorkins (US 2,774,496).
Derruppe discloses;
Claims 26 and 35. The traction drive system includes a front drive system axis and a rear drive system axis (implicitly disclosed in that front and rear wheels clearly have respective axes, Fig. 3).
Claims 27 and 36. The compact utility loader of claim 26, wherein the actuator has a first end that pivots about a first pivot axis that is fixed relative to the frame (illustrated in Fig. 3) and a second end that pivots about a second pivot axis that is fixed relative to the third member but is movable relative to the frame (illustrated in Fig. 3), the actuator being extendable and collapsible so that the distance between the first and second pivot axes changes as the actuator lifts and lowers the third member (Fig. 3).
Derruppe is silent to;
Claim 26. The first and second pivotal connections and rearward pivot axes associated with the first and second members are longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes in a fully lowered position, remain longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes as the third member moves between the fully lowered position and a fully raised position thereof, and remain longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes in the fully raised position.
Claim 27. The first and second pivot axes of the actuator are also longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes in the fully lowered position, remain longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes as third member moves between the fully lowered and the fully raised positions thereof, and remain longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes in the fully raised position.
Claim 35. The forward and rearward pivot axes of the linkage arrangement are longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes in the fully lowered position, remain longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes as the loader arm moves between the fully lowered position and the fully raised positions thereof, and remain longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes in the fully raised position.
Claim 36. The first and second fourth pivot axes of the actuator are also positioned longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes in the fully lowered position, remain longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes as the loader arm moves between the fully lowered position and the fully raised positions thereof, and remain longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes in the fully raised position.
However, Dorkins discloses a utility loader comprising a frame (6), a ground engaging traction drive system (2 and 3) having respective front and rear drive system axes (illustrated in Fig. 3-4), a linkage assembly (16, 24, and 26) having a front end configured to carry an outdoor work operation tool (41), the linkage assembly including a first member (16), a second member (24), and a third member (26) operably connected together, the linkage assembly having a first pivotal connection (17) to the frame, a second pivotal connection (25) to the frame, and a third pivotal connection (axis of 19 and 23) operably connecting the first and second members, and an actuator (42) for lifting and lowering the linkage assembly relative to the frame (Col. 1-3 and Fig. 3-4), and further teaches;
Claim 26. The first and second pivotal connections and rearward pivot axes associated with the first and second members are longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes in a fully lowered position (Fig. 2), remain longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes as the third member moves between the fully lowered position and a fully raised position thereof (Fig. 3), and remain longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes in the fully raised position (Fig. 4).
Claim 27. The first and second pivot axes of the actuator are also longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes in the fully lowered position (Fig. 2), remain longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes as third member moves between the fully lowered and the fully raised positions thereof (Fig. 3), and remain longitudinally positioned between the front and rear drive system axes in the fully raised position (Fig. 4).
Therefore, in view of Dorkins’ teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Derruppe’s disclosure to include the cited teachings of Dorkins with a reasonable expectation of success so that “the rear ends of the lift arms are pivotally mounted and supported by pairs of connected links and levers which cooperate with the arms in moving the rear end pivots thereof rearwardly during initial lifting of the bucket and then forwardly during the remaining lifting to its ultimate height” (Col. 1, Ln. 30-35).
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azure in view of Derruppe, and further in view of Takemura et al. (US 2018/0340314).
Azure is silent to;
Claim 57. The compact utility loader of claim 51, wherein the loader arm defines a routing channel within which hydraulic hoses are routed to the implement.
However, Takemura discloses a utility loader (1) having loader arms (10) and an implement (11), and further teaches the loader arm defines a routing channel (617) within which hydraulic hoses (623 and 626) are routed to the implement (Par. 0096 and 0107, and Fig. 4 and 9).
Therefore, in view of Takemura’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Azure’s disclosure to include the cited teachings of Takemura with a reasonable expectation of success to protect the hydraulic hoses from falling debris.
With respect to the limitations that have been cited as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the structures cited in the art of record as disclosing or teaching these limitations are either structurally similar to the respective structure in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure or perform the same claimed function.
PNG
media_image2.png
716
1056
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 18 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,702,815. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the cited claims.
Claims 18-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,702,815 in view of Derruppe. All limitations of examined Claims 18-25 are anticipated by Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,702,815 accept “at least two of the first, second, and third members are substantially parallel to one another, over fore-and-aft lengths throughout their entire range of motion.”
However, Derruppe discloses a utility loader having a linkage assembly (2, 4, and 5) comprised of first (4), second (5), and third (2) members, and further teaches at least two (4 and 5) of the first, second, and third members are substantially parallel to one another, over fore-and-aft lengths throughout their entire range of motion (Fig. 3).
Therefore, in view of Derruppe’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the limitations of Claim 1 to include the cited teachings of Derruppe with a reasonable expectation of success so as to obtain a flatter curve of the tool trajectory (Col. 1, Ln. 28-30, and Fig. 3).
Claims 37 and 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over respective Claims 7 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,255,068. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the cited claims.
Claim 51 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,255,068 in view of Derruppe. All limitations of examined Claim 51 are anticipated by Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,702,815 accept “rearmost ends of the loader arms are free of any cross members extending laterally between the loader arms that would otherwise prevent the pair of linkage assemblies from nesting around the prime mover when the linkage assembly is in the lowermost position.”
However, Azure discloses a utility loader having a pair of loader arms (110), and further teaches rearmost ends of the loader arms are free of any cross members extending laterally between the loader arms that would otherwise prevent the pair of linkage assemblies from nesting around the prime mover when the linkage assembly is in the lowermost position. (Fig. 1-2).
Therefore, in view of Azure’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the limitations of Claim 7 to include the cited teachings of Azure with a reasonable expectation of success so as to maintain as low of a center of gravity as possible.
Claims 37 and 43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over respective Claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,111,645. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the cited claims.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,597,843. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the cited claims.
Claims 18-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,597,843 in view of Derruppe. All limitations of examined Claims 18-23 are anticipated by Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,597,843 accept “at least two of the first, second, and third members are substantially parallel to one another, over fore-and-aft lengths throughout their entire range of motion.”
However, Derruppe discloses a utility loader having a linkage assembly (2, 4, and 5) comprised of first (4), second (5), and third (2) members, and further teaches at least two (4 and 5) of the first, second, and third members are substantially parallel to one another, over fore-and-aft lengths throughout their entire range of motion (Fig. 3).
Therefore, in view of Derruppe’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the limitations of Claim 1 to include the cited teachings of Derruppe with a reasonable expectation of success so as to obtain a flatter curve of the tool trajectory (Col. 1, Ln. 28-30, and Fig. 3).
Claims 28 and 31-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,221,540 in view of Derruppe. All limitations of examined Claims 28 and 31-33 are anticipated by Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,221,540 accept “when the loader arm is in the fully raised position, the rear end of the loader arm is raised and forward in comparison to when in the fully lowered position and such that, when the loader arm is at least in the fully lowered position, an uppermost portion of the loader arm is above at least the third pivot connection at a vertical line passing through the third pivot axis.”
However, Derruppe discloses a utility loader having a linkage assembly (2, 4, and 5) comprised of first (4), second (5), and third (2) members, and further teaches when the loader arm is in the fully raised position, the rear end of the loader arm is raised and forward in comparison to when in the fully lowered position and such that, when the loader arm is at least in the fully lowered position, an uppermost portion of the loader arm is above at least the third pivot connection at a vertical line passing through the third pivot axis (Fig. 3).
Therefore, in view of Derruppe’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the limitations of Claim 6 to include the cited teachings of Derruppe with a reasonable expectation of success so as to obtain a flatter curve of the tool trajectory (Col. 1, Ln. 28-30, and Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD P JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-8311. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/RONALD P JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights