DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 and 7-20 are pending and claims 2,3,7-10 and 14-20 are withdrawn, and claims 4-6 have been cancelled.
This is in response to the amendment filed 2/4/2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Since applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds for rejection, this action has been made Final.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 2,3,7-10 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/20/2025.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the prior objection.
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 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 3770076) in view of Furukawa (CA 296020C).
Regarding claim 1, Ward et al. disclose a work machine (c.1,ln.55-58) comprising: a frame (25) configured to house a plurality of components of the work machine, wherein the frame extends longitudinally from a rear end (left end, see Fig. 3) to a front end (right end see Fig. 3); and
a hydraulic system (see Fig. 1) configured to provide hydraulic power to one or more hydraulically- powered components of the work machine, wherein the hydraulic system includes – a primary tank (5) configured to hold hydraulic fluid,
a hydraulic pump and/or a hydrostatic transmission configured to provide hydraulic fluid from the primary tank to the one or more hydraulically-powered components, a secondary tank (4) configured to hold hydraulic fluid and in fluid communication with the primary tank, wherein the secondary tank is spaced apart from, rearwardly and above, the primary tank.
PNG
media_image1.png
823
1087
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ward et al. disclose the primary tank is located within a forward portion (the right side of the figure) of the frame, and wherein the secondary tank is located within a rearward portion (the left side of the figure) of the frame.
Ward et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention although are silent to having;
wherein the secondary tank includes a fill-level indicator on an exterior side of the secondary tank, wherein the fill-level indicator is configured to provide an indication of the amount of hydraulic fluid held within the secondary tank, and wherein the frame includes a port located on an outer lateral side of the frame adjacent to the fill-level indicator, such that an operator of the work machine can view the fill- level indicator from an exterior of the work machine.
Furukawa teach the use of a fill-level indicator (50 level gauge, see Fig. 7,8) on an exterior side (11, see Fig. 7) of the tank, wherein the fill-level indicator is configured to provide an indication of the amount of hydraulic fluid held within the tank, and wherein the frame includes a port (at 73k, see Fig. 7,8) located on an outer lateral side of the frame adjacent to the fill-level indicator, such that an operator of the work machine can view the fill- level indicator from an exterior of the work machine (para.0051-0053).
PNG
media_image2.png
1206
1018
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention employ an indicator with opening in the frame as taught by Furukawa into the device of Ward et al. to have the secondary tank includes a fill-level indicator on an exterior side of the secondary tank, wherein the fill-level indicator is configured to provide an indication of the amount of hydraulic fluid held within the secondary tank, and wherein the frame includes a port located on an outer lateral side of the frame adjacent to the fill-level indicator, such that an operator of the work machine can view the fill- level indicator from an exterior of the work machine, in order that the inspector can not only the level gauge but also the upper tank (Furukawa, para. 0051).
Should the above rejection not be persuasive relative to the location of the primary tank with respect to the secondary tank and the frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to relocate the tanks to be located in such a manner the primary tank is located within a forward portion of the frame, and wherein the secondary tank is located within a rearward portion of the frame, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Ward et al. and Furukawa disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, although are silent the primary tank is sized to hold from 5 to 10 gallons of hydraulic fluid, or the secondary tank is sized to hold from 0.5 and 3 gallons of hydraulic fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the volume of the tanks be such that the primary tank is sized to hold from 5 to 10 gallons of hydraulic fluid, or the secondary tank is sized to hold from 0.5 and 3 gallons of hydraulic fluid, in the device of Ward et al., of the combined device of Ward et al and Furukawa, since, by routine optimization, it has been held that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. ‘076 and Furukawa ‘020 and further in view of Evanovich et al. (US 6508271).
Regarding claim 11, Ward et al. and Furukawa disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, although are silent that the primary and secondary tanks are formed from plastic.
Evanovich et al. teach the use of tanks made from plastic (c.1,ln. 42-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention substitute a plastic material as taught by Evanovich et al. for the tank material in Ward et al., in the combined device of Ward et al. and Furukawa to have the primary and secondary tanks are formed from plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Additionally, it has been held, that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (one material for another) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
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) Form at Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights