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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 13, line 2, “pane” should be -panel-. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-10, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisse et a. (USPN 7,815,000) in view of Haar et al. (USPN 9,650,088).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Kisse teaches a work machine (loader; col. 1, line 10) comprising: a frame 12 comprising a pair of spaced apart side panels 20 separated by a bottom panel 18A, 18B (col. 2, lines 42-51); a drive assembly 72-74 configured to propel the work machine, wherein the drive assembly comprises at least one drive motor hydraulic motor 74 (col. 4, lines 46-56); and a motor mount assembly at 22 configured to support the drive motor with respect to the frame, wherein the motor mount assembly comprises a reinforcement element 42, wherein the reinforcement element includes an opening configured to receive a portion of the drive motor, wherein the reinforcement element 42 is secured to an interior surface of one of the side panels 20 (see Figure 7; col. 3, lines 7-11).
Kisse lacks a mounting flange, wherein the mounting flange is secured to the reinforcement element, and wherein the drive motor is secured to the mounting flange.
Haar teaches a work machine with a frame 12 comprising a pair of spaced apart panels (outer panels 26), a drive assembly (motor 34, seen in Figure 3), and a motor mount assembly, for supporting the drive assembly, including a reinforcement element (inner panel 24) mounted interior to one of the side panels 26 and a flange 38 mounted to the inner side of the reinforcement element (see Figure 3). The drive motor is secured to the flange 38 (col. 3, lines 7-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a motor mounting flange on the inner surface of the reinforcement element of Kisse, in view of Haar, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reinforce the connection between the drive assembly and the frame.
Regarding claim 2, Haar teaches the mounting flange 38 is secured to an interior surface of the reinforcement element 24 (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Harr teaches that the mounting flange 38 does not contact the frame 24 of the work machine (reinforcement 24 is positioned between the flange 38 and the frame 26 (Haar, Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Haar does not specify that the mounting flange is welded to the reinforcement element. However, Kisse teaches that the undercarriage, including reinforcements, are formed as a weldment 10, 12 (various elements are welded in place to form the tub/track frame 10, 12, 16; col. 2, lines 42-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to weld the flange to the reinforcement element of the combination work machine, in view of Kisse, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to integrally form the flange with the frame and prevent its unintended detachment.
Regarding claim 5, Kisse teaches that the reinforcement element comprises a reinforcement plate 42 that is welded to the one of the side panels (col. 3, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 9, the mounting flange 38, shown in Figure 3 of Haar, has a rounded shape and comprises an outer portion and an inner portion, wherein the inner portion presents a motor engaging surface configured to engage with a portion of the drive motor (see figure 3 of Haar; motor flange 44 is bolted to an inner surface of flange 38).
Regarding claim 10, the combination does not specify that the mounting flange, to which the motor is secured, has threaded holes. However, Haar teaches fasteners 40, that appear to be threaded fasteners, securing the motor to the flange. Also, Kisse, in Figure 9, shows unnumbered bolts (“bolts or capscrews” are referenced in col. 4, lines 58-61, of Kisse) connecting the motor assembly 73 to the inner portion of the mounting assembly at 42. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of threaded holes in the mounting flange of the combination, configured to receive fasteners for securely coupling the drive motor to the mounting flange, in view of the teachings to fasten the drive motor using conventional fasteners, bolts, or capscrews, in order to removably mount the motor securely and in a way that allows for removal of the motor for servicing and replacement.
Regarding claim 12, the reinforcement element is a first reinforcement element and is secured to a first of the pair of side panels, wherein the mounting flange is a first mounting flange, and wherein the drive motor is a first drive motor of the at least one drive motors, wherein the motor mount assembly further comprises a second reinforcement element secured to an interior surface of a second side panel of the pair of side panels, a second mounting flange secured to the second reinforcement element, and a second drive motor secured to the second mounting flange (mirror image motor mounts assemblies are positioned on opposite sides of the vehicle frame.
Regarding claim 13, Kissse teaches a support element (cross member 46, seen in Figure 7; col. 3, lines 29-32) extending across the bottom panel 18 of the frame between each of the first and second reinforcement elements 42.
Regarding claim 14, an interior portion of the drive motor is positioned within an interior space of the work machine presented by the frame, and wherein an exterior portion of the drive motor is positioned outside of the interior space (see Figure 11 of Kisse).
Regarding claim 15, Kisse teaches that the drive motor comprises a hydraulic motor (col. 4, lines 42-46).
Regarding claim 16, Kisse teaches that the drive assembly further comprises a track 68 (Figures 10 and 12; col. 4, line 38-39), and wherein the drive motor is configured to actuate the track.
Regarding claim 17, Kisse teaches the drive assembly further comprises a sprocket 70 (Figure 10) positioned between the drive motor 72-74 and the track 68, and wherein the drive motor is configured to actuate the track by rotating the sprocket.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Kisse teaches that the work machine comprises a compact track loader (co. 1, line 10; col. 3, line 2; Figure 12).
Regarding claim 20, the combination, as discussed with respect to claim 1, teaches a method of assembling a work machine, said method comprising: (a) securing a reinforcement element to an interior surface of a side panel of a frame of the work machine (Kisse); (b) securing a mounting flange to the reinforcement element (taught by Haar), wherein each of the mounting flange and the reinforcement element includes a motor opening configured to receive a portion of a drive motor of the work machine (Haar); and (c) securing the drive motor to the mounting flange (Haar).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisse and Haar as applied to claims 1-5, 9-10, and 12-20 above, and further in view of Fukazawa (PGPub 2005/0167969).
Regarding claims 6-8, the combination lacks a teaching to form the mounting flange from a different material than the frame or reinforcement (note: applicant’s definition of “different material includes differing steel alloys).
Fukazawa teaches a work machine frame comprising elements made from differently manufactured metal elements. Module (unitary casting module 40A), which includes motor mounting flanges P1, is formed by casting, and frame portions 11, 30A, are formed from sheeted elements welded together (para [0060]). Fukazawa teaches that this combination of cast and welded sheet metal parts results in a work machine where stress concentrations are avoided, manufacture is easy, and cost is low (para [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the frame and mounting flanges from different materials, the flanges made by casting and the frame made by sheet metal parts welded together, in view of Fukazawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to produce a versatile frame structure that avoids stress concentrations and that is easy and inexpensive to manufacture. The use of different alloys is a matter of obvious design selection to optimize the balance of weight, strength, and cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamashita, Balzer, Anderson, Albright, Mackin, Kim and, and Iwaki teach motor mounting structures for small work vehicles.
Rittmann shows a hydraulic motor mount.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/