Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/364,627

ARTICULATED WORK MACHINE WITH INDIVIDUALLY POWERED DRIVE MEMBERS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 03, 2023
Examiner
ARCE, MARLON ALEXANDER
Art Unit
3611
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
The Charles Machine Works Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1059 granted / 1239 resolved
+33.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1272
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
37.5%
-2.5% vs TC avg
§102
37.9%
-2.1% vs TC avg
§112
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1239 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim 9 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 9 recites the limitation "the articulated work vehicle" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only mentions “An apparatus” in the preamble. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1,2,4,7,9,11-13,15,19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fontecchio (US 7398842). Regarding claim 1, Fontecchio discloses an articulating apparatus comprising: a first chassis (30), comprising: a first ground supporting drive member (102R), independently powered and rotated by a first motor (44); and a second ground supporting drive member (102L), independently powered and rotated by a second motor (44’); a second chassis (50), comprising: a third ground supporting drive member (104R), independently powered and rotated by a third motor (74); and a fourth ground supporting drive member (104L), independently powered and rotated by a fourth motor (74’); an articulation joint (58) disposed between the first chassis and the second chassis (see figure 2A); and a controller (80) configured to: receive an operator input (from the joystick 26); and direct a speed and a direction of each of the first, second, third and fourth motor in response to the operator input (see Col. 7 lines 46-67 to Col. 8, lines 1-3). Regarding claim 2, wherein the controller is further configured to: direct a movement of the articulation joint in response to the operator input (see Col. 7 lines 21-32). Regarding claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to: determine an angle of the articulation joint (see Col. 7, lines 21-32); and adjust the speed of the first, second, third and fourth motors using the angle of the articulation joint (see Col. 7, lines 47-57). Regarding claim 7, a stand-on operating platform (20) extending from the second chassis (when considering the first chassis to be numeral 50 and the second chassis to be numeral 30, as claim 1 is not specific to one chassis being the front chassis or the rear chassis). Regarding claim 8, further comprising a lift arm (16’, see figure 1 A) supported by the first chassis. Regarding claim 9, wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth motors are electric as batteries 90,92 provide power to the motors (see Col. 5, lines 1-4). Regarding claim 11, A method of using the apparatus of claim 1, comprising: rotating the first ground supporting drive member in a first direction at a first speed; simultaneously, rotating the second ground-supporting drive member in a second direction at a second speed, wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction, thereby pivoting the first chassis about the articulation joint (see Col. 7, lines 46-57). Regarding claim 12, wherein the first speed and the second speed change as the first chassis pivots due to the user turning the joystick (26) abruptly or when the user turns the joystick slowly to rotate the wheels at different speed. Regarding claim 13, simultaneously, maintaining the third and fourth ground-supporting drive members without rotation when the vehicle is not in motion. Regarding claim 15, An articulated work vehicle, comprising: a first chassis (30), comprising: a first right wheel (102R) operatively connected to a first motor (44); and a first left wheel (102L) operatively connected to a second motor (44’); a second chassis (50), comprising: a second right wheel (104R) operatively connected to a third moto (74)r; and a second left wheel (104L) operatively connected to a fourth motor (74’); an articulation joint (58) disposed between the first chassis and the second chassis; wherein each of the wheels is configured to be rotated in a first direction and a second direction, the second direction opposed to the first direction (in order to turn the vehicle, see Col. 7, lines 21-45); and further comprising: a controller (80), operatively connected to each of the first, second, third and fourth motors, wherein the controller is configured to receive inputs and operate each of the first motor, second motor, third motor and fourth motor such that the articulated work vehicle moves along a desired path of travel (see Col. 7, lines 46-67 and Col. 8, lines 1-3). Regarding claim 19, An articulated work vehicle comprising: an articulation joint (58, see figure 2A); a first chassis (30) having two independently operable drive members (44,44’); a second chassis (50) having two independently operable drive members (74,74’), wherein the first chassis and the second chassis are connected at the articulation joint; and a controller (80) configured to: operate a first of the independently operable drive members at a speed distinct from a second of the independently operable drive members (see Col. Lines 47-57; operate a first of the independently operable drive members in a direction opposite from a second of the independently operable drive members (as the motors are able to run at different speeds, the speed of the front motors can be at zero, while the speed of the rear motors can be at one, See Col. 8, lines 30-38); operate a first of the independently operably drive members while not allowing a second of the independently operable drive members to move (as the motors can be driven at different speeds and the front motors can be drive at a speed equal to zero while the rear motors can be drive at a speed greater than zero, see Col 8, lines 30-38); and operate a first of the independently operable drive members and a second of the independently operable drive members at the same direction and speed (see Col. 7, lines 57-67). Regarding claim 20, wherein the controller is further configured to: operate a first and second of the independently operable drive members at a first speed and a third and fourth of the independently operable drive members at a second speed (see Col. 8, lines 30-38). 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. Claim(s) 3,5 and 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontecchio in view of Dull (US 6131520). Regarding claim 3, Fontecchio does not mention that the articulation joint has an electric actuator. However, Dull discloses an articulated vehicle with an articulation joint (38) with an electric actuator (37, see figure 5), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fontecchio by adding an electric actuator to the articulation joint in order to facilitate turning in relatively low speeds or for turning in tight spaces. Regarding claim 5, Fontecchio does not mention that the controller is configured to: maintain the first and second motor without rotation, thereby holding the first and second ground supporting drive member in place; and operate the third motor and fourth motor to counter-rotate the third and fourth ground supporting drive members. However, Col. 8, lines 30-38 talk about the controller controlling the motors to rotate at different speeds, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the front wheels can be at speed equal to zero, while the rear wheels can be rotating at a relatively low speed when articulating the joystick in an specific manner. Regarding claim 6, Fontecchio does not mention that the controller is configured to: maintain the third and fourth motor without rotation, thereby holding the third and fourth ground supporting drive member in place; and operate the first motor and second motor to counter-rotate the first and second ground supporting drive members. However, Col. 8, lines 30-38 talk about the controller controlling the motors to rotate at different speeds, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the rear wheels can be at speed equal to zero, while the front wheels can be rotating at a relatively low speed when articulating the joystick in an specific manner. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10,14 and 16-18 are 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. Regarding claim 10, the art of record did not include “the controller, directing the speed of the first and third ground-supporting drive members to maintain a position on the first radius; and with the controller, directing the speed of the second and fourth ground-supporting drive members to maintain a position on the second radius”. Regarding claim 16, the art of record did not include the specifics of the first, second, third and fourth modes as disclosed in the claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM. 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. /MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 03, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600183
METHOD FOR DETERMINING POSITION OF A TRAILER AND DEVICE FOR DETERMINING POSITION OF A TRAILER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600170
Apparatus for Spring Centered Caster Wheel
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599532
THREE DIMENSIONAL LOG SPIRAL STRUCTURES FOR IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594202
Seat Lift With Non-Linear Spring Assist
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589816
FIFTH WHEEL PLATE AND FIFTH WHEEL COUPLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.1%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1239 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month