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
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 5/11/26 and supplemental amendment filed 5/22/26 including amendments to the claims, specification, and replacement drawings (hereinafter Response) have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 8, 10, and 14 have been amended and claim 5 has been cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-14 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
Based on the entry of replacement drawings, the drawing objections raised in the non-final office action mailed 2/9/26 (hereinafter Office Action) are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Based on the claim amendments, the claim objections raised in the Office Action are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Based on the claim amendments, the 112(b) rejections raised in the Office Action are withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0133155 A1 to Geng et al (hereinafter Geng) in view of US 2005/0102866 A1 to Sewell et al (hereinafter Sewell).
Regarding claim 1, Geng discloses backhoe loader (Fig. 1 & Abstract) comprising:
a front chassis (11) comprising a loading assembly (2) (Figs. 1 &5 and [0049]);
a rear chassis (12) pivotally connected to the front chassis (11) along a vertical axis joint by a pin lock assembly (P), which is steerable in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions (Geng Annotated Figs. 2&4 and [0048] & [0082] disclose the backhoe steers by hinging at the pin lock P. As shown by contrasting Figs. 3 and 4 the backhoe is capable of turning from straight to hinged and is further interpreted as being able to turn from hinged back to straight, i.e., steerable both in clockwise and counter clockwise directions); and
a rotatable operator workstation (W) positioned in the rear chassis (12), which is positioned inside a bearing mounted cabin (4) which is slewable in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions up to a predefined angle, wherein the operator workstation (W) enables a user to control relative manoeuvring of the front chassis (11) with respect to the rear chassis (12) using the pin lock assembly (P), and control of the loading assembly (2) (Geng Annotated Figs. 2&4, Fig. 3, and [0049], [0053], and [0055] disclose the control platform is able to rotate to any position, i.e., a full 360 degrees of freedom of movement. [0048] and [0082] disclose the vehicle is steerable/turnable via the hinge between chassis 11 and 12 enabling user
PNG
media_image1.png
382
1133
media_image1.png
Greyscale
control. Cf. Figs. 2 & 5 and [0050] & [0057] disclosing control of the loading assembly 2),
wherein the rear chassis (12) comprises:
the bearing mounted cabin (4) to provide seating for the user … to provide controls of the rear chassis (12) and the loading assembly (2) positioned on the front chassis (11) (Geng Annotated Fig. 2 & [0057]-[0058] disclose the user controls the loading device and the excavating device);
an excavation arm (5) (Fig. 1) comprising:
a boom arm (511) that is hingedly connected to a rear end (41) of the operator workstation (W) (Figs. 1 and 7 & [0095]);
a bucket arm (512) that is hingedly connected to the boom arm (511) (Fig. 7 & [0095]);
PNG
media_image2.png
233
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a boom cylinder (B), a dipper cylinder (DC), a dipper (D), and a bucket cylinder (BC) that are hydraulically linked to each other along the boom arm (511) and the bucket arm (512) to control motion of the excavation arm (5) (Geng Annotated Fig. 7 & [0095]); and an excavator bucket (52) attached distally to the bucket arm (512), wherein the excavation arm (5) works along with the excavator bucket (52)
Although Geng discloses the excavation arm (5) is slewable independent of the cabin (4), e.g., [0086] discloses bearing 72 allows the excavation arm 5 to rotate 180 degrees, Geng does not appear to explicitly disclose: a side console to provide controls of the rear chassis and the loading assembly, and wherein the excavation arm works along with the excavator bucket (52) to generate a swing of up to 60 degrees in left and right directions, and wherein the generated swing of up to 60 degrees in the left and right directions is generated independently of the predefined angle of the slewable bearing mounted cabin with respect to a longitudinal axis of the aligned front and rear chassis.
Sewell teaches that it was old and well known in the art of construction vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a side console (22) to provide controls (82a,b) of the rear portion and the front portion (Fig. 1 & [0021], [0027], [0030]-[0031]), and
wherein the excavation arm (18) works along with the excavator bucket (34) to generate a swing of up to 60 degrees in left and right directions, and wherein the generated swing of up to 60 degrees in the left and right directions is generated independently of the predefined angle of the … cabin with respect to a longitudinal axis … (Figs. 5-6 & [0049]-[0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of construction vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the construction vehicle with a rotating cabin disclosed by Geng to incorporate a side console to provide controls of the rear chassis and the loading assembly, and wherein the excavation arm works along with the excavator bucket (52) to generate a swing of up to 60 degrees in left and right directions, and wherein the generated swing of up to 60 degrees in the left and right directions is generated independently of the predefined angle of the slewable bearing mounted cabin with respect to a longitudinal axis of the aligned front and rear chassis as taught by Sewell in order to enable the user to easily and naturally control the vehicle, e.g., see Sewell [0049]-[0050], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Geng further discloses wherein the bearing mounted cabin (4) which is slewable in both the clockwise and the counterclockwise directions up to the predefined angle of 270 degrees (Annotated Figs. 2&4, Fig. 3, and [0049], [0053], and [0055]).
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 1, Geng further discloses further comprising 4 wheels mounted below the front (11) and rear (12) chassis (Figs. 1 & 4 and [0080]).
Geng does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each wheel comprising sizes of one of 15- and 16-inch wheels.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wheels either 15” or 16” because the the sizing of wheels is the result of mere optimization of variables, e.g., optimizing traction, cost, etc that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Further, changes in size are considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the size of the wheels, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed wheel size would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claims 2, 4, and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng in view of Sewell and further in view of US 2020/0141088 A1 to Myers et al (hereinafter Myers).
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Geng does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the rear chassis (12) pivotally is steerable up to 40 degrees in both the clockwise and the counterclockwise directions.
Myers teaches that it was old and well known in the art of articulated work vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the rear chassis (14) pivotally is steerable up to 40 degrees in both the clockwise and the counterclockwise directions (Figs. 1-2 & [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of articulated work vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the articulated work vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Geng/Sewell to incorporate for the rear chassis (12) to be pivotally steerable up to 40 degrees in both the clockwise and the counterclockwise directions as taught by Myers in order to minimize the turning radius of the vehicle, e.g., see Geng [0082], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 1, Geng further discloses wherein the loading assembly (2) positioned in the front chassis (11) (Fig. 1) comprises:
a loader arm (L);
a lift cylinder (C) attached … with the loader arm (L) to lift the loader arm (L) (cf. Geng annotated Fig. 2 vs Fig. 5);
a shovel (also indicated by 2 in Fig. 2) attached to a distal end of the loader arm (L) to manage shovelling operations (Geng Annotated Fig. 2 & [0091]);
one or more shovel links (S) to control movement of the shovel (also indicated by 2 in Fig. 2); a tilt cylinder (T) attached to the shovel links (S) and one or more inter-lever links (I) that are connected to the loader arm (L), wherein the tilt cylinder (T) and the inter-lever links (I) facilitate tilting of the loader arm (L) and the shovel (also indicated by 2 in Fig. 2) (cf. Geng annotated Fig. 2 vs Fig. 5 depicting tilting of loader arm and shovel and movement of cylinder T and links S).
Geng does not explicitly disclose the lift cylinder is attached hydraulically with the loader arm to lift the loader arm.
Myers teaches that it was old and well known in the art of articulated work vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a loading assembly to include a lift cylinder (44) attached hydraulically with the loader arm (42) to lift the loader arm (42) (Figs. 3-5 & [0024])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of articulated work vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the articulated work vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Geng/Sewell to incorporate for the loading assembly to include a lift cylinder attached hydraulically with the loader arm to lift the loader arm directions as taught by Myers in order to raise or lower the loader arm, e.g., see Myers [0024], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 1, Geng does not appear to explicitly disclose 80 degrees of the total articulation, which is a total of 40 degrees of the articulation on either side of the longitudinal axis of the aligned front and rear chassis by using a pair of double acting hydraulic rams that are actuated by the action of a steering unit which is connected to a steering wheel.
Myers teaches that it was old and well known in the art of articulated work vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, 80 degrees of the total articulation, which is a total of 40 degrees of the articulation on either side of a longitudinal axis of the aligned front (12) and rear (14) chassis by using a pair of double acting hydraulic rams (26) that are actuated by the action of a steering unit which is connected to a steering wheel (Figs. 1-2 & [0021]-[0022] and [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of articulated work vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the articulated work vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Geng/Sewell to incorporate 80 degrees of the total articulation, which is a total of 40 degrees of the articulation on either side of a longitudinal axis of the aligned front and rear chassis by using a pair of double acting hydraulic rams that are actuated by the action of a steering unit which is connected to a steering wheel as taught by Myers in order to minimize the turning radius of the vehicle, e.g., see Geng [0082], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng in view of Sewell and further in view of Myers and further in view of US 2006/0131837 A1 to Zanini.
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Geng/Sewell does not appear to further disclose wherein the pin lock assembly (P) further comprises:
a steering cylinder which manoeuvres the vehicle in longitudinal axis up to 40 degrees in clockwise and counterclockwise direction; and
an oscillation cylinder which manoeuvres the vehicle in transverse axis up to 8 degrees in clockwise and counterclockwise direction and also integrates the front and rear chassis as a single body during excavation.
Myers teaches that it was old and well known in the art of articulated work vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a steering cylinder (26) which manoeuvres the vehicle in longitudinal axis up to 40 degrees in clockwise and counterclockwise direction (Figs. 1-2 & [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of articulated work vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the articulated work vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Geng/Sewell to incorporate a steering cylinder which manoeuvres the vehicle in longitudinal axis up to 40 degrees in clockwise and counterclockwise direction as taught by Myers in order to minimize the turning radius of the vehicle, e.g., see Geng [0082], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Zanini teaches that it was old and well known in the art of articulated vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, an oscillation cylinder (8a/b) which manoeuvres the vehicle in transverse axis … in clockwise and counterclockwise direction and also integrates the front (60) and rear (50) chassis as a single body during excavation (Fig. 6 and [0053] teach a configuration permitting transverse oscillation. Fig. 5 & [0056]-[0059] teach a locked configuration to increase torsional rigidity and prevent oscillation during lifting of a load).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of work vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Geng/Sewell/Myers to incorporate the oscillation cylinder which manoeuvres the vehicle in transverse axis … in clockwise and counterclockwise direction and also integrates the front and rear chassis as a single body during excavationas taught by Zanini in order to permit comfort during travel via oscillation and stiffness/stability during work, e.g., see Zanini [0011]-[0012], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
To the extent Zanini discloses the permitted rotation in the transverse can be any angle, i.e., angles up to 8 deg, but also above 8 degrees, e.g., see [0053], is moot because of the it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the angle up to 8 degrees because the determination of the maximum desired angle is the result of mere optimization of variables, i.e., balancing comfort and stability with limitations of the vehicle that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the maximum desired angle, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of limiting the angle up to 8 degrees would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng in view of Sewell and further in view of US 2008/0250917 A1 to Yamashita.
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Geng/Sewell does not appear to further disclose two single acting hydraulic rams that are mounted on left and right side on the front of rear chassis at an equal distance from central vertical axis, wherein oscillation of the backhoe loader is controlled using the two single acting hydraulic rams, and wherein the actuation of the two single acting hydraulic rams provide stability on unevenness of terrain up to 8 degrees.
Yamashita teaches that it was old and well known in the art of work vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for two single acting hydraulic rams (24) that are mounted on left and right side on the front of rear chassis at an equal distance from central vertical axis, wherein oscillation of the backhoe loader (1) is controlled using the two single acting hydraulic rams (24), and wherein the actuation of the two single acting hydraulic rams (24) provide stability on unevenness of terrain up to 8 degrees (Fig. 1 & [0037], [0039] teaches that hydraulic cylinders 24 fix the vehicle to the earth during work preventing oscillation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the earth is not even/flat and the a height adjustability of the hydraulic actuators are capable of providing stability on a variety of terrain, e.g., approaching flat and uneven terrain up to a limit. Examiner notes that the underlined clause is considered to be intended use as it is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and thus is given no patentable weight because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of work vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Geng/Sewell to incorporate two single acting hydraulic rams that are mounted on left and right side on the front of rear chassis at an equal distance from central vertical axis, wherein oscillation of the backhoe loader is controlled using the two single acting hydraulic rams, and wherein the actuation of the two single acting hydraulic rams provide stability on unevenness of terrain up to 8 degrees as taught by Yamashita in order to provide stability to the work vehicle, e.g., see Yamashita [0037], [0039], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the hydraulic cylinders capable of providing stability on unevenness of terrain up to 8 degrees because the exact range of capability is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed range of stability, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed range of stability would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng in view of Sewell and further in view of US 2019/0127953 A1 to Wetzel et al (hereinafter Wetzel)
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 1, Geng further discloses that the vehicle is powered by an engine (9) and that the backhoe loader and the excavator bucket are driven by hydraulic cylinders (Geng Annotated Figs. 2 & 7 and [0095]).
The modified combination of Geng/Sewell does not appear to explicitly disclose that the engine is an internal combustion engine that drives a hydraulic pump that delivers a high-pressure hydraulic fluid to a hydrostatic drive system and to the rest of hydraulic circuit for the operation of backhoe loader and the excavator bucket.
Wetzel teaches that it was old and well known in the art of work vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the engine is an internal combustion engine that drives a hydraulic pump that delivers a high-pressure hydraulic fluid to a hydrostatic drive system and to the rest of hydraulic circuit for the operation of backhoe loader and the excavator bucket (Fig. 2 & [0038], [0041], and [0056] teach engine can be an internal combustion engine and power is converted to hydraulic power via a drive pump which selectively provides hydraulic fluid to work elements, e.g., bucket or blade. [0043] and [0056] teach the hydraulic system also drives tractive elements. [0039] teaches the tractive elements can be wheels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of work vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive and hydraulic system disclosed by the modified combination of Geng/Sewell to incorporate for the engine is an internal combustion engine that drives a hydraulic pump that delivers a high-pressure hydraulic fluid to a hydrostatic drive system and to the rest of hydraulic circuit for the operation of backhoe loader and the excavator bucket as taught by Wetzel in order to enable motion of the vehicle and provide power to work implements, e.g., see [0038], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng in view of Sewell and further in view of US 2016/0122973 A1 to Lyle et al (hereinafter Lyle) and further in view of US 2007/0152438 A1 to Lacher et al (hereinafter Lacher).
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 1, Geng further discloses wherein the rear chassis (12) comprises a slew bearing (71) that is mounted above the rear chassis (12) (Figs. 1 and 7 & [0084]-[0085]), wherein the slew bearing (71) is [attached] to a … frame (frame is depicted in Fig. 4), a rotary coupling (71) …, wherein the cabin is mounted on the … frame and consists of the rotatable workstation (W) that is rotatable from forward (Fig. 1) to backward (Fig. 7) direction of the backhoe loader in 180 degree turning circle for loading and excavation operations respectively depending upon the user's need (Figs. 1 vs 7 and [0050]-[0053]).
the modified combination of Geng/Sewell does not appear to explicitly disclose the slew bearing is bolted to a welded frame which houses a counterweight, a slew motor.
Lyle teaches that it was old and well known in the art of work vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a slew bearing (632) is attached to a welded frame (626) which houses a counterweight, a slew motor (Fig. 24 & [0271] teaches the bearing is mounted to the welded frame. Fig. 1 & [0186] and [0189] teach the work vehicle includes a slew motor and counterweight).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of work vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Geng/Sewell to incorporate the slew bearing is attached to a welded frame which houses a counterweight, a slew motor as taught by Lyle in order to drive the workstation about the slew bearing and to provide a counterweight to the work implement in a compact configuration, e.g., see Lyle [0186] and [0189], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Lacher teaches that it was old and well known in the art of work vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a slew bearing (134) to be bolted to a welded frame (120,136) (Figs. 2-4 & [0020]-[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of work vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Geng/Sewell/Lyle to incorporate the slew bearing to be bolted to a welded frame as taught by Lacher in order to secure the bearing to the frame, e.g., see Lacher [0021], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 11, Geng further discloses wherein the cabin (4) is configured to be slewed 270 degrees and 135 degrees in both clockwise and counterclockwise direction (Geng Annotated Figs. 2&4, Fig. 3, and [0049], [0053], and [0055] disclose the control platform is able to rotate to any position, i.e., a full 360 degrees of freedom of movement).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng in view of Sewell and further in view of Lyle.
Regarding claim 13, depending on claim 1, wherein the excavator bucket (52) is attached to the cabin (4) … that rotates with the cabin (4) … configured to further swing 60 degrees horizontally clockwise and counterclockwise … to provide additional accuracy for excavation process (Geng Annotated Fig. 7 & [0086] discloses the excavator arm and bucket can slew 180 degrees which is interpreted as exceeding the claimed 60 degrees left and right, i.e., a total of 120 degrees. Examiner notes that the underlined clause is considered to be intended use as it is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and thus is given no patentable weight because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114.).
the modified combination of Geng/Sewell does not explicitly disclose that the bucket is attached to the cabin through a kingpost that rotates with the cabin, wherein the kingpost is configured to further swing 60 degrees horizontally clockwise and counterclockwise using a double acting hydraulic cylinder to provide additional accuracy for excavation process.
Lyle teaches that it was old and well known in the art of work vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the bucket is attached to the cabin through a kingpost (28) that rotates with the cabin (30), wherein the kingpost (28) is configured to further swing … horizontally clockwise and counterclockwise using a double acting hydraulic cylinder (62) to provide additional accuracy for excavation process (Figs. 1-2 & [0007], [0167] and [0188], and [0196] teach the kingpost is mounted to the cab which rotate together via slew bearing 16 and the kingpost is rotated clockwise/counterclockwise via a hydraulic cylinder).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of work vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Geng/Sewell to incorporate for the bucket is attached to the cabin through a kingpost that rotates with the cabin, wherein the kingpost is configured to further swing horizontally clockwise and counterclockwise using a double acting hydraulic cylinder to provide additional accuracy for excavation process as taught by Lyle in order to slew about two vertically offset axes, e.g., see Lyle [0007], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Examiner takes the position that by modifying Geng which discloses rotating the bucket arm above the second slew bearing 72 up to 180 degrees in view of Lyle which teaches rotating the excavator bucket about a kingpost via a hydraulic cylinder would still result in the excavator bucket being rotatable up to 180 degrees, thus in combination disclosing the kingpost is configured to swing 60 degrees horizontally.
However, assuming arguendo, the combination could be interpreted to not disclose this range, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make kingpost rotatable 60 degrees clockwise and counterclockwise because the selecting the range of the excavator bucket, e.g., by maximizing the range, is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed 60 degree range, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of the 60 degree range would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 14, depending on claim 13, Geng further comprising stabilizers (8) that are mounted on either side of the rear chassis (12) to provide stability and counter effort to the backhoe loader during the excavation process using the excavator bucket (5) (Fig. 1 & [0024], [0087]-[0089]. Examiner notes that the underlined clause is considered to be intended use as it is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and thus is given no patentable weight because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments included in the Response directed toward the 35 USC §§102/103 of claim 1 under Geng has been fully considered and are persuasive. See Response pp. 11-17. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Geng in view of Sewell. All of Applicant’s arguments are directed toward the amended limitations taught by Sewell and therefore are considered moot and not specifically addressed.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights