DETAILED ACTION1
ELECTION/RESTRICTION
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on October 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-7, 11-12, & 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 6,205,665 to Anderson in view of U.S. 2020/0283991 to Krieger.
Claim 1 recites a power machine. Anderson relates to such a power machine. See Anderson Fig. 1. Anderson teaches the power machine (10) has a power source (560); one or more tractive assemblies (44) that have one or more drive actuators (534); a base frame (26); and a bridge frame (30). See Anderson col. 9, ll. 19 to col. 10, ll. 27 and Figs. 1 & 8-14. Figures 12-13 of Anderson also show that the bridge frame [is] removably secured to the base frame via bolts (620). Figures 8, 9, & 14 of Anderson show the base frame supports the power source relative to the bridge frame. Finally, claim 1 recites that the bridge frame supports the one or more workgroup actuators and the one or more tractive assemblies relative to the base frame. Figures 10 & 11 shows that the bridge frame (30) serves as the connection point for the actuators in the form of the unlabeled hydraulic cylinders in the lifting arm (596). Anderson does not, however, show the bridge frame supporting the tractive assemblies i.e. the wheels. Rather, these are attached to the base via the axles (538). But it would have been obvious to modify Anderson to add a third tractive assembl[y] and connection point on the bridge in view of Krieger.
Krieger also relates to a similar lift-arm power machine like that of Anderson, as shown via a comparison of figure 5 of Krieger to figure 1 of Anderson. Thus, Krieger is highly analogous art. Anderson shows a vehicle that uses four tires (44). Krieger shows embodiments that both use tires (figure 5) or tracked treads (244). Thus, Krieger teaches tires and tracked treads are known substitutes for each other for these type of power machines. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Anderson to substitute tracked treads in place of tires because it is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The substitution would then require a third axle location for the tracked treads, as shown in figure 6 of Krieger. This upper axle location corresponds to a location in the bridge frame (34). Thus, the modification would result in the bridge frame support[ing]…one or more tractive assemblies.
As a final matter, claim 1 recites that the base frame supports the power source relative to the bridge frame and that the bridge frame supports the actuators and tractive assemblies relative to the base frame. It is not entirely clear what specific additional feature is denoted by this phrase relative to the other frame. As best understood, the claim is reciting that the various elements are directly attached to only one of the frames. This is largely consistent with the figures and specification, with the exception of the fact that the lower wheel axles of the track system would logically be attached to the base, not the bridge frame. (There would still be the upper tractive element attached to the bridge.) Thus, for purposes of examination, the feature relative to is interpreted to clarify which frame the direct connection point is on (the frame that is not preceded by the phrase relative to). This interpretation is used for the entire claim set.
Regarding claim 2, figures 1, 10, & 11 of Anderson show a lift arm structure (596) pivotally supported on the bridge frame. Regarding claim 3, Anderson shows the workgroup actuators include at least one lift arm actuator (hydraulic pistons) arranged to move the lift arm structure relative to the bridge and base frames. Figures 1, 10, & 11 further show the lift arm actuator is pivotally supported by the bridge frame and the lift arm structure. Regarding claim 4, figures 10-11 show two hydraulic pistons, one on either side, that collectively constitute a plurality of workgroup actuators and that each is supported by the bridge frame.
Regarding claim 5, figures 4 of Anderson show the bridge frame (30) includes: a first side box structure (312) extending from a lower end to an upper end; a second side box structure (314) extending from a lower end to an upper end; and a cross-support structure (414) extending between the upper ends of the first and second side box structures. Regarding claim 6, figure 14 of Anderson shows that the cross-support structure and the first and second side box structures define, in combination, an internal volume that receives the power source (560) of the power machine. Figure 14 further shows the rear side of the internal volume is open. The rear side may later be covered (as shown in figure 16) but during fabrication a product will transiently exist that meets the limitations.
Claim 7 recites that the power source is an electric power source. Anderson appears to show a petrochemical powered engine. But examiner takes Official Notice that electric motors suitable for power machines are known in the art. It would have been obvious to modify Anderson to substitute an electric engine because it is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). Claim 7 then recites the base frame is removably secured to the bridge frame to support the electric power source for removal through at least one of the bottom side or the rear side of the bridge frame. The power source is removably secured to the bridge frame as shown in figure 9. The bolts that hold it in place can be removed. Figure 16 of Anderson shows the rear hatch (660) can be removed allowing access to remove the engine. As such, the device of Anderson is capable of the intended use.
Claim 11 recites that the bridge frame further includes a base plate extending between the lower ends of the first and second side box structures. Cross member (424) may be defined as a base plate as it a structure that extends between the lower ends of the two side structures. It further has some connecting elements that connect to the fuel tank (150) in the base frame below, as shown in figures 12-13. Thus, Anderson further teaches that the bridge frame is secured to the base frame along the base plate and along the first and second side box structures.
Claim 12 recites the base frame includes a base pan and a rear tower. Figures 2 & 8 of Anderson illustrates the base frame (26). The base frame contains a fuel tank (150) in the rear area that rises from the base with areas just behind that contain space for the lower portions of the bridge frame (30). These structures are defined to be the rear tower, with the floor and remaining side walls of the frame constituting the base pan. Figures 12-13 show that the base frame is removably secured to the bridge frame along the base pan and the rear tower via bolts along the side walls of the base frame. Figure 8 then shows this allows the base frame to support a power source (560).
Claim 15 duplicates features contained in claims 1, 5, and 12. These features are rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 16, figures 12-13 of Anderson show that the first (312) and second side (314) structures of the bridge frame are nested into the rear tower of the base frame. Figures 12-14 further show that the base frame is removably secured below the bridge frame to align the power source for removal through [a]…rear side, as recited in claim 17.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 8-10 & 13-14 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 8, the prior art does not show a central tower as described (in combination with the other features). Claims 9-10 are allowable based on their dependence from claim 8. Regarding claim 13, the base frame of Anderson is not laterally wider than the rear tower, nor is there any reason to modify it to be so. No other prior art with sufficiently similar features provides any reason for this modification either. Regarding claim 14, neither Anderson nor any other prior art teaches that the cross-support structure includes a downwardly sloped shield plate extending forward from a rear end of the bridge frame; and…partially extend[ing] between the power source and the…actuators.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”