DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Election/Restriction
The applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 14 January 2026 is acknowledged. The applicant has withdrawn Group II, claims 10-12, from further consideration and has amended Group III, claims 13-20 to depend from claim 1. Consequently, action on the merits of claims 1-9 and 13-20 follows. The restriction is made final.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In re claim 1: it appears “the piston rod assembly” in line 11 should be –the second piston rod assembly–.
In re claim 7: the claim would be in better form it was not in bullet format.
In re claim 13: it appears “a tool head” should be “the splitter wedge”.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pilcher (US 2024/ 0066749), in view of Grubb (US 2025/0236046) and Sirkka et al. (EP 2 264 322 A2).
In re claim 1: Pilcher discloses a log splitting machine comprising:
a frame structure (fig. 1);
a first hydraulic actuator 122 supported by the frame structure and including a first piston rod assembly movable between a first extended position and a first retracted position (¶ 37);
a splitter wedge 120 (fig. 5) connected to the first piston rod assembly (fig. 5 and ¶ 34);
an operator input 134 controlling operation of the log splitting machine (fig. 1 and ¶ 37), wherein:
i) when the operator input 134 is displaced in a first direction, the first piston rod assembly moves towards the first extended position (¶ 37); and
ii) when the operator input 134 is displaced in a second direction, the first piston rod assembly moves towards the first retracted position (¶ 37).
Pilcher does not disclose a second hydraulic actuator including a second piston rod assembly, wherein the second hydraulic actuator is in fluid communication with the first hydraulic actuator.
Grubb teaches a log splitting machine comprising a first hydraulic actuator 116 supported by the frame structure 104 and including a first piston rod assembly 116b movable between a first extended position (fig. 5B) and a first retracted position (fig. 5A); a splitter wedge 128 connected to the first piston rod assembly (fig. 4-5B); and a second hydraulic actuator 122 including a second piston rod assembly 114b, wherein the second hydraulic actuator 122 is in fluid communication with the first hydraulic actuator 116 (fig. 8). Note that the first jaw 126 of Grubb corresponds to the holder mechanism 136 of Pilcher. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Pilcher with a second hydraulic actuator in fluid communication with the first hydraulic actuator and including a second piston rod assembly coupled to the holder mechanism, thereby making the log splitting machine of Pilcher more compact by making the holding mechanism of Pilcher movable, as taught by Grubb (abstract). It would have also been obvious merely because it has been held that applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Modified Pilcher does not explicitly teach a linear electric actuator including a rod assembly coupled to the second piston rod assembly and including an electric motor operable to move the second piston rod assembly between a second extended position and a second retracted position.
However, Pilcher discloses the actuator may comprise a combination of electric and hydraulic actuators (¶ 39). And Sirkka teaches a log splitting machine comprising a hydraulic actuator with a hydraulic booster cylinder to increase pressure entering into the hydraulic actuator thereby increasing the operating power of the hydraulic actuator (§ [0011]). Sirkka further teaches the individual components of the system may be operated electrical operating elements (ibid). Based on these disclosures of Pilcher and Sirkka, an ordinary artisan would readily envisage using linear electric actuators as booster cylinders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide modified Pilcher with first and second linear electric actuators comprising respective rod assemblies coupled to the first and second piston rod assemblies, as taught by Pilcher, thereby increasing the operating power of the first and second hydraulic actuators of modified Pilcher, as taught by Sirkka.
Linear electric actuators inherently include an electric motor and, therefore, the proposed modification results in the operator input of modified Pilcher controlling operation of the electric motors such that: when the operator input is displaced in a first direction, the electric motor is energized to result in the first piston rod assembly moving towards the first extended position, and when the operator input is displaced in a second direction, the electric motor is energized to result in the first piston rod assembly moving towards the first retracted position.
In re claim 2, which depends on claim 1: modified Pilcher teaches a battery pack powering the electric motor (¶ 48 of Pilcher).
In re claim 3, which depends on claim 3: modified Pilcher teaches an electronic controller 1402 configured to receive an input from the operator input 1418 and to send an output to the electric motor 126 (fig. 14 of Pilcher).
In re claim 4, which depends on claim 3: modified Pilcher teaches the electronic controller 1402 receives an input from the battery pack 1408 (fig. 14 of Pilcher).
In re claim 5, which depends on claim 1: modified Pilcher teaches a valve assembly 128 (fig. 5-6, 15 and ¶¶ 36-37 of Pilcher).
Modified Pilcher does not explicitly disclose the valve assembly is located between the first hydraulic actuator and the second hydraulic actuator.
However, since the claimed location of the valve assembly would not affect operation of the log splitting machine of modified Pilcher, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Pilcher such that the valve assembly is located between the first and second hydraulic actuators, since it has been held that the relocation of features taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection VI).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pilcher, in view of Grubb and Sirkka, and further in view of Autio (EP 1 712 336 A1).
In re claim 6, which depends on claim 5: modified Pilcher does not explicitly teach the valve assembly includes a relief valve.
Autio teaches a log splitting machine comprising a valve assembly 4, 5, 6 including a relief valve 10 (fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Pilcher such that the valve assembly includes a relief valve, as taught by Autio, since it has been held that applying known techniques to yield predictable results (namely, providing a relief valve for pressure relief) requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 13-20 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. Claims 8-9 and 14-20 are only indicated as allowable subject matter due to their dependence claim 7 and/or claim 13.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach a third hydraulic actuator coupled to the linear actuator, at least when combined with the limitations of claim 1. And without the benefit of the applicant’s disclosure, it would not be obvious to further modify Pilcher such that there are two hydraulic actuators coupled to the linear actuator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared O. Brown whose telephone number is 303-297-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 (Mountain Time).
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 complete and submit the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form located at the following website: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher (“Chris”) L. Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center; and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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 THE USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725