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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the L3 defined between the first bar junction 132 and second rearmost junction 154 in the claims (claim 3+ & [0026] of written specification) (L3 is shown in figure 3A as between 150 & 154) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the work machine linkage assembly", “the angle”, “the rear portion” in line 1 and “the boom and fore portion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
It is assumed applicant meant for this claim to depend from another claim.
For sake of examination the claims are interpreted as shown in the art rejections below.
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.
Claims 1-6,11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over England (US 8,459,927).
Re claim 1, England teaches (figures 8-10) a work machine 2 comprising: a frame 500 extending longitudinally; a ground-engaging unit 506,508 supporting the frame; an operator cab 700 coupled to the frame; an attachment coupler (shown in figure 10); a boom 600 is pivotally coupled to the attachment coupler at a forward portion of the boom, the boom extending longitudinally and configured to move the attachment coupler from a first position to a second position relative to the frame along a lift path; and a boom lift assembly 602,606,608 coupling a rear portion of the boom to the frame, the boom lift assembly guiding the boom to move the attachment coupler along the lift path, wherein the boom lift assembly includes a [bar] connection area extending longitudinally and connected to the rear portion of the frame, the [bar] connection area having a first bar junction L forward of a second bar junction K, the first bar junction L and the second bar junction K at opposing ends of the [bar] connection area; a lower link 606 extending rearward of the second bar junction K, a first lower link end pivotally coupled to the frame at the second bar junction, a second lower link end pivotally coupled to a rearmost boom junction J; a first distance being defined between the second bar junction K and the rearmost boom junction J; an upper link 602 extending rearward of the first bar junction K, a first upper link end coupled to the frame at an upper link junction H located above the [bar] connection area and between the first bar junction and the second bar junction (as viewed radially about front ground engaging element 506 in figure 10, etc.), a second upper link end pivotally coupled to the boom at a second rearmost boom junction I; and an actuator 608 extending rearward of the first bar junction, a first actuator end pivotally coupled to the frame at the first bar junction L, a second actuator end pivotally coupled to the boom at a third rearmost boom junction M.
Although the embodiment (figures 8-10) does not show the connection area being a bar, the first embodiment teaches this (106, figures 1-3; column 3, lines 25-35) in order to create a connection area of any desired shape that is sufficiently strong for loads placed on it. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified England as claimed in order to create a connection area of any desired shape that is sufficiently strong for loads placed on it and to increase longevity & maintainability.
Re claim 2, England teaches (figures 8-10) a second distance being defined as between the rearmost boom junction and the second rearmost boom junction, a length ratio of the second distance to the first distance appears to be around 0.2 to 0.3 but is not specifically numbered. However, optimization of parameters is already known to be obvious for creating compact size, increased power, etc. (MPEP 2144, In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified England as claimed in order to create a desired compact size, increased power and/or best operate in a desired operating area / situation.
Re claim 3, England teaches (figures 8-10) a third distance being defined as between the first bar junction and the second rearmost junction, the length ratio of the third distance to the first distance is in a length ratio range that appears to be around 1.1 and 1.2 but is not specifically numbered. However, optimization of parameters is already known to be obvious for creating compact size, increased power, etc. (MPEP 2144, In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified England as claimed in order to create compact size, increased power and/or best operate in a desired operating area / situation.
Re claim 4, England teaches (figures 8-10) a fourth distance being defined as between the upper link junction and the second bar junction, the length ratio of the fourth distance to the first distance is in the length ratio range that appears to be around 0.4 and 0.5 but is not specifically numbered. However, optimization of parameters is already known to be obvious for creating compact size, increased power, etc. (MPEP 2144, In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified England as claimed in order to create compact size, increased power and/or best operate in a desired operating area / situation.
Re claim 5, England teaches (figures 8-10) the operator cab is forwardly biased away from a frame center.
Re claims 6,13,16, England teaches (figures 8-10) the boom and the boom lift assembly are mirrored across a longitudinal centerline of the frame, and a support bar 620 transversely oriented from the longitudinal centerline and couples the [lower] links of a left boom lift assembly and a right boom lift assembly. England does not state that the support bar connects the lower links specifically but does state the support bar connects any positions desired to provide rigidity (column 7, lines 35-41) in the lift assemblies. Also rearrangement of parts is known to be obvious (MPEP 2144; In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified England as claimed in order to provide a desired rigidity to handle a given environment / situational need.
Re claims 11,14,17, England teaches (figures 8-10) the angle between the rear portion of the boom and fore portion of the boom appears to be at least 150 degrees but is not specifically numbered. However, optimization of parameters is already known to be obvious for creating compact size, increased power, etc. (MPEP 2144, In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified England as claimed in order to create compact size, increased power and/or best operate in a desired operating area / situation.
Re claims 12,15, England teaches (figures 8-10) a work machine 2 & its linkage assembly comprising: a frame 500 extending longitudinally; a ground-engaging unit 506,508 supporting the frame; an operator cab 700 coupled to the frame; an attachment coupler (shown in figure 10); a boom 600 is pivotally coupled to the attachment coupler at a forward portion of the boom, the boom extending longitudinally and configured to move the attachment coupler from a first position to a second position relative to the frame along a lift path; and a boom lift assembly 602,606,608 coupling a rear portion of the boom to the frame, the boom lift assembly guiding the boom to move the attachment coupler along the lift path, wherein the boom lift assembly includes a [bar] connection area extending longitudinally and connected to the rear portion of the frame, the [bar] connection area having a first bar junction L forward of a second bar junction K, the first bar junction L and the second bar junction K at opposing ends of the [bar] connection area; a lower link 606 extending rearward of the second bar junction K, a first lower link end pivotally coupled to the frame at the second bar junction, a second lower link end pivotally coupled to a rearmost boom junction J; a first distance being defined between the second bar junction K and the rearmost boom junction J; an upper link 602 extending rearward of the first bar junction K, a first upper link end coupled to the frame at an upper link junction H located above the [bar] connection area and between the first bar junction and the second bar junction (as viewed radially about front ground engaging element 506 in figure 10, etc.), a second upper link end pivotally coupled to the boom at a second rearmost boom junction I; and an actuator 608 extending rearward of the first bar junction, a first actuator end pivotally coupled to the frame at the first bar junction L, a second actuator end pivotally coupled to the boom at a third rearmost boom junction M.
Although the embodiment (figures 8-10) does not show the connection area being a bar, the first embodiment teaches this (106, figures 1-3; column 3, lines 25-35) in order to create a connection area of any desired shape that is sufficiently strong for loads placed on it. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified England as claimed in order to create a connection area of any desired shape that is sufficiently strong for loads placed on it and to increase longevity & maintainability.
England appears to teach (figures 8-10) the length ratios around the figures claimed but does not specifically number these. However, optimization of parameters is already known to be obvious for creating compact size, increased power, etc. (MPEP 2144, In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified England as claimed in order to create compact size, increased power and/or best operate in a desired operating area / situation.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over England (US 8,459,927) in view of Haar (US 2014/0158440).
Re claims 7-10, England teaches the ground-engaging unit may comprise track, chains and related drive components as needed (column 6, lines 21-30). Duplication and rearrangement of parts is already known to be obvious in the art (MPEP 2144, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ). Also Haar teaches (figure 1) work machines 10 are known to have track chains 16 about an outer periphery of a track frame (figure 1, not numbered) with idler wheels 14,78,48, & an elevated rear drive sprocket 36. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified England in view of known components such as found in Haar as claimed in order to allow having ground engaging units best suited to a desired working environment with the associated power, traction and spacing to best handle mud and other given environmental conditions of the desired work environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deneve teaches a work machine and linkage assembly with length ratios and other parameters optimized for performance, visibility and design requirements of given situational needs (column 10, lines 5-25).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652