DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment of claims filed on February 25, 2026 and is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4-11 and 13-18 are pending, claims 3,12 and 19 cancelled, with claims 1 and 17 in independent claim form.
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 .
An amendment was filed by Applicant on February 25, 2026 and is acknowledged.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered, the reference recited in the specification, should be in a proper information disclosure statement according to MPEP § 609.04(a).
Based on the newly presented amendment of the claims, some of the claim’s objections are withdrawn and some are maintained and new 112 rejections are given as set forth in this current Office Action.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 about the 102 and 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant stated that “the arm extends from the vehicle and connects to the bucket. The arm is a portion of the boom which connects the bucket to the vehicle. The "half a claw" of Paski cannot meet the claim limitations as clarified under such a creative interpretation. Just to make it even more clear, the bucket is required to move with the movement of the arm, something the "half a claw" of Paski also does not do”.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant's statement, since an arm according to Oxford Language, as different definition based on the field it (arm) is being used, the arm also is defined to be “a thing comparable to an arm in form or function, typically something that projects from a larger structure” therefore the interpretation is proper and the rejections are maintained. Based on the newly presented amendment of the claims and since the changing of the scope of the claims, a new reference is used as a secondary reference to combine with the existing reference to better illustrate some of the new limitations as set forth in this current Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recited “of claim of 5 wherein” as previously stated, is suggested to be replace with “of claim 5, wherein”. Same objection goes for claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2,4-11 and 13-18 are 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 1 recited in line 4, the limitations "a bucket" is indefinite, it is unclear if Applicant is referring to the bucket of lines 1-2 or a new limitation.
Claim 17 recited in line 4, the limitations "a bucket" is indefinite, it is unclear if Applicant is referring to the bucket of line 3 or a new limitation.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 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, 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 1-2, 4-11, 13-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paski FI Publication (121258B) hereinafter Paski in view of Gearhart US Patent (3,815,423) hereinafter Gearhart.
Regarding claim 1,
Paski discloses a log splitter (see pag.14 lines 11-12 and 15-21) comprising:
an excavator type vehicle (excavator) with an arm (3) connected to a bucket (2,5,6 and 16, see pag.15 lines 3-7),
a wedge (10 or 12) connected to the arm (3) of the excavator type vehicle in a plane of rotation (the axis of element 18) of the bucket (see pag.15 lines 3-36) between the end of the arm (3) and the vehicle along the arm (3) with the pivot between the wedge(10 or 12) and an end of the bucket (2,5,6 and 16, see “view direction” of fig.3 below);
whereby a log is placed between the wedge (12) and the bucket (2,5,6 and 16) and movement of the bucket (2,5,6 and 16) toward the wedge splits the log (see fig.3-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
509
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(by convention excavator discloses a cab, a boom, cylinders and an arm) but Paski does not illustrate the details of a boom connecting the excavator type vehicle to the bucket; said boom having an arm connected at a first end to the excavator type vehicle through the boom and connected to a bucket at a second end of the arm, said first end of the arm opposite said second end, and said bucket rotatable relative to the arm at a pivot, wherein movement of the arm moves the bucket relative to the excavator type vehicle.
Paski and Gearhart disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. excavator).
Gearhart, in a similar art, teaches the illustration of an excavator (126) with a boom (132) connecting the excavator type vehicle (128) to the bucket (134); said boom (132) having an arm (18) connected at a first end to the excavator type vehicle (128) through the boom (132) and connected to a bucket (134) at a second end of the arm (see fig.12-13), said first end of the arm (18) opposite said second end, and said bucket (134) rotatable relative to the arm (18) at a pivot (136), wherein movement of the arm (18) moves the bucket (134) relative to the excavator type vehicle (128, see fig.12-13), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to substitute the excavator with the boom of Paski with that of Gearhart will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. Accordingly. It has been held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. In KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Examiner notes: All elements/features of the recited excavator of the reference are connected together.
Regarding claim 2,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Paski further discloses wherein the wedge (12) is located toward the end of the arm (3) connected to the bucket (2,5,6 and 16, see pag.15 lines 3-36).
Regarding claim 4,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Paski further discloses wherein the excavator type vehicle is one of an excavator, backhoe, front end loader, skid steer, and tractor having the arm extending away from the vehicle (see pag.15 lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 5,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Paski further discloses wherein the wedge (12) has opposing faces (see fig.3 shown in claim 7 and also see pag.15 lines 3-36).
Regarding claim 6,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 5,
Paski further discloses wherein the opposing faces are symmetrically disposed relative to one another (see fig.3 and see pag.15 lines 3-36).
Regarding claim 7,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 5,
Paski further discloses wherein the wedge (12) has two sets of opposing faces (see fig.1 and 3 in claim 1and see pag.15 lines 3-36).
Regarding claim 8,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 7,
Paski further discloses wherein the sets of opposing faces form a pyramid shape (see fig.1 and 3 and see pag.15 lines 3-36).
Regarding claim 9,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 5,
Paski further discloses wherein the opposing faces extend from a base plate (4) and the base plate is secured to the arm (see fig.3 and see pag.15 lines 3-36).
Regarding claim 10,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 9,
Paski further discloses wherein the base plate (4) has opposing flanges (elements 11 on both sides) receiving the arm therebetween.
Regarding claim 11,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 10,
Paski further discloses wherein the opposing flanges (elements 11 on both sides) are substantially parallel to one another (see fig.1 and see pag.15 lines 3-36).
Regarding claim 13,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Paski further discloses a hydraulic cylinder (17) having a piston (see fig.3 and 4 shows the piston extended/retracted from the cylinder element 17) selectively movable relative thereto, whereby movement of the piston moves the bucket (2,5,6 and 16) relative to the arm about the pivot (18).
(Alternative) of claim 13 Paski in view of Gearhart discloses a hydraulic cylinder (Gearhart, see fig.13) having a piston (Gearhart, see fig.13) selectively movable relative (Gearhart, see fig.12-13) thereto, whereby movement of the piston (Gearhart, see fig.13) moves the bucket (Gearhart, 134) relative to the arm about the pivot (Gearhart, 18).
PNG
media_image2.png
359
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 13,
Paski further discloses wherein the piston is operably coupled to the bucket (2,5,6 and 16) and the cylinder (17) is connected to the arm (see fig.3 and 4 shows all the elements are connected).
(Alternative) of claim 14 Paski in view of Gearhart discloses wherein the piston (Gearhart, see fig.13) is operably coupled to the bucket (Gearhart, 134) and the cylinder (Gearhart, see fig.13) is connected to the arm (Gearhart, 18)
Regarding claim 16,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Paski further discloses wherein the wedge (12) cantileveredly extends away from arm (3) into the plane of rotation of the bucket (2,5,6 and 16 see fig.1 and 2).
Regarding claim 17,
Paski further discloses a method of splitting logs (stump) comprising the steps of:
a) providing an excavator type vehicle (excavator) with an arm connected to a bucket (2,5,6 and 16, see pag.15 lines 3-7);
b) connecting a wedge (10 or 12) to the arm (3) of the excavator type vehicle in a plane of rotation of the bucket (2,5,6 and 16) between the bucket and the vehicle along the arm (3, see “view direction” of fig.3 in claim 1); and
c) placing a log (stump) between the wedge (10 or 12) and the bucket (2,5,6 and 16) to contact both the wedge (10 or 12) and the bucket (2,5,6 and 16) and rotating the bucket (10 or 12) towards the wedge (10 or 12) to thereby split the log against the wedge (see pag.14 lines 15-21 and pag.15 lines 3-36).
(by convention excavator discloses a cab, a boom, cylinders and an arm) but Paski does not illustrate the details of a boom connecting the excavator type vehicle to the bucket; said boom having an arm connected at a first end to the excavator type vehicle and connected at a second end opposite the first end to a bucket at a pivot, said bucket rotatable relative to the arm , and movement of the arm moves the bucket relative to the excavator type vehicle.
Gearhart, in the similar art, teaches the illustration of an excavator (126) with a boom (132) connecting the excavator type vehicle (128) to a bucket (134); said boom (132) having an arm (18) connected at a first end to the excavator type vehicle (128) and connected at a second end, opposite the first end to a bucket (134) at a pivot (136, see fig.12-13), said bucket (134) rotatable relative to the arm (18), and movement of the arm (18) moves the bucket (134) relative to the excavator type vehicle (128, see fig.12-13), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to substitute the excavator with the boom of Paski with that of Gearhart will obtain predictable results and is therefore obvious and proper combination of the references is made. Accordingly. It has been held that combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. In KSR (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Examiner notes: All elements/features of the recited excavator of the reference are connected together.
Regarding claim 18,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 17,
Paski further discloses wherein the excavator type vehicle is one of an excavator, backhoe, front end loader, skid steer, and tractor having the arm extending away from the vehicle (see pag.15 lines 3-6).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paski in view of Gearhart as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Bai CN Publication (217072715U) hereinafter Bai.
Regarding claim 15,
The prior art Paski as modified by Gearhart discloses all limitation of claim 1,
Paski discloses the wedge (10 or 12) and the arm (3 see fig 3 and 4) but is silenced about wherein the wedge to be bolted or welded to the arm.
Paski and Bai disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. splitting wood).
Bai, in a similar art, teaches a wedge (12) is one of bolted and welded to an arm (701 see pag.11 lines 39-43) and since no criticality is recited for the wedge to be bolted or welded to the arm, therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to substitute the connection of the wedge and the arm of Paski with the wedge to be bolted to the arm as taught by Bai to allow quick replacement of a damaged wedge or with the wedge to be welded to the arm to prevent the wedge to be loose under operation vibration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Smith Oberto BAPTHELUS whose telephone number is 571-272-5976. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Christopher TEMPLETON can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
March 17, 2026
/BSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725