DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
Claims 15-17 are allowed. Claims 1-14 are rejected. Claims 18-20 are canceled. Applicant’s amendments filed on 3/30/2026 are entered, no new matter has been added. Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/30/2026 have been fully considered and are a combination of not persuasive, persuasive but moot, and persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 are allowed. Claim 5 is objected to for depending upon a rejected independent claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. The following is a statement of reasons for allowance and indicating allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 15, applicant has persuasively argued against the previous 103 rejection, and upon additional searching, no reference or obvious combination of references were found that teach all the limitations of claim 15. More detail on why the applicant’s arguments were persuasive are included at the end of the response to arguments section below.
Regarding claims 16-17, these claims appropriately depend upon claim 15, and are thus allowed at least be merit of their dependency.
Regarding claim 5, this claim includes the limitations “at least a majority of a footprint of the main hydraulic pump over the main frame overlaps with a footprint of the hydraulic reservoir over the main frame.” These are similar to limitations in claim 15, and applicant’s persuasive arguments regarding claim 15 similarly apply to claim 5. Notably, the previous 103 rejection to this claim did not use Krieger to teach these limitations but instead used figure 3 of De Caen. At this time, the examiner cannot remember why different references were used for these similar limitations. Regardless, applicant’s persuasive arguments against Krieger also apply to De Caen, most notably figure 3 of De Caen is a hydraulic schematic and does not teach “the relative physical placement of the components.” Thus, claim 5 overcomes the prior art of record, and upon further searching, no reference or obvious combination of references taught all the limitations of claim 5.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 3/30/2026 are entered, no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/30/2026 have been fully considered and are a combination of not persuasive, persuasive but moot, and persuasive.
Applicant argues that the preamble to claim 1 and 15 say “a battery powered electric excavator” and a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand this to be a purely electric powered vehicle. This is not persuasive. A PHOSITA could understand this excavator to be solely powered by a battery, or they could understand this excavator to be a hybrid vehicle. Both are reasonable interpretations of the phrase “a battery powered electric excavator.” As such, Kohno teaching a hybrid excavator does teach a battery powered electric excavator.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 1 and 15 overcome Kohno and Krieger, because those claims now require the excavator to not include an internal combustion engine as a prime mover. This is persuasive but moot. It is true that neither Kohno nor Krieger teach an excavator without an internal combustion engine as a prime mover. However, reviewing the prior art of record, Kuwahara teaches an all-electric excavator without an internal combustion engine. It is the examiner’s opinion that a person having ordinary skill in the art could modify Kohno in view of Kuwahara to exclude the internal combustion engine, as set forth in the 103 rejection below.
Applicant argues Krieger cannot be used to modify Kohno in order to teach “a hydraulic reservoir for supplying hydraulic fluid to the main hydraulic pump,” because “an internal combustion engine driven excavator like that of Krieger does not tell a POSITA anything about where the hydraulic components of a batter powered electric excavator should be located.” This is not persuasive. The position of the hydraulic reservoir is only related to the main frame and the cabin of the excavator, neither or which are exclusive to all electric or hybrid excavators. A PHOSITA would understand main frames, and cabins of excavators to be similar, and thus obviously combinable.
Applicant argues that Kohno does not teach “wherein the primary electric motor, and the main hydraulic pump are located on the main frame on an opposite lateral side of the vertical pivot axis from the operator's cabin” because no figure shows the horizontal position of the electric motor. This is not persuasive. Figure 1 shows the primary electric motor 2 connected to the main hydraulic pump 5 and the primary electric motor is forward of the main hydraulic pump in the longitudinal direction. Figure 3 teaches the hydraulic pump on an opposite lateral side of the vertical pivot axis from the operator’s cabin. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art could read Kohno as teaching the primary electric motor on an opposite lateral side of the vertical pivot axis from the operator’s cabin.
Applicant argues that claim 15 overcomes the prior art of record because Kohno in view of Krieger fails to teach “wherein the hydraulic reservoir is located directly above the main hydraulic pump such that at least a majority of a footprint of the main hydraulic pump over the main frame overlaps with a footprint of the hydraulic reservoir over the main frame.” In particular, the previous office action alleged that Krieger taught these limitations in a way that could be obviously combined with Kohno. Applicant argues that Krieger actually fails to teach these limitations because the figures relied upon were hydraulic schematics and don’t teach “the relative physical placement of the components.” This argument is persuasive. Upon additional searching, no references were found which taught all the limitations of claim 15 on their own or in an obvious combination. As such claim 15 is allowed. Claims 16-17 appropriately depend upon claim 15, and are thus allowed at least be merit of their dependency.
Claim Rejections – 25 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejection to claim 11 has been overcome by amendment. No new matter has been added.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohno (US 9896822 B2) in view of Krieger (US 7712555 B2) and Kuwahara (US 20250354349 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kohno teaches a battery powered electric excavator (taught by figure 1 and the abstract “A hybrid construction machine”), comprising:
an undercarriage (100 “travel base” taught by figure 1);
a main frame (110 “a revolving superstructure” taught by figure 1) mounted on the undercarriage to be pivotable about a vertical pivot axis relative to the undercarriage (taught by figure 1), the main frame having a forward end and a rearward end and having a longitudinal axis extending between the forward end and the rearward end (taught by figures 1 and 3);
an excavator arm extending from the forward end of the main frame (70 “a front working mechanism” taught by figure 1);
an operator's cabin located on the main frame closer to the forward end than to the rearward end, and located to one lateral side of the vertical pivot axis (3 “a cab” taught by figures 1 and 3);
at least one high voltage battery located on the main frame rearward of the vertical pivot axis and rearward of the operator's cabin (8 “electrical storage device” taught by figures 1 and 3);
a primary electric motor operably connected to the at least one high voltage battery (2 “electricity generation motor” taught by figures 1, and 2 and by paragraph 20 “a liquid-cooled type electrical storage device 8 which performs electric power transfer with the assisting electricity generation motor 2”);
at least one main hydraulic pump driven by the primary electric motor (5 “hydraulic pump” taught by figures 1-2); and
wherein the primary electric motor, and the main hydraulic pump are located on the main frame on an opposite lateral side of the vertical pivot axis from the operator's cabin (taught by figures 1 and 3).
Kohno does not teach that the undercarriage including left and right crawler tracks (figure 1 teaches a crawler track).
Krieger teaches an undercarriage including left and right crawler tracks (65 “tracks” taught by figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the undercarriage of Kohno to include left and right crawler tracks as taught by Krieger, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because having left and right crawler tracks allows the excavator to turn.
Kohno does not teach a hydraulic reservoir for supplying hydraulic fluid to the main hydraulic pump, nor that the hydraulic reservoir is located on the main frame on an opposite lateral side of the vertical pivot axis from the operator's cabin.
Krieger teaches a hydraulic reservoir for supplying hydraulic fluid to the main hydraulic pump (180 “reservoir” taught by figure 3), and that the hydraulic reservoir is located on the main frame on an opposite lateral side of the vertical pivot axis from the operator's cabin (180 “hydraulic reservoir” is taught as part of 55 “hydraulic system” by column 4 lines 12-14 “FIG. 3 schematically illustrates the hydraulic drive circuit 73 within the hydraulic system 55. The drive circuit 73 includes a reservoir 180,” and 55 is taught as part of 45 “frame” by column 3 lines 19-20, “an engine compartment or frame 45 containing an internal combustion engine 50, and a hydraulic system 55,” and figure 1 shows 45 on an opposite lateral side of the vertical pivot axis from the operator’s cabin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the reservoir of Krieger onto the hydraulic circuit of Kohno (taught in Kohno figure 2), with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because Kohno does not teach how the hydraulic fluid is supplied to the main hydraulic pump, and a hydraulic reservoir would provide a convenient way to refill the hydraulic circuit with fluid.
However, neither Kohno nor Krieger teach that the primary electric motor being a prime mover of the battery powered electric excavator such that the battery powered electric excavator does not include an internal combustion engine as a prime mover.
Kuwahara teaches a primary electric motor (15 “electric motor” taught by figures 2-4) being a prime mover of the battery powered electric excavator such that the battery powered electric excavator does not include an internal combustion engine as a prime mover (taught by paragraph 1 “The present invention relates to electric construction machines, such as a hydraulic excavator provided with an electric motor as a power source” and paragraph 23 “The revolving frame 6 is provided with a cab 7, a counterweight 8, an exterior cover 9, a partition wall 12, an electric motor 15, a hydraulic pump 16, a battery unit 17”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have removed the internal combustion engine of Kohno and modified its electric motor, as taught by Kuwahara, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because not having an internal combustion engine means the excavator would no have emissions.
Regarding claim 2, Kohno in view of Krieger and in further view of Kuwahara teaches the battery powered electric excavator of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kohno also teaches wherein: the main frame is configured as a reduced tail swing main frame in which the rearward end of the main frame does not extend more than 18 inches beyond the crawler tracks during pivoting of the main frame on the undercarriage (taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kohno in view of Krieger and in further view of Kuwahara teaches the battery powered electric excavator of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kohno also teaches further comprising: a DC-AC inverter (9 “inverter device” taught by figure 1) operably connected to the primary electric motor (taught by figure 2); and
wherein the primary electric motor, the main hydraulic pump and the DC-AC inverter are assembled on a common bracket to provide a powertrain sub-assembly mounted on the main frame (112a “frame” taught by figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Kohno in view of Krieger and in further view of Kuwahara teaches the battery powered electric excavator of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Krieger also teaches wherein: the hydraulic reservoir is located directly above the main hydraulic pump (180 “reservoir” taught directly above 210 “left reservoir” in figures 3-8).
Regarding claim 6, Kohno in view of Krieger and in further view of Kuwahara teaches the battery powered electric excavator of claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Krieger teach a suction conduit extending downward from an outlet of the hydraulic reservoir to a pump inlet of the main hydraulic pump such that hydraulic fluid standing in the suction conduit provides a positive hydraulic head to the pump inlet (taught by figure 3).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohno (US 9896822 B2) in view of Krieger (US 7712555 B2) and in further view of Kuwahara (US 20250354349 A1), and Wu (US 9725008 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Kohno in view of Krieger and in further view of Kuwahara teaches the battery powered electric excavator of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Kohno nor Krieger teaches a DC/DC converter for powering a low voltage bus of the excavator from a high voltage bus of the excavator;
an onboard charger for regulating and rectifying lower voltage charge sources to a higher voltage of the high voltage bus of the excavator; and
wherein the DC/DC converter and the onboard charger are located below the operator's cabin.
Wu teaches a DC/DC converter (100 “up-down converter” taught by figure 3) for powering a low voltage bus of the excavator from a high voltage bus of the excavator (110 “DC bus” taught by figure 3);
an onboard charger for regulating and rectifying lower voltage charge sources to a higher voltage of the high voltage bus of the excavator (taught by column 12 lines 8-15 “The switching control between the voltage-up operation and the voltage-down operation is performed by the controller 30 based on a DC bus voltage value detected by the DC bus voltage detection part 111, a battery voltage value detected by the battery voltage detection part 112, and a battery current value detected by the battery current detection part 113.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the DC/DC converter, bus, and onboard charger of Wu between the motor and battery of Kohno, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because a DC/DC converter can allow the voltage between the battery and motor to be changed. Furthermore, if the DC/DC converter and the onboard charger are located between the motor and the battery, then they are also below the operator's cabin (taught by Kohno figure 1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohno (US 9896822 B2) in view of Krieger (US 7712555 B2) and in further view of Kuwahara (US 20250354349 A1) and McKibben (US 11345331 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Kohno in view of Krieger and in further view of Kuwahara teaches the battery powered electric excavator of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Kohno nor Krieger teach a junction box for joining together a plurality of high voltage components including the high voltage battery, the junction box being located centrally between the operator's cabin on one lateral side and the primary electric motor, the main hydraulic pump, and the hydraulic reservoir on an opposite lateral side of the junction box.
McKibben teaches a junction box (1180 “junction box” taught by figures 11 and 12) for joining together a plurality of high voltage components including the high voltage battery, the junction box being located centrally (taught by figure 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the junction box of McKibben between the operator's cabin on one lateral side and the primary electric motor, the main hydraulic pump, and the hydraulic reservoir on an opposite lateral side of Kohno, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because a junction box improves the accessibility of wiring for maintenance.
Claim(s) 9-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohno (US 9896822 B2) in view of Krieger (US 7712555 B2) and in further view of Kuwahara (US 20250354349 A1) and Lyle (US 9828049 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Kohno in view of Krieger and in further view of Kuwahara teaches the battery powered electric excavator of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kohno also teaches at least one heat exchanger (26 “radiator” taught by figure 4) and fan assembly including at least one fan for moving cooling air across at least one heat exchanger (27 “fan” taught by figure 4),
However, neither Kohno nor Krieger teach the fan being oriented to move the cooling air in a direction within plus or minus 60 degrees of the longitudinal axis of the main frame (Kohno figures 3 and 4 show the radiator, but do not clearly show the orientation of the fan).
Lyle teaches a fan being oriented to move the cooling air in a direction within plus or minus 60 degrees of the longitudinal axis of the main frame (68 “cooling fan” taught in figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fan and heat exchanger of Kohno to be oriented to move the cooling air in a direction within plus or minus 60 degrees of the longitudinal axis of the main frame as taught by Lyle, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because orienting the fan longitudinally enables air to aerodynamically flow through the vehicle because the longitudinal direction is the direction of motion of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Kohno in view of Krieger, and in further view of Kuwahara and Lyle teaches the battery powered electric excavator of claim 9, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Kohno, Krieger, nor Lyle explicitly teach wherein: the fan is oriented such that the direction of the cooling air is at an angle between 30 and 60 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the main frame.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the orientation of the fan such that the direction of the cooling air is at an angle between 30 and 60 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the main frame, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, Kohno in view of Krieger, and in further view of Kuwahara and Lyle teaches the battery powered electric excavator of claim 9, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Lyle also teaches wherein: the fan is oriented such that the direction of the cooling air is at an angle substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the main frame (taught in figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, Kohno in view of Krieger, and in further view of Lyle teaches the battery powered electric excavator of claim 9, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Neither Kohno, Kreiger, nor Lyle teaches that the heat exchanger and fan assembly is configured to cool the hydraulic fluid.
Kuwahara teaches that the heat exchanger and fan assembly is configured to cool the hydraulic fluid (taught by figures 2-4 and paragraph 27 “The right front cover part 10 is provided with a discharge port 10A for discharging cooling air in a position facing the oil cooler 31 and the second cooling fan 32”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fan and heat exchanger of Kohno to cool the hydraulic fluid as taught by Kuwahara, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because hydraulic fluid has an optimal operational temperature and staying within that temperature allows hydraulic systems to function more efficiently.
Regarding claim 13, Kohno in view of Krieger, and in further view of Kuwahara and Lyle teaches the battery powered electric excavator of claim 9, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kohno also teaches wherein: the heat exchanger and fan assembly is configured to cool a battery coolant fluid (taught by figure 4 and column 9 lines 6-10 “a pump 23 which circulates the coolant in this liquid piping 22, a radiator 26 which cools the coolant which has been supplied to a later described cooling plate 203 of the electrical storage device 8 by this pump 23, and a fan 27 which is attached to this radiator 26”).
Regarding claim 14, Kohno in view of Krieger, and in further view of Kuwahara and Lyle teaches the battery powered electric excavator of claim 9, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Kohno also teaches wherein: the heat exchanger and fan assembly is configured to cool one or more electronics packages of the excavator (taught by figure 4 and column 9 lines 6-10 “a pump 23 which circulates the coolant in this liquid piping 22, a radiator 26 which cools the coolant which has been supplied to a later described cooling plate 203 of the electrical storage device 8 by this pump 23, and a fan 27 which is attached to this radiator 26”).
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 NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights