DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior rejection of CLAIM 4 under §112(b) has been overcome by the response filed 02 March 2026, wherein Applicant deleted the limitation that lacked antecedent basis.
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.
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.
CLAIMS 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavalley et al. (US 2014/0259597 A1) in view of Robley (US 3,204,417 A)1.
CLAIM 1
Lavalley et al. ‘597 (“Lavalley”) shows an attachment (Figs. 2A, 2B) that is mountable to an arm of construction equipment, comprising:
a mount bracket (36) that is removably attachable to the arm (20) of the construction equipment, wherein the mount bracket forms a single direct point of attachment to the arm of the construction equipment (Fig. 1).
Lavalley fails to teach a ground support member.
Robley ‘417 (“Robley”) shows an attachment (Fig. 3) comprising a mount structure (the structure proximate and including 136) configured for removable attachment to a construction arm, and at least one ground support member (42, 46) mounted on the attachment, the at least one ground support member includes at least two support legs, and the support legs are actuatable between a retracted position and an extended, ground-engaging position at which the at least one ground support member supports the attachment on the ground (col. 2, ll. 22-9). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art attachment (Lavalley) with the addition of at least one ground support member (Robley, 42, 46). The motivation for making the modification would have been to provide means for the supporting the attachment on an underlying surface, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 2
In the prior art combination, the attachment further comprises an implement (Lavalley, 42, 44) mounted to the mount bracket (36), the implement is configured to perform at least one jobsite task, and the implement is able to perform the at least one jobsite task when the at least one ground support member (Robley, 42, 46) supports the attachment on the ground.
CLAIM 3
In the prior art combination, the implement includes a main beam (Lavalley, 30), and a first grapple mechanism (Lavalley, 42) and a second grapple mechanism (Lavalley, 44) mounted on the main beam; and the first grapple mechanism and the second grapple mechanism each includes opposing grab arms (Lavalley, Fig. 2A).
Robley ‘417 further discloses the at least one ground support member (42, 46) mounted on a beam (44)(Fig. 6) to support its load. Thus, it would have been an obvious modification for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have mounted the at least one ground support member (Robley, 42, 46) on the main beam (Lavalley, 30), as suggested by Robley. The motivation for making the modification would have been to facilitate the transfer of load from the main beam to the ground support members with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 4
In the prior art combination, the implement further includes a pipe processing tool (Lavalley, 18, [0054]) positioned between the first grapple mechanism (Lavalley, 42) and the second grapple mechanism (Lavalley, 44).
CLAIM 5
In the prior art combination, the implement further includes a pipe conforming mechanism (Lavalley, Fig. 2A) positioned between the first grapple mechanism (Lavalley, 42) and the second grapple mechanism (Lavalley, 44), and the pipe conforming mechanism includes first and second conforming rings (Lavalley, 70, 72).
CLAIM 6
In the prior art combination, the pipe processing tool (Lavalley, 18) is mounted on the pipe conforming mechanism (Lavalley, [0057]).
CLAIM 7
In the prior art combination, the pipe processing tool (Lavalley, 18) comprises a pipe welding tool (Lavalley, 106, [0086]).
CLAIM 8
In the prior art combination, the pipe conforming mechanism (Lavalley, 70, 72) is mounted on the main beam (Lavalley, 30).
CLAIM 9
In the prior art combination, the attachment comprises two of the ground support members (Robley, 42, 46) mounted on the main beam (Lavalley, 30), and the first grapple mechanism (Lavalley, 42) and the second grapple mechanism (Lavalley, 44) are positioned between the two ground support members (see Robley, Fig. 2).
CLAIM 10
In the prior art combination, the first grapple mechanism (Lavalley, 42) is positioned between the second grapple mechanism (Lavalley, 44) and one of the two ground support members (Robley), and the second grapple mechanism is positioned between the first grapple mechanism and the other one of the two ground support members.
CLAIM 11
In the prior art combination, the attachment further comprises a lower head assembly (Lavalley, 32) rotatably connected to the mount bracket (Lavalley, 36); and the main beam (Lavalley, 30) is pivotally connected to the lower head assembly ([0048]).
CLAIM 12 The method steps and structural limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by the combination of Lavalley and Robley ‘417, as applied above to reject CLAIM 1.
CLAIM 13 The method steps and structural limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by the combination of Lavalley and Robley ‘417, as applied above to reject CLAIM 2.
CLAIM 14 The method steps and structural limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by the combination of Lavalley and Robley ‘417, as applied above to reject CLAIMS 3 and 4.
CLAIM 15 The method steps and structural limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by the combination of Lavalley and Robley ‘417, as applied above to reject CLAIM 5.
CLAIM 16 The method steps and structural limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by the combination of Lavalley and Robley ‘417, as applied above to reject CLAIM 2.
CLAIM 17 The method steps and structural limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by the combination of Lavalley and Robley ‘417, as applied above to reject CLAIM 2.
CLAIM 18 The method steps and structural limitations recited therein are inherent to use of the assembly taught by the combination of Lavalley and Robley ‘417, as applied above to reject CLAIM 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/tm/
27 May 2026
1 NOTE: The secondary reference to Robley (US 3,204,417 A) relied upon in the above obviousness rejection is not the same as the Robley reference (US 3,267,682 A) relied upon in the last Office Action.
Prosecution Insights