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 .
Applicant’s Amendment, filed 3/12/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 24-25, it appears that claims “the slide guide and the support arm being arrange to move relative to each other” should be “the slide guide and the support arm being arranged to move relative to each other” (emphasis added); and
In claim 3, line 2, there is a space between “element” and the comma. (It should also be noted that claim 13 is listed as being “Currently Amended” however, the examiner cannot ascertain what is being amended).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sjostrum (US 4735272).
Regarding claim 1: Sjostrum discloses a damping system for a cabin 1 of a movable work machine (Figs. 1, 2). Sjostrum discloses that the cabin is supported to a frame 2 of the work machine with suspension elements (assemblies shown in Figs 3-5) for damping oscillation motion, impacts and vibration (Figs. 3-5). Sjostrum discloses the suspension elements having a first end and a second end and forming a ROPS resistance structure (Figs. 3-5 - upper and lower ends of the assemblies; as the disclosure and claims provide no explicit definition or condition for forming a ROPS, the examiner finds that Sjostrum would form the same ROPS resistance using at least element/structure 65). Sjostrum discloses the suspension elements include a first fixing stopper 59 for fastening the cabin of the work machine to the first end of the suspension element (Figs. 3-5). Sjostrum discloses a second fixing stopper 20 for fastening the frame of the work machine to the second end of the suspension element (Figs. 3-5). Sjostrum discloses a spring element 52 which is mechanically bound between the first end of the suspension element and the second end of the suspension element (Figs. 3-5). Sjostrum discloses a damping element 53 which is mechanically bound between the first end of the suspension element and the second end of the suspension element (Figs. 3-5). Sjostrum discloses that a travel range of the support arm is arranged to extend at least beyond the first fixing stopper or the second fixing stopper (Fig. 5). Sjostrum discloses a guide element 65 fitted outside the spring element and the damping element (Figs. 3-5). Sjostrum discloses that the suspension elements include the guide element 65 comprising a slide guide 73 and a support arm 66 fitted in the slide guide, the slide guide and the support arm being arranged to move relative to each other (Figs. 3-5). Sjostrum discloses the guide element having opposite ends, of which opposite ends one is in the slide guide and the other is in the support arm, and of which opposite ends one is mechanically bound to the first end of the suspension elements (Figs. 3-5 – see element 68). Sjostrum discloses that the other is mechanically bound to the second end of the suspension elements (Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 2: Sjostrum discloses that the slide guide of the guide element is open at both of its ends enabling the movement of the support arm through the slide guide (Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 3: Sjostrum discloses that the support arm has a first end and a second end which are always outside the slide guide in the movement direction (Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 4: Sjostrum discloses that a first stopper is placed at the first end and a second stopper at the second end of the support arm for restricting the movement of the support arm (Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 5: Sjostrum discloses that the slide guide is mechanically bound to the frame of the work machine and the support arm is mechanically bound to the cabin of the work machine (Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 8: Sjostrum discloses that the support arm is essentially parallel to a line segment determined by a center point of the first fixing stopper and a center point of the second fixing stopper, and a center point of the support arm is essentially on the line segment determined by the center point of the first fixing stopper and the center point of the second fixing stopper (Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 9: Sjostrum discloses that there is an empty space in the frame or in the cabin at the suspension element for the movement of the support arm of the guide element (Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 11: Sjostrum discloses that a distance between a first fastening end and a second fastening end of the damping element is longer than a distance between the points of support of the slide guide (Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 17: Sjostrum discloses that the spring element comprises a coil spring which is fitted coaxially around the damping element (Figs. 3-5).
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 of this title, 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 6-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sjostrum (US 4735272) in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20060226680).
Sjostrum discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6: Sjostrum does not discuss materials and dimensions of ROPS supports and thus does not explicitly disclose that to provide ROPS resistance for the cabin of the work machine, the support arm is made of metal, and a diameter of the support arm with a circular cross-section is about 50-100 mm. Matsumoto discloses that a ROPS support member may be metal ([0060]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sjostrum so that the support arm is metal. As Sjostrum and Matsumoto are both directed to supporting a cabin, as Matsumoto explicitly discloses the use of metal to form ROPS support members, as Sjostrom is silent regarding materials, and as ROPS structures and materials are well known in the art, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired material that supports a ROPS system from a finite selection of recommended ROPS support materials. Such a simple addition/substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Sjostrum, as modified by Matsumoto, does not explicitly disclose that the support arm has a diameter of a circular cross-section of about 50-100 mm. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sjostrum, as modified by Matsumoto, so that the support arm has a diameter of a circular cross-section of about 50-100 mm, preferably 60-80 mm. As Sjostrum and Matsumoto are both directed to supporting a cabin, as mechanical metal supports are very well known across the arts, as it is very well known int the arts to choose the material and dimensions of a support element so as to support a desired load, and as both Sjostrum and Matsumoto a concerned with safety, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired support arm diameter that would have the sufficient strength to support a desired structure (i.e. choosing metal support dimensions that would provide sufficient strength to support the desired structure). Such a simple addition/substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7: Sjostrum, as modified by Matsumoto, does not explicitly disclose that to provide ROPS resistance for the cabin of the work machine, the slide guide is made of metal, preferably steel, and a difference between an inner diameter and an outer diameter of the cylindrical slide guide is about 20-50 mm and a distance between the points of support at both ends of the slide guide is about 150-300 mm.
Matsumoto discloses that a ROPS support member may be metal ([0060]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sjostrum so that the slide guide is metal. As Sjostrum and Matsumoto are both directed to supporting a cabin, as Matsumoto explicitly discloses the use of metal to form ROPS support members, as Sjostrom is silent regarding materials, and as ROPS structures and materials are well known in the art, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired material that supports a ROPS system from a finite selection of recommended ROPS support materials. Such a simple addition/substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Sjostrum, as modified by Matsumoto, does not explicitly disclose that a difference between an inner diameter and an outer diameter of the cylindrical slide guide is about 20-50 mm and a distance between the points of support at both ends of the slide guide is about 150-300 mm. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sjostrum, as modified by Matsumoto, so that a difference between an inner diameter and an outer diameter of the cylindrical slide guide is about 20-50 mm, preferably 25-40 mm, and a distance between the points of support at both ends of the slide guide is about 150-300 mm, preferably 200-250 mm. As Sjostrum and Matsumoto are both directed to supporting a cabin, as mechanical metal supports are very well known across the arts, as it is very well known int the arts to choose the material and dimensions of a support element so as to support a desired load, and as both Sjostrum and Matsumoto are concerned with safety, it would have been within routine skill to have selected desired dimensions of support structure that would have the sufficient strength to support a desired structure (i.e. choosing metal support dimensions that would provide sufficient strength to support the desired structure). Such a simple addition/substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results..
Regarding claim 19: Sjostrum, as modified by Matsumoto, does not explicitly disclose that a vertical travel range of the suspension element is arranged to about 100-200 mm. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sjostrum, as modified by Matsumoto, so that a vertical travel range of the suspension element is arranged to about 100-200 mm. As Sjostrum and Matsumoto are both directed to supporting a cabin, as mechanical metal supports are very well known across the arts, as it is very well known int the arts to choose the material and dimensions of a support element so as to support a desired load, and as both Sjostrum and Matsumoto are concerned with safety, it would have been within routine skill to have selected desired dimensions, such as travel range, of support structure that would have the sufficient strength to support a desired structure (i.e. choosing travel dimensions that would provide sufficient strength to support the desired structure). Such a simple addition/substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sjostrum (US 4735272) in view of Scott (US 20150123390).
Sjostrum discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 10: Sjostrum does not explicitly disclose that the damping system comprises at least four suspension elements so that there is at least one suspension element in each corner of the cabin. Scott discloses that the damping system comprises at least four suspension elements 42 so that there is at least one suspension element in each corner of the cabin (Fig. 2; [0036]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sjostrum so that the damping system comprises at least four suspension elements so that there is at least one suspension element in each corner of the cabin as taught by Scott. As Sjostrum and Scott are both directed to supporting a cabin, as cabin suspension elements are very well-known in the art, and as Scott explicitly discloses at least four suspension elements, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired number of suspension elements from a finite selection of a number of suspension elements (i.e. select a desired amount to provide the desired/required suspension). Such a simple addition/substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sjostrum (US 4735272) in view of Gyllner (US 5964310).
Sjostrum discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 12: Sjostrum does not explicitly disclose that a distance between a first fastening end and a second fastening end of the damping element is about 110-200%, preferably 120-170%, of a distance between the points of support of the slide guide. Gyllner discloses that a distance between a first fastening end and a second fastening end of the damping element is about 110-200%, preferably 120-170%, of a distance between the points of support of the slide guide (Fig. 2). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sjostrum so that a distance between a first fastening end and a second fastening end of the damping element is about 110-200% of a distance between the points of support of the slide guide as illustrated by Gyllner. As Sjostrum and Gyllner are both directed to supporting a cabin, as cabin suspension elements are very well-known in the art, and as Gyllner explicitly illustrates the claimed dimensions, it would have been within routine skill to have selected desired dimensions of suspension elements from a finite selection of dimensions of suspension elements (i.e. select desired dimensions to provide the desired/required suspension/support). Such a simple addition/substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sjostrum (US 4735272) in view of Gottschalk et al. (US 20140265075).
Sjostrum discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 13: Sjostrum does not explicitly disclose that between the cabin and the first fixing stopper of the suspension element, there is an elastic component for compensating for distance changes of the fixing stoppers due to movements of the support arms. Gottschalk discloses using elastic components 20, 22 for compensating for distance changes due to movements ([0032]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sjostrum to included elastic components for compensating for distance changes due to movements, as taught by Gottschalk, and thus configure Sjostrum so that between the cabin and the first fixing stopper of the suspension element, there is an elastic component for compensating for distance changes of the fixing stoppers due to movements of the support arms. As Sjostrum and Gottschalk are both directed to suspension of a working vehicle cabin, as Sjostrum is silent regarding elastic components to compensate for movement creating distance changes, as resilient spacer are well known in the art, and as Gottschalk explicitly discloses elastic spacers for movement compensation, it would have been within routine skill to have selected desired spacers to allow movement/distance compensation from a finite selection of movement compensation elements. Such a simple addition/substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sjostrum (US 4735272) in view of Schauer et al. (US 20140319876).
Sjostrum discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 14: Sjostrum does not explicitly disclose that placed within the guide element, around the support arm, there is a piston, which limits a first chamber and a second chamber within the guide element. Schauer discloses that placed within the guide element, around the support arm, there is a piston, which limits a first chamber and a second chamber within the guide element (Fig. 2). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sjostrum that placed within the guide element, around the support arm, there is a piston, which limits a first chamber and a second chamber within the guide element as taught by Schauer. As Sjostrum and Schauer are both directed to suspension of a working vehicle cabin, as Sjostrum is silent regarding a piston, and as Schauer explicitly discloses that placed within the guide element, around the support arm, there is a piston, which limits a first chamber and a second chamber within the guide element, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a desired configuration from a finite selection of configurations (i.e. using a piston to limit first and second chambers). Such a simple addition/substitution would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sjostrum (US 4735272) in view of Nilsson et al. (EP 3059104).
Sjostrum discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 16: Sjostrum does not explicitly disclose that the movable work machine is a forestry machine. Nilsson discloses that a movable work machine can be a forestry machine ([0004]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Sjostrum to be used as a forestry machine as taught by Nilsson. As Sjostrum and Nilsson are both directed to suspension of a working vehicle cabin, as Sjostrum is silent regarding the use of the working machine in a forest, as forestry work machines are known in the art, and as Nilsson explicitly discloses that a movable work machine can be a forestry machine, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a work area configuration for a movable work machine from a finite selection of work area configurations (i.e. use in forestry or use elsewhere). Such a simple configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 18: Sjostrum, as modified by Nilsson, discloses that the spring element comprises a hydraulic or pneumatic pressure accumulator 16 (abstr.; Fig. 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Damping systems for work machines and ROPS and associated structure/components are very well known in the art. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Sjostrum (US 4735272), Matsumoto et al. (US 20060226680), Scott (US 20150123390), Gyllner (US 5964310), Gottschalk et al. (US 20140265075), Schauer et al. (US 20140319876), Nilsson et al. (EP 3059104), Shoen et al. (US 20210402943), Yamamoto et al. (US 20210094513), Valerio et al. (US 20160096553), and Gielda et al. (US 8702154). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a work machine, a damping system for the work machine, a ROPS, a first fixing stopper for fastening the cabin of the work machine to the first end of the suspension, a second fixing stopper for fastening the frame of the work machine to the second end of the suspension, a guide element comprising a slide guide and a support arm fitted in the slide guide, the slide guide and the support arm being arranged to move relative to each other, and mechanical connections of the various structure. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically combined structure as being claimed in the instant application. Specifically, the detailed structural limitations together with the two suspension elements being cross-connected with first and second hydraulic pipes connecting specific structure for forming hydraulic stability control. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 3/12/2026, with respect to the previous rejections of claims 1-19 have been fully considered and they are at least partially persuasive. The objections/rejections that have been withdrawn are not repeated herein.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the amended claim requires that each suspension element include a guide element comprising a slide guide and a support arm fitted in the slide guide, with the slide guide and support arm arranged to move linearly relative to each other and with their opposite ends mechanically bound to the first and second ends of the suspension element. Applicant asserts that in contrast, the component identified by the Office Action as a "slide guide" plate 73 is merely a plate positioned adjacent to a rod and includes a rubber bushing through which the rod passes. Applicant concludes that this is not the "slide guide" according to applicant's amended claim 1. The examiner disagrees with applicant’s analysis and conclusion. As applicant correctly identifies plate 73 as structure positioned adjacent to a rod and includes a rubber bushing through which the rod passes, it seems that this would be the definition of a “slide guide. Applicant is also reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that Sjostrum discloses a "rod 66" that is part of the "movement restrainer 65." Applicant asserts that the function of the movement restrainer is to restrain the movement of the pivoting, which allows the tipping of the cabin, between the extreme position and that when the cab is lowered down during movement of the vehicle, the movement restrainer does not serve any function. The examiner disagrees with applicant’s analysis and conclusion. The examiner does not see any limitations in the claim to indicate movement of the vehicle.
Still further, applicant asserts that the restrainer does not form a structural element of the suspension system and is not designed to withstand the operational or rollover-related forces that the claimed suspension elements must bear. The examiner disagrees with this conclusion as applicant presents no other proof that a mere conclusory statement. The arguments of counsel cannot take place of factually supported evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) (see also MPEP 716.01(c)).
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 TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
4/13/2026
Prosecution Insights