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 .
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with Robert Mueller on 1/6/2026.
The application has been amended as follows:
1. (Currently amended) A device for timber harvesting having a hydraulically controlled felling headattachable to the boom arm of a vehicle and comprises:
a gripper and saw unit and a tilting device, wherein the gripper and saw unit has at least one pair of two gripper arms for the harvested material, actuatable by a first hydraulic cylinder and pivotable between an open and closed state, and a cutting element for cutting through the harvested materialpivotable out by a second hydraulic cylinder, and pivotable from a depositing position into a cutting position for the harvested material by the tilting device that is actuatable by a third hydraulic cylinder,
wherein the first hydraulic cylinder is connected to a first hydraulic line for opening the gripper arms and to a second hydraulic line for closing the gripper arms,
configured as a single-acting hydraulic cylinder, and to a third hydraulic valve, via which the second hydraulic valve is connected to the first hydraulic line,
wherein the third hydraulic valve is configured to block when pressure is applied to the first hydraulic line and to open when pressure is applied to the second hydraulic line, and the second hydraulic valve is configured to conduct hydraulic fluid from the first hydraulic valve to the third hydraulic cylinder when a switch is actuated by the gripper arms pivoted into their open state, and to conduct hydraulic fluid from the third hydraulic cylinder to the third hydraulic valve when the switch is not actuated when the gripper arms are closed.
2. (Currently amended) The device according to claim 1, wherein the first hydraulic valve is configured to conduct hydraulic fluid from the second hydraulic valve to the first hydraulic line when a first limit value of the output-side pressurization is exceeded.
3. (Currently amended) The device according to claim 1, further comprising a fourth hydraulic valve configured as a load-holding valve with an overload protection, which is connected on the input side to the second hydraulic line and on the output side to the first hydraulic cylinder,
wherein the fourth hydraulic valve is designed to conduct hydraulic fluid from the first hydraulic cylinder to the second hydraulic line when a second limit value of the output-side pressurization is exceeded.
4. (Currently amended) The device according to claim 1, further comprising a fifth hydraulic valve
wherein the fifth hydraulic valve is designed to conduct hydraulic fluid from the second hydraulic line to the hydraulic motor and the second hydraulic cylinder when a third limit value of the input-side pressurization is exceeded.
5. (Currently amended) The device according to claim 1, further comprising a first accumulator for leakage oil of the hydraulic motor
6. (Currently amended) The device according to claim 1, further comprising a sixth hydraulic valve
wherein the sixth hydraulic valve is designed to conduct hydraulic fluid from the hydraulic motor into the first hydraulic line and to block it in the opposite direction.
7. (Currently amended) The device according to claim 1, further comprising a second accumulator for hydraulic fluid of the second hydraulic cylinder
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/561942 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed limitations are being disclosed by the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under double patent rejection set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
WO 2011078673, US 20180125007 are the closest prior arts.
None of the prior art disclose or render obvious the device comprises “…wherein the third hydraulic valve is configured to block when pressure is applied to the first hydraulic line and to open when pressure is applied to the second hydraulic line, and the second hydraulic valve is configured to conduct hydraulic fluid from the first hydraulic valve to the third hydraulic cylinder when a switch is actuated by the gripper arms pivoted into their open state, and to conduct hydraulic fluid from the third hydraulic cylinder to the third hydraulic valve when the switch is not actuated when the gripper arms are closed.” In combination with the rest of the claim limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-7 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY YEONJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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 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.
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3725