Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/564,047

ARRANGEMENT FOR MONITORING CUMULATIVE MOVEMENT OF A PISTON ROD IN AN ACTUATOR

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 24, 2023
Examiner
SINGH, ESVINDER
Art Unit
3657
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ponsse Oyj
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
147 granted / 195 resolved
+23.4% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
226
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.7%
-33.3% vs TC avg
§103
57.0%
+17.0% vs TC avg
§102
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.5%
-21.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 195 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Status of Claims Claims 1 and 5-12 remain pending. Claims 1 and 5-12 have been amended. Claims 2-4 have been cancelled. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 5-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant should remove “the” in line 1 of claim 1 so that the claim reads “An arrangement for monitoring movement of a piston rod”. Applicant should remove the term “of these” after “form a cumulative total movement distance” in line 14 of claim 1. Every instance of “the at least one sensor” in claim 1 should be “the at least one 3-axis sensor”. There are 2 instances in claim 1. Every instance of “the actuator” in claim 1 should be “the pressure medium operated actuator”. There are 3 instances in claim 1. Claim 6 has an antecedent basis issue for “a plurality of 3-axis sensors sensor” as the plurality of 3-axis sensors have already been recited in claim 5 and contains grammatical issues. Applicant should amend the claim to read “…and wherein the plurality of 3-axis sensors are fitted to at least two points on a boom system of the forestry machine”. Claim 7 “the at least one sensor” should be “the at least one 3-axis sensor”. Every instance of “the sensor” in claim 10 should be “the at least one 3-axis sensor”. There are 4 instances in claim 10. Every instance of “the actuator” in claim 10 should be “the pressure medium operated actuator”. There are 3 instances in claim 10. “the at least one sensor” in claim 11 should be “the at least one 3-axis sensor” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The term “control unit” in claim 1 is interpreted to be a controller, which is known in the art to include a processor and a storage. 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, 5-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahrenholz et al (US 20180110190 A1) in view of Suzuki et al (US 20230304263 A1), Chen et al (US 20190257327 A1), and Aki et al (US 20210102561 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Mahrenholz, Suzuki, Chen, and Aki respectively) Regarding Claim 1, Mahrenholz teaches an arrangement for the monitoring movement of a piston rod in a pressure medium operated actuator (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0005, 0018, and 0032, the control system is an arrangement for monitoring the piston rod/hydraulic cylinder in a pressure medium operated actuator), the arrangement comprising: at least one 3-axis sensor configured to determine a position in relation to a gravitational vector to monitor a movement of a machine part controlled by the pressure medium operated actuator in time and place and to produce at least terminal location data of each movement of the machine part (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0018, 0026, 0029, 0031-0032, and 0034, the IMUs, which include the 3-axis gyroscope for determining a position in relation to a gravitational vector, are used to monitor the movement of the machine part controlled by a pressure medium operated actuator and used to produce orientation/terminal location data of the machine part), and a control unit (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraph 0028 and Figure 1) configured to: Mahrenholz fails to disclose the control unit is configured to…receive and store at least the terminal location data produced by the at least one sensor. However, Suzuki teaches receive and store at least the terminal location data produced by the at least one sensor (See at least Suzuki Paragraphs 0048-0049, the location data/angle of the machine part produced by the sensor is stored). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Mahrenholz with Suzuki to store the terminal location data. Storing location data is routine and well-known in the art, and allows the system to utilize the stored data at a later time. Modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose the control unit is configured to… calculate a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the actuator from each two successive pieces of terminal location data produced by the at least one sensor. However, Chen teaches calculate a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the actuator from each two successive pieces of terminal location data produced by the at least one sensor (See at least Chen Paragraphs 0020-0021, the machine linkage positions detected by the sensor are used to determine the cylinder/piston rod displacement/movement distance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Chen to calculate a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the actuator from each two successive pieces of terminal location data produced by the sensor unit. This modification, as taught by Chen, would allow the system to determine the health and remaining useful life of the hydraulic cylinder/piston rod (See at least Chen Paragraphs 0020-0021), which would improve the safety of the system. Modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose the control unit is configured to… receive data on each movement distance of the piston rod and form a cumulative total movement distance of these, compare the cumulative total movement distance with an entered reference value to monitor the degree of use of the actuator, and responsive to the cumulative total movement distance being equal to or larger than the entered reference value, generating a maintenance notification advising that the actuator has reached or is reaching its maintenance interval. However, Aki teaches receive data on each movement distance of the piston rod and form a cumulative total movement distance of these (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0033, and 0041-0042, the total travel/movement distance for the piston is calculated), compare the cumulative total movement distance with an entered reference value to monitor the degree of use of the actuator (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0030, 0033, and 0064, the total travel/movement distance is compared with a threshold/reference value entered by the person to monitor the degree of use of the actuator), and responsive to the cumulative total movement distance being equal to or larger than the entered reference value, generating a maintenance notification advising that the actuator has reached or is reaching its maintenance interval (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0033, 0064, 0068-0069, 0077-0079, and Figure 4, when the cumulative total movement/travel distance is equal to or larger than the distance threshold/entered reference value, the results of the abnormality detecting unit advising that the actuator has an abnormality, which is interpreted as reached its maintenance interval, is output on the display). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Aki to compare the total movement distance of the piston rod with a reference value and generate a maintenance notification advising that the actuator has reached its maintenance interval when the total movement distance is equal to or larger than the entered reference value. This modification, as taught by Aki, would allow the system to detect an abnormality such as a fault in the actuator and output the detection of the abnormality to the display, which would improve maintainability of the equipment (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0064, 0069, and 0079). Regarding Claim 5, modified Mahrenholz teaches the arrangement is fitted to a moving work machine (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0022-0023, and Figure 1), and wherein the at least one 3-axis sensor comprises a plurality of 3-axis sensors, each said sensor being fitted to a different machine part of the moving work machine (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0034, and Figure 2). Regarding Claim 6, modified Mahrenholz teaches the arrangement is fitted to a forestry machine (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0004, 0022-0023, and Figure 1) and wherein the at least one 3-axis sensor comprises a plurality of 3-axis sensors sensor fitted to at least in two points in a boom system of the forestry machine (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0034, and Figure 2). Regarding Claim 7, modified Mahrenholz teaches the at least one sensor comprises an inertial sensor (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0017 and 0034). Regarding Claim 8, modified Mahrenholz teaches the inertial sensor uses MEMS technology and comprises one or more MEMS-based one-axis accelerometers and/or MEMS-based gyroscopes (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0017 and 0034). Regarding Claim 10, Mahrenholz teaches a method for monitoring movement of a piston rod in a pressure medium operated actuator (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0005, 0007, and 0032, the control system monitors the piston rod/hydraulic cylinder), wherein at least one 3-axis sensor is fitted to a machine part controlled by the pressure medium operated actuator (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0018, 0026, 0029, 0032, 0034 and Figure 2, the IMUs, which include the 3-axis gyroscope, is fitted to machine parts controlled by the actuator), the method comprising: determining a position in relation to a gravitational vector for monitoring a movement of the sensor in time and place (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0018, 0026, 0029, 0031-0032, and 0034, the imus, which include the gyroscope for determining a position in relation to a gravitational vector, are used to monitor the movement of the machine part on which the sensor is fitted), forming by the sensor at least terminal location data of each movement of the machine part (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0018, 0026, 0029, 0031-0032, and 0034, the IMUs are used to form orientation/terminal location data of the machine part). Mahrenholz fails to disclose storing the terminal location data produced by the sensor. However, Suzuki teaches storing the terminal location data produced by the sensor (See at least Suzuki Paragraphs 0048-0049, the location data/angle of the machine part produced by the sensor is stored). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Mahrenholz with Suzuki to store the terminal location data. Storing location data is routine and well-known in the art, and allows the system to utilize the stored data at a later time. Modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose calculating a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the actuator from each two successive pieces of stored terminal location data produced by the sensor. However, Chen teaches calculating a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the actuator from each two successive pieces of stored terminal location data produced by the sensor (See at least Chen Paragraphs 0020-0021, the machine linkage positions detected by the sensor, which are stored by the electronic control unit, are used to determine the cylinder/piston rod displacement/movement distance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Chen to calculate a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the actuator from each two successive pieces of terminal location data produced by the sensor. This modification, as taught by Chen, would allow the system to determine the health and remaining useful life of the hydraulic cylinder/piston rod (See at least Chen Paragraphs 0020-0021), which would improve the safety of the system. Modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose calculating a cumulative total movement distance of the piston rod, comparing the cumulative total movement distance with a given reference value to ensure the operating condition of the actuator, and generating a maintenance notification advising that the actuator has reached or is reaching its maintenance interval in response to the cumulative total movement distance being equal to or larger than the given reference value. However, Aki teaches calculating a cumulative total movement distance of the piston rod (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0033, and 0041-0042, the total travel/movement distance for the piston is calculated), comparing the cumulative total movement distance with a given reference value to ensure the operating condition of the actuator (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0030, 0033, and 0064, the total travel/movement distance is compared with a threshold/reference value entered by the person to monitor the degree of use of the actuator), and generating a maintenance notification advising that the actuator has reached or is reaching its maintenance interval in response to the cumulative total movement distance being equal to or larger than the given reference value (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0033, 0064, 0068-0069, 0077-0079, and Figure 4, when the cumulative total movement/travel distance is equal to or larger than the distance threshold/entered reference value, the results of the abnormality detecting unit advising that the actuator has an abnormality, which is interpreted as reached its maintenance interval, is output on the display). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Aki to compare the total movement distance of the piston rod with a reference value and generate a maintenance notification advising that the actuator has reached its maintenance interval when the total movement distance is equal to or larger than the given reference value. This modification, as taught by Aki, would allow the system to detect an abnormality such as a fault in the actuator and output the detection of the abnormality to the display, which would improve maintainability of the equipment (See at least Aki Paragraphs 0064, 0069, and 0079). Regarding Claim 11, modified Mahrenholz teaches the at least one sensor is an inertial sensor (See at least Mahrenholz Paragraphs 0017 and 0034). Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahrenholz in view of Suzuki, Chen, and Aki, and in further view of Hamada et al (US 20220172434 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Hamada) Regarding Claims 9 and 12, modified Mahrenholz fails to disclose the inertial sensor is arranged to store data on a transfer time between two successive terminal locations. However, Hamada teaches the inertial sensor is arranged to store data on a transfer time between two successive terminal locations (See at least Hamada Paragraphs 0026, 0072, and Figure 6, the data recorded by the IMU regarding terminal locations is in time-series). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Mahrenholz with Hamada to store data on a transfer time between two successive terminal locations. Storing data in time-series, as taught by Hamada, is well-known and routine in the art, and allows for the system to determine the time between two successive terminal locations, which can be used calculate the velocity of the machine part, thus, increasing the awareness of the system. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on Page 7 of the remarks, that Suzuki does not teach the features for which it is cited. Applicant states that “its sensor information merely comes from angle sensors. Therefore, Suzuki fails to disclose receiving and storing at least the terminal located data produced by a 3-axis sensor unit.”. However, Examiner disagrees. Suzuki teaches storing the angle of the boom detected by the boom angle sensor. Mahrenholz teaches, in Paragraphs 0032-0033, the orientation sensor used to detect the orientation/angle of the boom is a MEMS accelerometer, which is part of the 3-axis sensor. Therefore, the combination of Mahrenholz and Suzuki render the limitation “receiving and storing at least the terminal located data produced by a 3-axis sensor unit” obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would simply modify Mahrenholz to store the terminal location data produced by the 3-axis sensor. Applicant argues, on Page 8 of the remarks, that Chen does not teach the features for which it is cited. Applicant states “Chen does not disclose calculating a movement distance performed by the piston rod”. However, Examiner disagrees. Chen states in Paragraph 0020, “In a further embodiment, in lieu of the displacement sensor 48, a machine linkage sensor 51 can be provided and cylinder displacement can be calculated based on machine linkage positions.”. The positions of the machine linkage, which is the terminal location data, is used to calculate the cylinder displacement, which is the movement distance of the piston rod. Therefore, Chen teaches calculating the movement distance/displacement of the piston rod/cylinder. Applicant further argues, on Page 8 of the remarks, that Aki discloses that “separate sensors 18 and 22 are needed for counting the number of operations to count the distance. The claimed 3-axis sensor unit and calculating of a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the actuator from each two successive pieces of terminal location produced by the sensor are not taught or suggested by Aki. Nor is there any apparent linkage between Mahrenholz and Aki that would lead one skilled in the art to these features.”. However, Examiner disagrees. Mahrenholz teaches the claimed 3-axis sensor and Chen teaches calculating of a movement distance performed by the piston rod in the actuator from each two successive pieces of terminal location produced by the sensor. Aki was cited to teach receiving data on each movement distance of the piston rod, forming a cumulative total movement distance of the piston rod, and comparing the cumulative total movement distance with a reference value. The teachings in Aki are used to modify Mahrenholz, which is already modified with the teachings in Suzuki and Chen, so that the terminal location data detected by the 3-axis sensor is used to form a cumulative total movement distance of the piston rod and the cumulative total movement distance is compared with a reference value/threshold to determine an abnormality in the actuator. The linkage between Mahrenholz and Aki is that Mahrenholz is a system that monitors the movement of a machine part controlled by an actuator, and Aki teaches monitoring the usage of an actuator to determine an abnormality. By incorporating the teachings in Aki into the teachings in Mahrenholz, an abnormality in the actuator that controls the machine part can be detected, which would improve the safety of the system in Mahrenholz. Applicant further argues, on Page 8 of the remarks, that Aki does not trigger a maintenance notification when the total movement distance exceeds a certain value. However, Examiner disagrees. When the total movement distance exceeds a certain value, an abnormality in the actuator is detected, which Aki teaches in Paragraph 0064 and Step S12 and Step S14 of Figure 4. The results of the abnormality detection are shown on a display, as taught in Paragraph 0069 and Step S19 in Figure 4. The abnormality indicates degradation or a fault in the actuator, as taught in Paragraph 0020. By detecting and displaying the abnormality, the maintainability of the equipment when maintenance is performed is improved, as taught in Paragraph 0079. Therefore, Aki teaches triggering a maintenance notification by outputting the abnormality detection on the display when the total movement distance exceeds a certain value. For these reasons, the claims still stand rejected under 103. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm 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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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. /ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 24, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 03, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596372
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING MOVEMENT OF MOVING BODY AND RELATED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583120
MANAGEMENT SERVER, REMOTE OPERATION SYSTEM, REMOTE OPERATION METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583121
CALIBRATION APPARATUS FOR CALIBRATING MECHANISM ERROR PARAMETER FOR CONTROLLING ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585278
ROBOT NAVIGATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583118
ROBOTIC DEVICE WORKSPACE MAPPING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.7%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 195 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month