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 .
The amendment filed 27 April 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: torque assembly (Claims 1-9 and 17). The term assembly is construed to be a generic placeholder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (US 2015/0016934) (“Cooper”) in view of Isley (US 5727610). Cooper discloses:
Claim 1: (Figure 2A/2BA; para. [0065]-[0066]);
boom tip attachment bracket on a boom of a working machine, the boom having an actuator attached thereto and one or more flexible lines (Figure 1);
a processing head attachment bracket for
an internal line passage for passage of the one or more flexible lines from the boom to the line connection point (Figure 2B);
wherein the boom tip attachment bracket comprises:
a first rigid frame having at least two plates spaced from each other by a first spacing distance so as to comprise at least a portion of the internal line passage (Figure 2B, top portion);
a pair of first coupling points opposed across the first spacing distance, for rotatably coupling the rigid frame to the processing head along a first rotation axis (laterally spaced pins 132);
wherein the processing head attachment bracket comprises:
a second rigid frame having at least two plates spaced from each other by a second spacing distance so as to comprise at least a portion of the internal line passage (link 116); and
a pair of second coupling points, opposed across the second spacing distance, and
rotatably coupled with the pair of first coupling points along the first rotation axis (by the laterally spaced pins 132);
wherein the internal line passage passes through at least the first rotation axis (Figure 2B);
Claim 3: wherein: the first rigid frame comprises a support plate extending between an edge of each of the at least two plates of the first rigid frame; and
the support plate is configured to provide an opening to the internal line passage (Figure 2B);
Claim 4: wherein: the boom comprises a guide configured to guide the one or more flexible lines along the boom to the internal line passage (Figure 2A, at least at 168);
Claim 5: wherein: the guide comprises a protective conduit fixed to the boom (Figure 2A, at least at 168);
Claim 6: wherein: the guide is arranged on an underside of the boom (the location of 168 may be defined as the underside of the boom, esp. if it is disconnected from the machine);
Claim 7: wherein: the actuator is arranged such that an extension of the actuator acts against a weight of the processing head attachment bracket (during extension, there is an actuator force that keeps the weight from pulling the actuator beyond what is desired that is against the weight as claimed);
Claim 8: wherein: the processing head attachment bracket further comprises a swivel mount permitting rotation of a processing head relative to the processing head attachment bracket; and
the swivel mount forms part of the second rigid frame (“The rotator link assembly 100 is particularly useful where rotation about at least one axis and actuation of an implement is desired.”);
Claim 9: wherein: the boom tip attachment bracket and the boom are formed as a single piece or the boom tip attachment bracket is a separate piece from the boom and configured for rigid attachment to the boom (Figure 2A);
Claim 17: forestry machine (“forestry equipment”; alternatively, machine is capable of being used in a forest).
Cooper does not directly show:
Claim 1: the processing head attachment bracket is (suitable for) rigidly attaching a processing head to the boom of the working machine;
wherein the processing head attachment bracket is coupled to the actuator by a torque assembly for translating actuation of the actuator into a rotation of the processing head attachment bracket about the first rotation axis to controllably articulate the processing head attachment bracket;
Claim 10: wherein: the torque assembly comprises an extension portion rigidly extending away from the first rotation axis; and
the extension portion is rotatably coupled to the actuator;
Claim 11: wherein: the torque assembly comprises:
a first boom linkage, having a first end and a second end; and
a second boom linkage, having a first end and a second end;
wherein:
the first end of the first boom linkage is rotatably coupled to the first rigid frame along a second rotation axis perpendicular to the first rotation axis;
the first end of the second boom linkage is rotatably coupled to the processing head attachment bracket;
the second end of the first boom linkage and the second end of the second boom linkage are rotatably coupled to the actuator; and
the internal hose passage passes through the second rotation axis;
Claim 12: wherein: the second end of the first boom linkage and the second end of the second boom linkage are rotatably coupled to the actuator along a same rotation axis;
Claim 13: wherein: the second end of the first boom linkage and the second end of the second boom linkage are rotatably coupled to a linkage bracket; and
the linkage bracket is rotatably coupled to the actuator;
Claim 14: wherein: the first rigid frame further comprises a third pair of coupling points, arranged at the second rotation axis, and opposed across the first spacing distance, for rotatably coupling the rigid frame to the first end of the first boom linkage along the second rotation axis; and
the first boom linkage comprises a pair of first rigid connectors, each having a first end and a second end;
the first end of the each of the pair of first rigid connectors is rotatably coupled to a respective coupling point of the third pair of coupling points;
the second end of each of the pair of first rigid connectors is rotatably coupled to the actuator;
Claim 15: wherein: the first rigid frame comprises a pair of outer plates and a corresponding pair of inner plates, each inner plate defining a cavity between said inner plate and its corresponding outer plate, the cavity being arranged at least at the second rotation axis;
each of the pair of first rigid connectors is arranged within a respective cavity;
each cavity is configured for motion of the rigid connector during rotation of the second end of the rigid connector about the second rotation axis; and
the internal line passage is comprised between the pair of inner plates.
Isley shows a similar device having:
Claim 1: the processing head attachment bracket is (suitable for) rigidly attaching a processing head to the boom of the working machine;
wherein the processing head attachment bracket is coupled to the actuator by a torque assembly for translating actuation of the actuator into a rotation of the processing head attachment bracket about the first rotation axis to controllably articulate the processing head attachment bracket (column 1, lines 48-54, and the mechanism shown in figure 4; it is noted that Cooper contemplates in para. [0047] that motion may be alternatively dampened by a structure; a structure that is controlled as in Isley also provides dampening as contemplated by Cooper; therefore, the torque assembly in Isley does not teach away from Cooper re. these claimed limitations);
Claim 10: wherein: the torque assembly comprises an extension portion rigidly extending away from the first rotation axis; and
the extension portion is rotatably coupled to the actuator (column 1, lines 48-54, and the mechanism shown in figure 4);
Claim 11: wherein: the torque assembly comprises:
a first boom linkage, having a first end and a second end; and
a second boom linkage, having a first end and a second end;
wherein:
the first end of the first boom linkage is rotatably coupled to the first rigid frame along a second rotation axis perpendicular to the first rotation axis;
the first end of the second boom linkage is rotatably coupled to the processing head attachment bracket;
the second end of the first boom linkage and the second end of the second boom linkage are rotatably coupled to the actuator; and
the internal hose passage passes through the second rotation axis (column 1, lines 48-54, and the mechanism shown in figure 4);
Claim 12: wherein: the second end of the first boom linkage and the second end of the second boom linkage are rotatably coupled to the actuator along a same rotation axis (column 1, lines 48-54, and the mechanism shown in figure 4);
Claim 13: wherein: the second end of the first boom linkage and the second end of the second boom linkage are rotatably coupled to a linkage bracket; and
the linkage bracket is rotatably coupled to the actuator (column 1, lines 48-54, and the mechanism shown in figure 4);
Claim 14: wherein: the first rigid frame further comprises a third pair of coupling points, arranged at the second rotation axis, and opposed across the first spacing distance, for rotatably coupling the rigid frame to the first end of the first boom linkage along the second rotation axis; and
the first boom linkage comprises a pair of first rigid connectors, each having a first end and a second end;
the first end of the each of the pair of first rigid connectors is rotatably coupled to a respective coupling point of the third pair of coupling points;
the second end of each of the pair of first rigid connectors is rotatably coupled to the actuator (column 1, lines 48-54, and the mechanism shown in figure 4);
Claim 15: wherein: the first rigid frame comprises a pair of outer plates and a corresponding pair of inner plates, each inner plate defining a cavity between said inner plate and its corresponding outer plate, the cavity being arranged at least at the second rotation axis;
each of the pair of first rigid connectors is arranged within a respective cavity;
each cavity is configured for motion of the rigid connector during rotation of the second end of the rigid connector about the second rotation axis; and
the internal line passage is comprised between the pair of inner plates;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of controlling the motion of the head (column 1, lines 48-54, and the mechanism shown in figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cooper as taught by Isley and include Isley’s similar device having:
Claim 1: the processing head attachment bracket is (suitable for) rigidly attaching a processing head to the boom of the working machine;
wherein the processing head attachment bracket is coupled to the actuator by a torque assembly for translating actuation of the actuator into a rotation of the processing head attachment bracket about the first rotation axis to controllably articulate the processing head attachment bracket;
Claim 10: wherein: the torque assembly comprises an extension portion rigidly extending away from the first rotation axis; and
the extension portion is rotatably coupled to the actuator;
Claim 11: wherein: the torque assembly comprises:
a first boom linkage, having a first end and a second end; and
a second boom linkage, having a first end and a second end;
wherein:
the first end of the first boom linkage is rotatably coupled to the first rigid frame along a second rotation axis perpendicular to the first rotation axis;
the first end of the second boom linkage is rotatably coupled to the processing head attachment bracket;
the second end of the first boom linkage and the second end of the second boom linkage are rotatably coupled to the actuator; and
the internal hose passage passes through the second rotation axis;
Claim 12: wherein: the second end of the first boom linkage and the second end of the second boom linkage are rotatably coupled to the actuator along a same rotation axis;
Claim 13: wherein: the second end of the first boom linkage and the second end of the second boom linkage are rotatably coupled to a linkage bracket; and
the linkage bracket is rotatably coupled to the actuator;
Claim 14: wherein: the first rigid frame further comprises a third pair of coupling points, arranged at the second rotation axis, and opposed across the first spacing distance, for rotatably coupling the rigid frame to the first end of the first boom linkage along the second rotation axis; and
the first boom linkage comprises a pair of first rigid connectors, each having a first end and a second end;
the first end of the each of the pair of first rigid connectors is rotatably coupled to a respective coupling point of the third pair of coupling points;
the second end of each of the pair of first rigid connectors is rotatably coupled to the actuator;
Claim 15: wherein: the first rigid frame comprises a pair of outer plates and a corresponding pair of inner plates, each inner plate defining a cavity between said inner plate and its corresponding outer plate, the cavity being arranged at least at the second rotation axis;
each of the pair of first rigid connectors is arranged within a respective cavity;
each cavity is configured for motion of the rigid connector during rotation of the second end of the rigid connector about the second rotation axis; and
the internal line passage is comprised between the pair of inner plates;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of controlling the motion of the head.
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Isley and Lysenko (US 4382624). Cooper discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Cooper does not directly show:
Claim 2: wherein: each of the pair of first coupling points comprises an aperture configured to receive a clevis pin;
each of the pair of second coupling points comprises a clevis configured to receive a clevis pin; and
the pair of first coupling points and the pair of second coupling points are rotatably coupled by respective clevis pins extending through the clevis and the aperture;
Claim 16: wherein: each of the third pair of coupling points comprises a pair of apertures respectively arranged in the outer plate and the inner plate along the second rotation axis;
the first end of each rigid connector comprises an aperture for receiving a fixing pin; and
the first end of each rigid connector is rotatably coupled to the first rigid frame by a respective fixing pin extending through the aperture in the outer plate, the aperture in the first end of the rigid connector, and the aperture in the inner plate.
Isley shows a similar device having:
Claim 2: wherein: each of the pair of first coupling points comprises an aperture configured to receive a clevis pin;
each of the pair of second coupling points comprises a clevis configured to receive a clevis pin; and
the pair of first coupling points and the pair of second coupling points are rotatably coupled by respective clevis pins extending through the clevis and the aperture (FIG. 2; col. 2, lines 22-32);
Claim 16: wherein: each of the third pair of coupling points comprises a pair of apertures respectively arranged in the outer plate and the inner plate along the second rotation axis;
the first end of each rigid connector comprises an aperture for receiving a fixing pin; and
the first end of each rigid connector is rotatably coupled to the first rigid frame by a respective fixing pin extending through the aperture in the outer plate, the aperture in the first end of the rigid connector, and the aperture in the inner plate (FIG. 2; 44/48; col. 2, lines 22-32);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing wear of the couplings during use (col. 1, lines 9-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cooper as taught by Isley and include Isley’s similar device having:
Claim 2: wherein: each of the pair of first coupling points comprises an aperture configured to receive a clevis pin;
each of the pair of second coupling points comprises a clevis configured to receive a clevis pin; and
the pair of first coupling points and the pair of second coupling points are rotatably coupled by respective clevis pins extending through the clevis and the aperture;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing wear of the couplings during use;
Claim 16: wherein: each of the third pair of coupling points comprises a pair of apertures respectively arranged in the outer plate and the inner plate along the second rotation axis;
the first end of each rigid connector comprises an aperture for receiving a fixing pin; and
the first end of each rigid connector is rotatably coupled to the first rigid frame by a respective fixing pin extending through the aperture in the outer plate, the aperture in the first end of the rigid connector, and the aperture in the inner plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that Cooper does not disclose active control and protected line routing, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Further, it is not clear in Cooper where the cabling/lines 136/137 are routed except externally to 112 as shown in Figure 2A and 2C-2F.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually in that Cooper teaches a system that is fundamentally different from and incompatible with the claimed invention and Copper and Isley show two different structures, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Re. the new claim limitations, see Isley, column 1, lines 48-54, and the mechanism shown in figure 4. It is noted that Cooper contemplates in para. [0047] that motion may be alternatively dampened by a structure. A structure that is controlled as in Isley also provides dampening as contemplated by Cooper; therefore, the torque assembly in Isley does not teach away from Cooper re. these claimed limitations.
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 Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights