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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 16-JULY-2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but all the information referred to therein has not been considered. The following IDS citations have been lined through by the examiner.
Foreign patent document citation no. 3, JP 2012012885 A.
Foreign patent document citation no. 5, JP 3144562 B.
Non-patent literature document citation no. 1, JPO Office Action for 2024-533239, dated 19-MAY-2026.
Specification
Prior objections to the specification have been overcome by amendments presented in the substitute specification filed 17-JUNE-2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior rejection of CLAIMS 1-10 has been overcome by the response filed 17-JUNE-2026, wherein Applicant deleted indefinite language from CLAIM 1.
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 1-4, 7, 8 AND 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (WO 2005/012071 A1) in view of Rocke
(US 5,446,980 A) and Schaeff (US 5,054,990 A).
CLAIM 1 Yoon et al. ‘071 (“Yoon”) discloses a self-propelled work machine (Fig. 2a) comprising an undercarriage (210) equipped with wheels or track chains (212), a top carriage (200) supported onto the undercarriage for 360° rotation about a vertical axis (cl. 27), and a first articulating boom (220) pivotably attached to the top carriage (200) and having a first implement (306) attached to the free end thereof, and
wherein the undercarriage (210) is fitted with a mounting and pivoting adapter (404, 406) to which a second articulating boom (230) having a second implement (408) attached to the free end thereof is attached, and the adapter comprises a mounting part (404) attached to the undercarriage (210) and a pivoting part (406) attached to the mounting part such that it is pivotable (“hinge-coupled”) about a vertical axis (Fig. 4a) and having said second articulating boom (230) attached thereto such that it is pivotable about a horizontal axis (Fig. 4b), characterized in that the axis line of the vertical axis of the adapter is at a distance from the undercarriage (210) in the direction of travel of the work machine.
Yoon fails to teach a programmable processor for controlling the second articulating boom and/or the second implement.
Rocke ‘980 (“Rocke”) discloses a work machine (105) that comprises an articulating boom (110) and an implement (120), and is further equipped with a programmable processor (250) programmed to automatically control predetermined movements of the articulating boom and the implement (col. 4, ll. 24-58). 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 work machine (Yoon, Fig. 2a) with the addition of a programmable processor (Rocke, 250) for controlling the second articulating boom and the second implement. The motivation for making the modification would have been to include means for automating operating of the second boom and second implement, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Yoon fails to teach expressly the degree to which the articulating boom can pivot about the adapter.
Schaeff ‘990 (“Schaeff”) shows an excavator comprising an articulating boom (14) that can pivot at least 120° about the vertical axis (22) of an adapter (20) (Figs. 5 and 5a). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the articulating boom (Yoon, 230) of the prior art excavator with a pivot range of at least 120°, as suggested by Schaeff. The motivation for making the modification would have been to achieve operational efficiency by providing the articulating boom with a desired range of motion for completing a task, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 2 In the combination of Yoon and Schaeff, the hydraulic drive power (Yoon, 704) required for moving the second articulating boom (Yoon, 230) is taken from the same motor (Yoon, 702) in the work machine as the drive power required for moving the work machine or the drive power required for moving the first articulating boom (Yoon, 220).
CLAIM 3 The combination of Yoon and Schaeff fails to teach the adapter as removable. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have attached the prior art adapter (Yoon, 404, 406) removably to the frame of the undercarriage (Yoon, 210) for detaching the second articulating boom (Yoon, 230) from the work machine because such a modification would have allowed for the interchange of working parts. It has been held that making a claimed structure separable is an obvious modification when it is “considered desirable for any reason” to provide access to a separated end. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)
CLAIM 4 In the combination of Yoon and Schaeff, the first and second articulating booms (Yoon, 220, 230) along with the implements (Yoon, 306, 408) are moveable to a mutual position in which the first implement (Yoon, 306) is directly above the second implement (Yoon, 408).
CLAIM 7 The combination of Yoon and Schaeff fails to teach removable support legs. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have equipped the mounting part (Yoon, 404) of the adapter with removable support legs to be pressed against the ground and extending to a desired distance from the center line of the work machine as seen in its direction of travel, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the use of removable support legs in combination with mounts and adapters. The motivation for making the modification would have been to have provided means for stabilizing the adapter during operation.
CLAIM 8 In the combination of Yoon and Schaeff, the pivoting part (Schaeff, 20) and the second articulating boom (Yoon, 230) along with it are pivotable at least 180° about the vertical axis of the mounting part (Yoon, 440, 460).
CLAIM 10 The combination of Yoon and Schaeff fails to teach an undercarriage rack. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have fitted the undercarriage (Yoon, 210) with a rack for storing and transporting suitable implements on the prior art work machine, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the use of racks for storing implements/tools. The motivation for making the modification would have been to conserve time used to retrieve implements/tools stored at a distance from the work site.
CLAIMS 5, 6 AND 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (WO 2005/012071 A1) in view of Rocke (US 5,446,980 A) and Schaeff (US 5,054,990 A) as applied to CLAIM 1 above, and further in view of McDermott et al. (US 20070201973 A1).
CLAIM 5 The combination of Yoon, Rocke and Schaeff fails to teach screening devices or crushing and screening devices. McDermott et al. (“McDermott”) discloses a hydraulic actuator and teaches the interchangeability of implements, which include buckets, crushers, and screens ([0013]). 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 substituted crushers and screens for the first and second implements (Yoon, 306, 408) of the prior art work machine, as taught to be known by McDermott. The motivation for making the medication would have been to include means for crushing and separating material with the prior art machine, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 6 The combination of Yoon, Rocke and Schaeff teaches all the limitations recited in the claim except for a quick-connect coupler. McDermott teaches a quick-connect coupler for a hydraulic excavator (abstract). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the adapter with quick-connect couplers, as suggested by McDermott. The motivation for making the modification would have been to reduce the time spent on attachment/detachment by providing a coupler that does not require additional and/or special tools, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 9 In the combination of Yoon, Rocke and Schaeff, the first and second articulating booms (Yoon, 220, 230) along with the implements (Yoon, 306, 408) are moveable to a mutual position in which the implements are side by side at a distance from one another, but the prior art combination fails to teach grippers. McDermott discloses a hydraulic actuator and teaches the interchangeability of implements, which include buckets and grapples ([0013]). 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 substituted grapples (grippers) for the first and second implements (Yoon, 306, 408) of the prior art work machine, as taught to be known by McDermott. The motivation for making the medication would have been to include means for grabbing and holding material with the prior art machine, and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 17-JUNE-2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of CLAIMS 1-10 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rocke (US 5,446,980 A). Specifically, as presented in the response filed 17-JUNE-2026, Applicant amended CLAIM 1 to remove alternative limitations relating to remotely controllable hydraulic valves. The remaining alternative, a programmable processor, is not taught by the combination of Yoon and Schaeff alone.
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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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
Prosecution Insights