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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group 2: claims 14-27 in the reply filed on 07/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-27 are to be examined below and claims 1-13 are considered withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 19, the claim language recites the limitation “when the rod is maximally exposed from the rod cover, the rod, the rod cover, the tube, and the head cover gradually move away from the central axis of the upper arm in an order of the rod cover, the rod, the rod cover, the tube, and the head cover while positioning the rod on the central axis of the upper arm”. This phrasing implies, simultaneously, that the rod of the bucket cylinder (among other components of the cylinder) gradually moves away from the central axis of the upper arm when the rod is maximally exposed from the rod cover, and that the rod ends this gradual movement to be positioned on the central axis of the upper arm that it is supposedly gradually moving away from. The specification does not explain how the rod is able to move away from the central axis of the upper arm while simultaneously being positioned on said central axis. The direction provided by applicant, both in the claimed language and supporting specification, provides a contradictory circumstance and is not clearly explained how such a contradictory movement and positioning can be achieved, and would not have enabled one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to make and/or use the full scope of the invention without undue experimentation (MPEP 2164, In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
Regarding claim 27, the claimed language recites the limitation “the bucket and the rotary link rotate around the central axis of the upper arm due to retraction or extension of the multi-joint link according to an operation of the bucket cylinder”. As defined, the central axis of the upper arm is described in claim 14 to “pass perpendicularly through the arm cylinder coupling hole part of the upper arm and overlap more than half the length of the lower arm”, with the specification directing this axis to X3 shown in Figure 22 of the instant application, and the bucket cylinder being defined as being “located around the lower arm and rotationally coupled to the bucket”, with the specification directing this bucket cylinder to element 1160 shown in Figure 22. The direction provided by applicant, both in the claimed language and the supporting specification, directly contradicts what is show in the figures of the instant application, and it is not clearly explained how such an extension of the bucket cylinder would cause rotation of the bucket around the central axis of the upper arm (emphasis added), and would not have enabled one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to make and/or use the full scope of the invention without undue experimentation. Based on the existence of working examples showing that the extension of a hydraulic cylinder located on the arm of an excavator and rotationally coupled to a bucket would cause the bucket and any linkage attached thereto to rotate about an axis perpendicular to the axis as described, it would require undue experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to determine a successful way to cause a bucket and link to rotate around a central axis as defined due to movement of a bucket cylinder as defined (MPEP 2164, In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-15, 19, 21-22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 14: Claim 14 recites the limitation, “a bucket cylinder…located around the lower arm”. The phrase “located around the lower arm” does not clearly define the spatial relationship between the bucket cylinder and the lower arm, as there is no clear boundary as to what orientation the bucket cylinder stops being “around” the lower arm. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret “around the lower arm” to mean “coupled directly to outside of the lower arm”.
Further, claim 14 recites the limitation “the upper arm protrudes the boom coupling hole part further than the rotational arm stand toward a side of the upper arm just above the rotational arm stand”. The phrase “just above the rotational arm stand” does not clearly define the spatial relationship between the upper arm and the rotational arm stand, as there is no clear boundary as to what distance from the rotational arm stand stops being “just above”. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the phrase “just above” to be positioned closer to the rotational arm stand than any other connective point on the upper arm.
Regarding Claim 15: Claim 15 recites the limitation, “…the multi-joint link along a longitudinal direction of the lower arm right next to the central axis of the upper arm”. The phrase “right next to” does not clearly define a spatial relationship between the bucket and multi-joint link and the lower arm, as there is no clear boundary as to what distance between the bucket and link stop being right next to the lower arm. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret “right next to the central axis of the upper arm” to mean “laterally offset from the central axis of the upper arm”
Regarding Claim 19: In light of the enablement rejections under 35 USC 112(a) above, it is unclear how the rod of the bucket cylinder is able to gradually move away from the central axis of the upper arm and simultaneously be positioned on it, which renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the claim language to omit the requirement of “positioning the rod on the central axis of the upper arm”.
Further, claim 19 recites “in an order of the rod cover, the rod, the rod cover, the tube, and the head cover”. The element “the rod cover” is recited twice, and it is unclear if this is a new element introduced to the claim or the same element repeated twice, and is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will consider the first instance of “the rod cover” to be a repetition of the same element and will only consider the second instance of “the rod cover”, as is consistent with the language of previous claim 18.
Regarding Claim 21: Claim 21 recites the limitations, “wherein the multi-joint link is axially coupled to the lower arm right next to the central axis of the upper arm, is further away from the bucket than the lower arm from the central axis of the upper arm to be axially coupled to the bucket, and is further away from the bucket cylinder than the bucket from the central axis of the upper arm to be axially coupled to the rod of the bucket cylinder”. The phrasing of the spatial relationships, specifically “wherein the multi-joint link…is further away from the bucket than the lower arm from the central axis of the upper arm to be axially coupled to the bucket” and “wherein the multi-joint link… is further away from the bucket cylinder than the bucket from the central axis of the upper arm to be axially coupled to the rod of the bucket cylinder” do not clearly define what distances are being compared, and what reference planes are being set to be compared, and the specification does not provide further context as to this spatial relationship. In the first case, it is unclear whether the multi-join link is further from the bucket than the multi-joint link is from lower arm with respect to the central axis, or further from the bucket than the lower arm is from the central axis. In the second case, it is similarly uncertain whether the multi-joint link is further from the bucket cylinder than the multi-joint link is from the bucket with respect to the central axis, or whether the multi-joint link is further from the bucket cylinder than the bucket is from the central axis of the upper arm.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the first case to indicate that the multi-joint link is further from the bucket than the lower arm is from the central axis, and the second case to indicate that the multi-joint link is further from the bucket cylinder than the bucket is from the central axis of the upper arm.
Regarding Claim 22: Claim 22 recites the limitation, “the multi-joint link… is further away from the bucket than the lower arm from the central axis of the upper arm to be axially coupled to the bucket”. This phrasing of the spatial relationships does not clearly define what distances are being compared, and what reference planes are being set to be compared. It is unclear whether the multi-join link is further from the bucket than the multi-joint link is from lower arm with respect to the central axis, or further from the bucket than the lower arm is from the central axis. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret this phrasing to indicate that the multi-joint link is further from the bucket than the lower arm is from the central axis.
Regarding Claim 27: In light of the enablement rejections under 35 USC 112(a) above, it is unclear how the extension or retraction of the bucket cylinder causes rotation of the bucket and rotary link around the central axis of the upper arm, which renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the rotation of the bucket and rotary link to be about a central axis perpendicular to the central axis of the upper arm, as is shown to be the case in Fig. 22 of the instant application.
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 (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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-15 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jung as part of US 20180038064 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jung.
Regarding Claim 14: Jung teaches of an excavating apparatus, comprising:
a bucket, a lower arm, a rotational arm stand, an upper arm, and a boom, which are sequentially arranged toward a cab and rotated with respect to each other at a work site (Fig. 5, bucket 700, lower arm 320, rotation device 500, upper arm 310, and boom 100 are sequentially arranged with respect to one another);
and a bucket cylinder and an arm cylinder located around the lower arm and the boom and rotationally coupled to the bucket and the upper arm, respectively (Fig. 5, bucket cylinder 750 is adjacent to the lower arm 320 and coupled to the bucket 700 via the linkage shown and arm cylinder 200 is adjacent to the boom 100 and coupled to upper arm 310),
wherein when the upper arm has
a boom coupling hole part and an arm cylinder coupling hole part, which are sequentially positioned on the rotational arm stand (Fig. 5, upper arm 310 is shown to be coupled to the arm cylinder 200 and the boom 100 at two separate points, which are sequentially positioned with respect to the rotation device 500),
the lower arm is located on a central axis of the upper arm, which passes perpendicularly through the arm cylinder coupling hole part of the upper arm and overlaps more than half a length of the lower arm (Fig. 5, lower arm 320 is located on an axis passing through the center of upper arm 310 and perpendicularly through the coupling of arm cylinder 200; annotated Fig. 5, the portion of the lower arm marked A denotes the portion of the lower arm that overlaps the central axis of the upper arm, marked with the dotted line, where section A is larger than section B);
the upper arm protrudes the boom coupling hole part further than the rotational arm stand toward a side of the upper arm just above the rotational arm stand (Fig. 5, the attachment structure of the boom 100 to upper arm 310 extends further from the central axis of the upper arm 310);
and the bucket cylinder is rotatably attached to the lower arm by means of opposite sides of the bucket cylinder (Fig. 5, bucket cylinder 750 is rotatably coupled to lower arm 320, which is shown to surround the rear end of the bucket cylinder 750).
PNG
media_image1.png
869
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jung: Annotated Fig. 5
Regarding Claim 15: Jung teaches of the apparatus described in claim 14.
Jung further teaches wherein when a multi-joint link is provided between the bucket, the lower arm, and the bucket cylinder, the lower arm is sequentially axially coupled to the bucket and the multi-joint link along a longitudinal direction of the lower arm right next to the central axis of the upper arm (Fig. 5, there is a multi-joint linkage provided between the bucket 700, lower arm 320, and the bucket cylinder 750, where the lower arm 320 is sequentially coupled to the bucket 700 and the multi-joint linkage along a longitudinal direction, laterally offset from the central axis of the upper arm 310).
Regarding Claim 23: Jung teaches of the apparatus described in claim 14.
Jung further teaches wherein the rotational arm stand has a lower rotary table and an upper rotary table, which are sequentially stacked between the lower arm and the upper arm (Fig. 3, rotation device 500 comprises upper arm-fixing plate 510 and lower arm-fixing plate 520, which are sequentially stacked between the lower arm 320 and upper arm 310),
respectively fixes the lower rotary table and the upper rotary table to the lower arm and the upper arm (Paragraph 44-45, upper arm-fixing plate 510 lower arm-fixing plate 520 are fixed by welding to their respective upper and lower arms 310 and 320),
rotates the lower rotary table relative to the upper rotary table (Paragraph 62, as the rotary plate 521 is rotated by shaft 530, lower arm-fixing plate 520 rotates with respect to the upper arm-fixing table 510),
and has a center joint that passes through the lower rotary table and the upper rotary table together with the lower arm (Paragraph 77; Fig. 3, shaft 530 extends through upper arm-fixing plate 510 and lower arm-fixing plate 520, into a center cavity within lower arm 320),
wherein the center joint is located on the central axis of the upper arm (Paragraph 47, shaft 530 is disposed through the centers of the lower arm-fixing plate 520 and upper arm-fixing plate 510, which is concentric with the center axis of upper arm 310).
Regarding Claim 24: Jung teaches of the apparatus described in claim 14.
Jung further teaches wherein when the upper arm has a slip entry/exit hole part, the boom coupling hole part, and the arm cylinder coupling hole part on lower, middle, and upper sides of the upper arm (Fig. 3, upper arm 310 comprises a central cavity, a mounting point for boom 100, and a mounting point for arm cylinder 200 in the respective lower, middle, and upper sides of the arm),
and when the lower arm and the rotational arm stand have the center joint on the central axis of the upper arm (Paragraph 47, shaft 530 is disposed through the centers of the lower arm-fixing plate 520 and upper arm-fixing plate 510, which is concentric with the center axis of upper arm 310),
the slip entry/exit hole part of the upper arm exposes the center joint to an outside on the central axis of the upper arm to induce a coupling of a slip to the center joint or separation of the slip from the center joint (Fig. 3, the central cavity in upper arm 310 may expose the shaft 530 to an outside, and allows for coupling of sealing ring 590 or separation of sealing ring 590 from the shaft 530).
Regarding Claim 25: Jung teaches of the apparatus described in claim 14.
Jung further teaches wherein when the upper arm has a slip entry/exit hole part, the boom coupling hole part, and the arm cylinder coupling hole part on lower, middle, and upper sides of the upper arm (Fig. 3, upper arm 310 comprises a central cavity, a mounting point for boom 100, and a mounting point for arm cylinder 200 in the respective lower, middle, and upper sides of the arm),
the slip entry/exit hole part of the upper arm is located on the central axis of the upper arm and is located at a level same as that of the boom coupling hole part in a direction perpendicular to the central axis of the upper arm (2) Fig. 3, the central cavity of upper arm 310 is located on the central axis of the upper arm, and comprises a location at the same level as the boom mounting point, the boom mounting point being in a direction perpendicular to the central axis of the upper arm 310).
Regarding Claim 26: Jung teaches of the apparatus described in claim 14.
Jung further teaches wherein when the upper arm has a slip entry/exit hole part, the boom coupling hole part, and the arm cylinder coupling hole part on lower, middle, and upper sides of the upper arm (Fig. 3, upper arm 310 comprises a central cavity, a mounting point for boom 100, and a mounting point for arm cylinder 200 in the respective lower, middle, and upper sides of the arm),
the slip entry/exit hole part and the arm cylinder coupling hole part of the upper arm are located on the central axis of the upper arm (Fig. 3-5, the cylinder mounting point and the central cavity of upper arm 310 are both located on the central axis of upper arm 310).
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 (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.
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 16-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Lunchboxsessions.com as part of “Anatomy of a Cylinder | LunchBox Sessions”, hereinafter referred to as Lunchbox Sessions.
Regarding Claim 16: Jung teaches of the apparatus described in claim 14.
While Jung does teach of the bucket cylinder comprising a rod and cylinder (Jung: Fig. 5, bucket cylinder 750 is show to comprise at least a rod and cylinder), wherein the rear end opposite the rod is located directly below the rotational arm stand (Jung: Fig. 5, the end of bucket cylinder 750 opposite the rod end is positioned directly below the rotational arm stand), and of a hanger for rotationally coupling the tube to the lower arm (Jung: Paragraph 42, a bracket is provided on lower arm 320 to rotatably engage bucket cylinder 750 with the lower arm), Jung does not teach of any of the specific details of the hydraulic cylinder.
Lunchbox Sessions teaches of hydraulic cylinder comprising a rod, a piston, and a cylinder (Lunchbox Sessions: Fig. 2, hydraulic cylinders are known to comprise a rod, piston, and cylinder), wherein the cylinder comprises:
a head cover located at one end of the hydraulic cylinder (Lunchbox Sessions: Fig. 1-2, the head cover, in this case the Blind End Head, is arranged opposite the rod end of the cylinder);
a tube coupled to the head cover (Lunchbox Sessions: Fig. 2, a tube is coupled to the head cover);
a rod cover coupled to the tube on an opposite side of the head cover (Lunchbox Sessions: Fig. 2, a rod cover is coupled to the tube opposite the head cover);
wherein the rod is located on an inside and an outside of the tube, is surrounded by the rod cover, and moves relative to the cylinder whereas the piston is located on the inside of the tube and moves together with the rod (Lunchbox Sessions: Fig. 2, the rod is shown to be partially internal and external to the tube, surrounded by the rod cover, and moves relative to the cylinder body, whereas the piston is located wholly within the tube and is affixed to the rod, moving with the rod in operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the generically referred to cylinder of Jung with the specific cylinder known in the art as taught by Lunchbox Sessions. Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of implementing a hydraulic cylinder comprising a piston, cylinder, and rod, wherein the cylinder comprises a head cover, rod cover, and tube, arranged such that the rod is surrounded by the rod cover, partially internal and external to the tube, and wherein the piston is contained within the tube and moves with the rod (MPEP 2143,
PNG
media_image2.png
829
1432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Subsection I, B).
Lunchbox Sessions, Fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
829
1426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lunchbox Sessions, Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 17: Jung in view of Lunchbox Sessions teaches of the apparatus described in claim 16.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 16, Jung further teaches wherein when a multi-joint link is provided that is located across opposite sides of the lower arm and axially coupled to the lower arm (Jung: Fig. 5, the multi-joint linkage is shown to overlap the lower arm 320 in a side profile view and be axially connected thereto),
the rod is axially coupled with the multi-joint link and is minimally exposed from the rod cover around the lower arm so as to move away from the central axis of the upper arm together with the multi-joint link or is maximally exposed from the rod cover so as to approach the central axis of the upper arm together with the multi-joint link (Jung: Fig. 5, it is demonstrated that the rod of bucket cylinder 750 is coupled to the multi-joint linkage and when the rod is retracted, the rod moves away from the center axis of the upper arm 310, and when the rod is extended, the rod moves closer to the center axis of upper arm 310).
Regarding Claim 18: Jung in view of Lunchbox Sessions teaches of the apparatus described in claim 16.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 16, Jung further teaches wherein when the rod is minimally exposed from the rod cover, the rod, the rod cover, the tube, and the head cover gradually move away from the central axis of the upper arm in an order of the rod, the rod cover, the tube, and the head cover while spacing the rod from the central axis of the upper arm (Jung: Fig. 5, the retraction of the rod of bucket cylinder 750 causes a pivot around the bracket of lower arm 320, causing the rod at the farthest point from the pivot to move away from the central axis of upper arm 310 the fastest, followed by the rod cover, the tube, and the head cover).
Regarding Claim 21: Jung in view of Lunchbox Sessions teaches of the apparatus described in claim 16.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 16, Jung further teaches wherein when the rod is minimally exposed from the rod cover, a multi-joint link rotationally coupled to the bucket, the lower arm, and the bucket cylinder is provided (Jung: Fig. 5, when the rod of bucket cylinder 750 is retracted, the multi-joint link is coupled to the bucket 700, the lower arm 320, and the bucket cylinder 750),
wherein the multi-joint link is axially coupled to the lower arm right next to the central axis of the upper arm (Jung: Fig. 5, the multi-joint link is axially coupled to the lower arm offset from the central axis of upper arm 310),
is further away from the bucket than the lower arm from the central axis of the upper arm to be axially coupled to the bucket (Jung: Fig. 5, the linkage is further away from the bucket 700 than the lower arm 320 is from the central axis of upper arm 310, as the lower arm 320 and the central axis of upper arm 310 overlap, and is axially coupled to the bucket 700),
and is further away from the bucket cylinder than the bucket from the central axis of the upper arm to be axially coupled to the rod of the bucket cylinder (Jung: Annotated Fig. 5, the center of the multi-join linkage is further away from the center of the bucket cylinder 750 (Segment C) than the bucket 700 is from the central axis of the upper arm 310 (Segment D)).
Regarding Claim 22: Jung in view of Lunchbox Sessions teaches of the apparatus described in claim 16.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 16, Jung further teaches wherein when the rod is maximally exposed from the rod cover, a multi-joint link rotationally coupled to the bucket, the lower arm, and the bucket cylinder is provided (Jung: Fig. 5, when the rod of bucket cylinder 750 is extended, the multi-joint link is coupled to the bucket 700, the lower arm 320, and the bucket cylinder 750),
wherein the multi-joint link is located across left and right sides of the central axis of the upper arm right next to the central axis of the upper arm to be axially coupled to the lower arm and the rod (Jung: Fig. 5, the multi-joint linkage is shown to overlap the lower arm 320 in a side profile view and be axially connected thereto, and is therefore on the left and right sides of the central axis of upper arm 310 and offset from said central axis),
and is further away from the bucket than the lower arm from the central axis of the upper arm to be axially coupled to the bucket (Jung: Fig. 5, the linkage is further away from the bucket 700 than the lower arm 320 is from the central axis of upper arm 310, as the lower arm 320 and the central axis of upper arm 310 overlap, and is axially coupled to the bucket 700).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Lunchbox Sessions, further in view of Heiple et al as part of US 6209237 B1, hereinafter referred to as Heiple.
Regarding Claim 19: Jung in view of Lunchbox Sessions teaches of the apparatus described in claim 16.
Jung in view of Lunchbox Sessions does not teach wherein when the rod is maximally exposed from the rod cover, the rod, the rod cover, the tube, and the head cover gradually move away from the central axis of the upper arm in an order of the rod, the rod cover, the tube, and the head cover.
Heiple teaches of an excavation machine comprising a bucket and a lower arm (Heiple: Fig. 1, bucket 13, handle 10), a bucket cylinder located around the lower arm and rotationally coupled to the bucket (Heiple: Fig. 1, hydraulic cylinder 17 coupled to the handle 10 and coupled to bucket 13 via links 15, 16, and the bracket positioned on the back of bucket 13).
Heiple does not teach the specifics of the hydraulic cylinder. However, for the same reasons as detailed above in claim 16, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the generic cylinder of Heiple with the specific cylinder taught by Lunchbox Sessions without fundamentally altering the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of implementing a hydraulic cylinder comprising a piston, cylinder, and rod, wherein the cylinder comprises a head cover, rod cover, and tube, arranged such that the rod is surrounded by the rod cover, partially internal and external to the tube, and wherein the piston is contained within the tube and moves with the rod (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
In light of said substitution, Heiple further teaches wherein when the rod is maximally exposed from the rod cover, the rod, the rod cover, the tube, and the head cover gradually move away from the central axis of the arm in an order of the rod, the rod cover, the tube, and the head cover while positioning the rod on the central axis of the arm (Heiple: Fig. 1-2, the extension of hydraulic cylinder 17 causes a pivot about a rear connection point between handle 10 and hydraulic cylinder 17 which causes the rod at the furthest point away from the pivot to move away from the central axis of handle 10 the fastest, followed by the rod cover, the tube, and the head cover of the cylinder).
As demonstrated by Jung and Heiple, the actuation of the bucket cylinder causing the cylinder to move towards or away from the central axis of the excavator arm is determined by the length of the rod and the linkage that couples the bucket to the cylinder rod, and as such, would be a results-effective variable. In light of such a determination, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed would be inclined to select a linkage and cylinder with an appropriate length to facilitate moving the bucket to engage the ground, and would be the result of routine optimization of a results effective variable to allow for suitable force and movement of the bucket to engage the ground during excavation (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Heiple.
Regarding Claim 27: Jung teaches of the apparatus described in claim 14.
Jung further teaches wherein when a rotary link coupled to the bucket and the lower arm (Jung: Annotated Fig. 5, element E is coupled to the bucket 700 and the lower arm 310),
the bucket cylinder located on a first side of the lower arm and coupled to the lower arm (Jung: Fig. 5, the bucket cylinder 750 is located on one side of the lower arm 320),
and a multi-joint link coupled to the lower arm, the rotary link, and the bucket cylinder are provided (Jung: Fig. 5, the multi-joint link is coupled to the lower arm 320, element E, and the bucket cylinder 750 are provided),
the bucket and the rotary link rotate around an axis perpendicular to the central axis of the upper arm due to retraction or extension of the multi-joint link according to an operation of the bucket cylinder (Jung: Fig. 5, upon retraction or extension of the bucket cylinder 750, the bucket 700 and element E rotate together about a central axis perpendicular to the central axis of upper arm 310).
Jung does not teach of a clamp cylinder or clamp as described by the claim language.
Heiple teaches of an excavation machine comprising a bucket and a lower arm (Heiple: Fig. 1, bucket 13, handle 10), a bucket cylinder located around the lower arm and rotationally coupled to the bucket (Heiple: Fig. 1, hydraulic cylinder 17 coupled to the handle 10 and coupled to bucket 13 via links 15, 16, and the bracket positioned on the back of bucket 13),
wherein when a rotary link coupled to the bucket and the lower arm (Heiple: Fig. 1, the back link of bucket assembly 11 (rotary link) is coupled to the bucket 13 and the handle 10),
the bucket cylinder located on a first side of the lower arm and coupled to the lower arm (Heiple: Fig. 1, hydraulic cylinder 17 is located on and coupled to one side of handle 10),
a clamp cylinder located on a second side of the lower arm and coupled to the lower arm (Heiple: Fig. 1, hydraulic cylinder assembly 32 is located on and coupled to the opposite side of handle 10 from hydraulic cylinder 17),
a clamp located at an end of the lower arm and coupled to the lower arm (Heiple: Fig. 1, thumb assembly 12 is coupled to the lower end of handle 10),
and a multi-joint link coupled to the lower arm, the rotary link, and the bucket cylinder are provided (Heiple: Fig. 1, a linkage comprising links 15 and 16 are coupled to handle 10, the rotary link, and hydraulic cylinder 17),
the bucket and the rotary link rotate around an axis perpendicular to the central axis of the excavator arm due to retraction or extension of the multi-joint link according to an operation of the bucket cylinder (Heiple: Fig. 1-2, upon retraction and extension of hydraulic cylinder 17, the rotary link and bucket 13 rotate together about a central axis perpendicular tot eh central axis of handle 10),
whereas the clamp is axially coupled to the lower arm near the central axis of the excavator arm, and moves relative to the lower arm to rotate up and down according to an operation of the clamp cylinder (Heiple: Fig. 1-2, hydraulic cylinder assembly 32 acts to rotate the thumb assembly 12 up and down, where thumb assembly 12 is axially coupled to handle 10 and offset from the centerline of the handle 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the disclosure of Jung to incorporate the thumb assembly taught by Heiple to provide a method of gripping objects in combination with the excavator bucket (Heiple: Col. 1, line 15-24, thumb implements are commonly coupled to the underside of a handle of an excavating machine and commonly used for grasping material in combination with the bucket of the machine). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of providing a clamp assembly anchored opposite the bucket to be used for grasping material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 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.
While many examples of specific mounting assemblies that acted to couple the ends of hydraulic cylinders to the arms of excavators exist and are known in prior art, after a complete and through search of prior art, no such examples were found that matched the specific requirements of the claim; specifically regarding the hanger comprising a support part that has a cylindrical protrusion piece surrounding the tube and extending toward the bracket; and a locking part that curvedly surrounds the protrusion piece together with the bracket on the bracket and is screw-coupled with the bracket.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ogawa as part of JP 2004182391 A teaches of An excavating apparatus, comprising a bucket, a lower arm, a rotational arm stand, an upper arm, and a boom, which are sequentially arranged toward a cab and rotated with respect to each other at a work site, and a bucket cylinder and an arm cylinder located around the lower arm and the boom and rotationally coupled to the bucket and the upper arm, respectively, wherein when the upper arm has a boom coupling hole part and an arm cylinder coupling hole part, which are sequentially positioned on the rotational arm stand, the lower arm is located on a central axis of the upper arm, which passes perpendicularly through the arm cylinder coupling hole part of the upper arm and overlaps more than half a length of the lower arm, the upper arm protrudes the boom coupling hole part further than the rotational arm stand toward a side of the upper arm just above the rotational arm stand, and the bucket cylinder is rotatably attached to the lower arm by means of opposite sides of the bucket cylinder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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 J Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights