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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deike US4645084.
Regarding claim 1, Deike teaches an excavator T (wherein T is movable, and supports a boom, thus, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an excavator) with electric plug-in 153 (Figure 17), comprising: an electric motor (45 is an electric motor driving hydraulic pump, thus necessarily includes an electric motor), which is connected by a power cord 152 (and thus is considered to be a plug-in, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “plug-in” to include a system with a power cord) to a remote source of electric power (battery 43) with a hydraulic coupler 89a attached to a hydraulic pump 45, where the remote source of electric power gives the excavator the capability to move and to operate a boom 14 with a bucket 121 (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 2, Deike teaches the remote source of electric power gives the excavator the capability to move and to operate the boom with a drill D (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Deike teaches the remote source of electric power gives the excavator the capability to move and to operate the boom with an auger D (Figure 4 shows an auger with a helical portion).
Regarding claim 5, Deike teaches the remote source of electric power gives the excavator the capability to move and to operate the boom with demolition attachments D (auger/drill D cuts and removes material, thus is considered a demolition attachment).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deike in view of Kumeuchi, et al. US10472805.
Regarding claim 4, Deike teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the remote source of electric power gives the excavator the capability to move and to operate the boom with a leveling blade.
Kumeuchi, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for an excavator 1 to have a leveling blade 18 moved by boom/cylinder 19 (Column 4: 30-33 “The blade 18 is configured to be vertically swingable upon the activation of the expansion/contraction of a blade cylinder 19 provided between the blade 18 and the traveling body frame 11”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the excavator of Deike in view of the leveling blade of Kumeuchi, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to attach a leveling blade on a boom so it can be moved by the remote source of electric power from Deike, so that the excavator can do leveling or other soil work.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deike in view of Collett, et al. US2014/0225374.
Regarding claim 6, Deike teaches an excavator 10 with electric plug-in 153 (Figure 7), comprising:
a remote electrically driven motor 45 (as described above, and wherein Column 1: 55-57 describes control unit working through an umbilical or radio waves, which makes it remotely driven due to the remote control) controlling a hydraulic system (the hydraulic pump of 45), which is connected by a hose (Figure 16 shows tubing and hosses connections between the pump 45 and the cylinders to be moved) on board (wherein the excavator is a contained vehicle, thus the hoses are considered to be on board), where the remote source of electric motor over the hydraulic pump gives the excavator the capability to move and to operate a boom 14 with a bucket 121 (shown in Figure 5).
Deike does not teach the hose is connected by a quick connect coupler.
Collett, et al. teaches that a quick connect coupler 70/72 for a hydraulic hose is a well-known means for connecting hydraulic circuits ¶0070 (“To fluidly connect the auxiliary power module 12 to the vehicle components, and specifically to connect the body hydraulic circuit 32 to the auxiliary hydraulic circuit 40, first and second quick connect couplers 70 and 72 or other suitable coupler are provided”) . Figure 2a shows the connection between hydraulic pump 20 and the line connected to 70.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hydraulic connection in Deike in view of the quick connect of Collett, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to enable fluid connection for Deike’s hose.
Regarding claim 7, Deike teaches the remote source of electric over hydraulic power gives the excavator the capability to move and to operate the boom with a drill D.
Regarding claim 8, Deike teaches the remote source of electric over hydraulic power gives the excavator the capability to move and to operate the boom with an auger D (wherein D is an auger shape shown in Figure 4).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deike in view of Collett, et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kumeuchi, et al.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the remote source of electric over hydraulic power gives the excavator the capability to move and to operate a boom with a leveling blade.
Kumeuchi, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for an excavator 1 to have a leveling blade 18 moved by boom/cylinder 19 (Column 4: 30-33 “The blade 18 is configured to be vertically swingable upon the activation of the expansion/contraction of a blade cylinder 19 provided between the blade 18 and the traveling body frame 11”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the excavator of Deike, further in view of the leveling blade of Kumeuchi, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success to attach a leveling blade on the boom so it can be moved by the remote source of electric power from Deike, so that the excavator can do leveling or other soil work.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 11/7/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-9 based upon Deike as set forth in the last Office action because: The weight attached to evidence of secondary considerations by the examiner will depend upon its relevance to the issue of obviousness and the amount and nature of the evidence. Note the great reliance apparently placed on this type of evidence by the Supreme Court in upholding the patent in United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 148 USPQ 479 (1966). See MPEP 716.01(b).
In this case, Deike was relied upon for a rejection of novelty, rather than obviousness, for at least the independent claims.
As described above, the term “excavator” is given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Applicant’s arguments do not address the interpretation of excavator.
Applicant’s arguments that they have not seen a truck mounted excavator mechanism in their experience is not on point, as this is not directed towards whether or not Dieke’s device teaches the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments that Dieke does not teach a remote electric source are not persuasive. As described above and previously, the remote source of electric power is battery 43. The claims do not provide limitations on what applicant considers is “remote”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that the truck of Dieke cannot be equivalent to the claimed excavator are not persuasive. The term “excavator” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, as described previously and above, to be a vehicle that has a movable boom that provides excavating or drilling into a ground surface. The truck of Dieke performs these functions. There are no further limitations in the claims that further define an excavator.
Applicant’s arguments that Dieke does not teach an electric plug in since Dieke does not teach a source of power of at least 120 volts are not persuasive. The cited paragraphs ¶0005 and 0006 do not give a special definition for the term “plug in” to be limited to 120 volts. Therefore, any type of electric connection with a power line or cord is interpreted to provide the claimed plug-in. Further, the claims do not positively recite the argued plug-in with a 120 volt power source.
Applicant’s arguments that Dieke’s device is limited in drilling depth are not on point, as a depth of excavation or drilling is not required in the claims.
Applicant’s arguments that Dieke does not teach using a Kelly bar are not on point, since a Kelly bar is not required in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kaneda, et al. US2024/0125093, Kitahara US2023/0131436, and Kitahara, et al. US2023/0417014 each are demonstrative of electrically powered hydraulic pump driven excavators in the art.
For example, Kaneda, et al. shows in Figure 1 an excavator 1 with boom 3 and excavating bucket 33, attached to an external power source 51 (which is considered to be remote, since its is mounted remotely and externally from the excavator). Figure 2 shows a controller 80, a connection switch 64, an electric motor 61 that powers a hydraulic pump 71 ¶0024, to provide a hydraulic actuator 73 to move the parts of the excavator. The basic operation of an electric motor powering a hydraulic pump are described as prior art in ¶0004. It is noted that a selection of various sources of electrical power and their voltage amount, such as from a battery, generator, or household power tied into an electric power grid, may be held as an obvious source of electricity for the electric motor.
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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 1/30/2026