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 § 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 1-4,12,16,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lykken (US 10,731,321) in view of Cochran (US 4,143,783).
Re claims 1,20, Lykken teaches a power machine 100 comprising: a frame 102,104 that supports one or more tractive elements 126,128 (any type wheel may provide traction); and a lift arm structure 110 supported by the frame, the lift arm structure including: a lift arm 110 extending along a side of the frame to define at least one lift arm pocket (not numbered, see figures), the lift arm including a rear beam portion (not separately numbered, see figures) movably secured to the frame, a middle beam portion (not separately numbered, see figures) extending forward, in a fully lowered configuration, from the rear beam portion to a knee (not separately numbered, see figures), and a front beam portion (not separately numbered, see figures) extending downward, in the fully lowered configuration, from the knee (not separately numbered, see figures) to an implement interface 208 configured to support an implement 210 or implement carrier 208,210; and an electrical tilt actuator (not numbered, clearly shown in figures between 110 & 208,110; column 7 line 63 – column 8, line 4, column 8 lines 34-44) to provide motive power to change an attitude of the implement or implement carrier.
Lykken (see figures) broadly teaches the electric tilt actuator includes an electrical motor (linear actuator motive source) and an extender (linear actuator extension) powered by the electrical motor to extend and retract relative to an extension direction to change the attitude of the implement or implement carrier, the electrical motor being secured at a base end within the at least one lift arm pocket (broadly, see figures).
Lykken does not teach the electrical motor being secured at a base end within the at least one lift arm pocket and being fully enclosed by the at least one lift arm pocket around a perimeter of the base end. Cochran teaches a wheeled 10 skid steer loader power machine (column 1, line 12) with lift arms 14 with tilt actuators 23 including an motor (26, motive pressure) and an extender 27 powered by the motor to extend and retract relative to an extension direction to change the attitude of the implement 11 or implement carrier 11, the motor being secured at a base end within at least one lift arm pocket 16,29,31 and being fully enclosed (see figures 1-4) by the at least one lift arm pocket around a perimeter of the base end for protection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Lykken in view of Cochran as claimed in order to protect the tilt actuator.
Re claim 2, Lykken as already modified teaches the extender is fully enclosed by the lift arm around a perimeter of the extender along at least part of a length of the extender in the extension direction.
Re claim 3, Lykken as already modified teaches the extender is arranged in-line with the electrical motor along an extension direction of the extender.
Re claim 4, Lykken as already modified teaches the extender is arranged in-line with the electrical motor within the at least one lift arm pocket.
Re claim 12, Lykken as already modified teaches the base end of the electric motor is secured within a tapered pocket 16,29,31,34 of the at least one lift arm pocket (see figure 1 of Cochran).
Re claim 16, Lykken teaches lift arm structure 110 for a power machine 100 with a frame 102,104, the lift arm structure comprising: a lift arm 110 configured to be movably secured to the frame to extend along a lateral side of the frame, the lift arm defining at least one lift arm pocket (not numbered, see figures); an implement interface 208,210 at a distal end of the lift arm, configured to movably secure an implement or implement carrier 208,210 to the lift arm; and an electrical tilt actuator (not numbered, clearly shown in figures between 110 & 208,110; column 7 line 63 – column 8, line 4, column 8 lines 34-44) secured to the lift arm, the electrical tilt actuator including an electrical motor (linear actuator motive source having an actuator base end secured to the lift arm, and an extender (linear actuator extension) configured to be powered by the electrical motor to extend and retract relative to an extension direction to change the attitude of the implement or implement carrier when the implement or implement carrier is movably secured to the implement interface.
Lykken does not teach electrical motor being secured at a base end / actuator base end within the at least one lift arm pocket as claimed. Cochran teaches a wheeled 10 skid steer loader power machine (column 1, line 12) with lift arms 14 with tilt actuators 23 including an motor (26, motive pressure) and an extender 27 powered by the motor to extend and retract relative to an extension direction to change the attitude of the implement 11 or implement carrier 11, the motor being secured at a base end within at least one lift arm pocket 16,29,31 and lift arm pocket (see figures 1-4) shielding a perimeter of the actuator base end along one or more of: a top side, a bottom side, and a laterally outboard side of the actuator base end; or a front side, a rear side, and the laterally outboard side of the actuator base end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Lykken in view of Cochran as claimed in order to protect the tilt actuator.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lykken (US 10,731,321) in view of Cochran (US 4,143,783) and Caillieret (US 2017/0335541).
Re claim 8, Lykken does not teach the extender is secured to the lift arm separately from the electrical motor. However, Caillieret teaches (see figures) a power machine with a lift arm 1,2 with an electric tilt actuator 4 that includes an electrical motor 6 and an extender 12,4.2 powered by the electrical motor to extend and retract relative to an extension direction to change the attitude of the implement or implement carrier 104, the extender is secured (via 6.4,11,14) to the lift arm 1,2 separately from the electrical motor 6 distributing the support forces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Lykken in view of Caillieret as claimed in order to distribute the support forces and reduce stress on motor area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7,9-11,13-15,17-19, are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parmar & Yamada teach (abstract, figures) electric actuators, motors, gearbox, extenders.
Ulinski teaches a power machine with lift arm 28 and implement 29 and lift arm pocket (figures).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652