PTAB

IPR2025-00168

Kubota North America Corp v. Vermeer Mfg Co

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Low Profile Compact Tool Carriers
  • Brief Description: The ’386 patent describes a compact tool carrier designed for standing or walk-behind operation. The carrier features a loader with two loader arms mounted to a mainframe via a four-bar linkage mechanism and an actuator to achieve vertical lift.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over KR996 and JP705 - Claims 31-36, 38-39, 41-44, 45-49, and 86-87 are obvious over KR996 in view of JP705.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: KR996 (Korean Patent No. 10-1041996) and JP705 (JP 2004 17705).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that KR996, a reference not previously considered by the USPTO, discloses a compact tool carrier with all major features of independent claim 31 except for a specific engine bracket. KR996 teaches a self-propelled vehicle for standing operation with a vertical-lift, four-bar loader mechanism, loader arms attached indirectly to the mainframe via linkages and an actuator, a rear control station, and an operator platform. Petitioner argued JP705 was cited to teach the missing limitation: an engine bracket extending between the sides of a mainframe on a similar work vehicle for mounting an engine.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine JP705’s engine mounting technique with KR996’s vehicle to achieve predictable and beneficial results. While KR996 discloses an engine, it does not detail its mounting method. JP705 provides a detailed and beneficial solution for mounting an engine in a similar vehicle, teaching that its integrated mounting parts reduce component costs, improve reliability, and simplify manufacturing by reducing the number of fasteners. A POSITA would apply this known technique to improve KR996’s similar device for these known benefits.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended there was a reasonable expectation of success because both references relate to similar construction vehicles with engines mounted between frame sides. Implementing JP705's straightforward mounting bracket into KR996's frame would be a simple matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, yielding predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over KR996, JP705, and Bares - Claims 37, 40, and 70-79 are obvious over KR996 in view of JP705 and Bares.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: KR996 (Korean Patent No. 10-1041996), JP705 (JP 2004 17705), and Bares (Patent 6,832,659).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination of KR996 and JP705 to address claims requiring a track-based drive mechanism. Petitioner argued that Bares, which relates to a small, track-propelled, walk-behind loader, teaches a drive mechanism with a drive sprocket and tracks. This track assembly was presented as a direct, well-known substitute for the wheeled drive mechanism disclosed in KR996. Bares also teaches extending the mainframe rearward to create a protective pocket around the operator platform, a feature recited in certain dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to substitute Bares' track assembly for the wheels in the KR996/JP705 vehicle. Petitioner framed this as a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to gain well-known benefits. Track drives and wheel drives were known alternatives for compact tool carriers, with tracks offering superior traction on soft surfaces, lower ground pressure, and the ability to cross trenches. A POSITA would also be motivated to incorporate Bares' mainframe extension to provide operator protection, a known design goal that improves safety.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected as track assemblies were a common and interchangeable configuration for this type of vehicle and performed the same propulsion function as wheels. The substitution would be a predictable design choice to adapt the vehicle for different operating environments, and adding the frame extension is a simple structural modification.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is inappropriate because the primary reference, KR996, and the asserted combinations were never before the examiner. The petition's core obviousness theory—starting with a compact carrier that already has a vertical lift loader (KR996)—is fundamentally different from the theories considered during prosecution and reexamination, which focused on adding a vertical lift from a large tractor onto a compact carrier. The petition is therefore not cumulative of prior arguments.
  • Petitioner also contended that discretionary denial under Fintiv is unwarranted. The parallel district court litigation is in a very early stage, with the complaint having been recently served and no scheduling order or discovery yet to occur. The projected PTAB final written decision date is expected to be around or before the median time-to-trial in the relevant district, thus minimizing any potential for inefficiency or conflicting decisions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 31-49, 70-79, and 86-87 of the ’386 patent as unpatentable.