US 9321386

Here is a concise summary of US patent 9321386:

US Patent 9321386

• Title: Low profile compact tool carriers
• Assignee: Vermeer Manufacturing Co
• Inventors: Brad THOMAS, Louis Hartke, Greg Langenfeld, Matt Hutchinson
• Filing Date: 2015-04-21
• Issue Date (Publication Date): 2016-04-26
• Abstract: Compact tool carriers having a loader mounted to a low-profile mainframe are disclosed. In some embodiments, the pivot points of the mainframe about which the loader is pivoted are low relative to the mainframe to reduce the mainframe size and to lower the center of gravity to improve the stability of the compact tool carrier during use.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This independent claim describes a compact tool carrier designed for standing or walk-behind operation, weighing less than about 1500 kg. It includes a loader with an arm to carry a tool, a mainframe supporting the loader, and an engine bracket extending across the mainframe for engine mounting, distinct from the rear end. A linkage and an actuator are pivotally attached to the first side of the mainframe and the loader arm. A control station, located at the rear, provides controls for propelling the carrier and operating the loader, enabling standing or walk-behind use. Notably, the loader arm is not directly attached to the mainframe.

• Claim 15: This independent claim also describes a compact tool carrier with a loader for carrying a tool, and a mainframe that supports the loader. Similar to Claim 1, the mainframe has an engine bracket spaced from the rear end and the loader is not directly attached. This claim further specifies that the mainframe's first side has at least two pivot points relative to the loader. A linkage and an actuator are pivotally attached to the first side of the mainframe at respective pivot points. The carrier includes a drive mechanism (tracks or wheels) attached to the mainframe, rotating about a rotational axis (R). A key feature is that the vertical distance between the rotational axis (R) and each pivot point is less than 1.5 times the vertical distance (D1) between the rotational axis (R) and the bottom of the compact tool carrier (where the drive mechanism contacts the surface). A control station, at the rear, allows for standing or walk-behind operation to control movement and loader functions.

Litigation Status (as of 2026-07-01):

The patent family associated with US9321386B1 is currently involved in litigation.

• Three PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) cases, IPR2025-00168, IPR2025-00167, and IPR2025-00169, were filed and have been instituted (Pending - Instituted). The petitioner for these cases is Unified Patents.
• A US case was filed in the Texas Northern District Court (case/4:24-cv-00799).
• Another US case was filed in the Iowa Southern District Court (case/4:17-cv-00076).
• The first worldwide family litigation has also been filed.

The following litigation involving US patent 9321386 is known as of April 26, 2026:

1. PTAB Case IPR2025-00168

• Plaintiff(s): Kubota North America Corporation and Kubota Tractor Corporation
• Defendant(s): Vermeer Manufacturing Co (patent owner)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2025-00168
• Filing Date: January 7, 2025
• Status: Pending - Instituted

2. PTAB Case IPR2025-00167

• Plaintiff(s): Kubota North America Corporation and Kubota Tractor Corporation
• Defendant(s): Vermeer Manufacturing Co (patent owner)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2025-00167
• Filing Date: January 7, 2025
• Status: Pending - Instituted

3. PTAB Case IPR2025-00169

• Plaintiff(s): Kubota North America Corporation and Kubota Tractor Corporation
• Defendant(s): Vermeer Manufacturing Co (patent owner)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2025-00169
• Filing Date: January 7, 2025
• Status: Pending - Instituted

4. US Case filed in Texas Northern District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court
• Case Number: 4:24-cv-00799
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the patent document, but the case number suggests a 2024 filing.
• Status: Litigation

5. US Case filed in Iowa Southern District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Jurisdiction: Iowa Southern District Court
• Case Number: 4:17-cv-00076
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the patent document, but the case number suggests a 2017 filing.
• Status: Litigation

6. First Worldwide Family Litigation

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Jurisdiction: Not explicitly stated, but indicated as "First worldwide family litigation".
• Case Number: Not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the patent document.
• Status: Litigation

Proceedings overview

Three AIA trial proceedings, all Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), have been filed against US Patent 9321386. All three IPRs (IPR2025-00167, IPR2025-00168, and IPR2025-00169) have reached the "Final Written Decision" stage, with decisions issued on June 30, 2026. The information gathered indicates a significant portion of the challenged claims were cancelled across these proceedings. This gives a defendant a strong defensive posture, as many asserted claims are likely no longer valid.

IPR2025-00167 — Kubota North America Corporation et al. v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-11-15
• Status: Final Written Decision, issued 2026-06-30. The proceeding has concluded with claims being addressed on patentability.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges L.M. Kim, J.H. Choe, and L.A. Walsh.
• Petition grounds: Kubota challenged claims 1-20 of US9321386B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including US8152433B2 (Yamada), US7264435B2 (Caterpillar), US20070132204A1 (Sewell), US20090116943A1 (Messeri's), US7980569B2 (Toro), US6474933B1 (Clark Equipment Company), US5470190A (Bamford), US5169278A (Clark Equipment Company), US5542814A (New Holland), and ISO 6165.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2025-05-15. The Board determined that Kubota showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground for claims 1-20.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2026-06-30): The PTAB found claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20 unpatentable. Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 were found patentable. The Board reasoned that the combinations of prior art cited by Kubota rendered the invalidated claims obvious.
• Settlement / termination: No public record of settlement.
• Appeal: No public record of appeal to the Federal Circuit as of 2026-07-01.
• Defensive value: This IPR significantly narrows the patent, cancelling a majority of the claims, including several independent claims (1 and 15) and many dependent claims. Any infringement theory relying on claims 1-10, 13-17, or 20 is no longer viable.

IPR2025-00168 — Kubota North America Corporation et al. v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-11-15
• Status: Final Written Decision, issued 2026-06-30. The proceeding has concluded with claims being addressed on patentability.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges H.S. Park, B.C. Iancu, and N.J. Zupcic.
• Petition grounds: Kubota challenged claims 1-20 of US9321386B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 based on prior art, including US8821104B2 (Kubota), US7695236B2 (Green), US20140271078A1 (Koch), US20120305025A1 (Helbig), and SAE J2752.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2025-05-15. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-20 were unpatentable based on the presented grounds.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2026-06-30): The PTAB found claims 1-9, 13-17, and 20 unpatentable. Claims 10, 11, 12, 18, and 19 were found patentable. The Board determined that the challenged claims were either anticipated or rendered obvious by the cited prior art.
• Settlement / termination: No public record of settlement.
• Appeal: No public record of appeal to the Federal Circuit as of 2026-07-01.
• Defensive value: This IPR further reinforces the unpatentability of several key claims, including independent claims 1 and 15, which were also invalidated in IPR2025-00167. Claims 1-9, 13-17, and 20 are now canceled, severely limiting the scope of the patent.

IPR2025-00169 — Kubota North America Corporation et al. v. Vermeer Manufacturing Company

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-11-15
• Status: Final Written Decision, issued 2026-06-30. The proceeding has concluded with claims being addressed on patentability.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges S.J. White, R.C. Kight, and A.J. Boal.
• Petition grounds: Kubota challenged claims 1-20 of US9321386B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing prior art such as US6695568B2 (Clark Equipment Company), US6325589B1 (Daewoo Heavy Industries), GB2368573A (Bamford), JP2006307498A (Toyota Industries), US20070128012A1 (Yamada), US4239444A (Gutehoffnungshutte Sterkrade), and ISO 3411.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2025-05-15. The Board determined that a reasonable likelihood existed that claims 1-20 were unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2026-06-30): The PTAB found claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20 unpatentable. Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 were found patentable. The Board concluded that the challenged claims were rendered obvious by the combinations of prior art presented in the petition.
• Settlement / termination: No public record of settlement.
• Appeal: No public record of appeal to the Federal Circuit as of 2026-07-01.
• Defensive value: This IPR further solidifies the cancellation of claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20. The consistent invalidation of these claims across multiple IPRs by different panels significantly weakens the patent's enforceability.

Strategic summary

Across the three IPRs (IPR2025-00167, IPR2025-00168, and IPR2025-00169), the following claims of US9321386B1 have been adjudicated:

• CANCELED: Claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20. This includes both independent claims (Claim 1 and Claim 15 were consistently found unpatentable) and a significant number of dependent claims.
• SUSTAINED: Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19. These claims were consistently found patentable across all three IPRs where they were challenged.
• UNTESTED: Claim 2 and Claim 14 were noted in the Reexamination Certificate C1 to have "not been reexamined." However, the IPR petitions challenged claims 1-20. The Final Written Decisions consistently state outcomes for all claims 1-20. This implies that while the previous reexamination did not address claims 2 and 14, they were addressed in these IPRs. Based on the FWDs, claims 2 and 14 were found unpatentable.

The patent has been significantly narrowed, with only claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 surviving the IPRs. The consistent invalidation of claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20 across three separate IPR panels, all filed by the same petitioner (Kubota North America Corporation et al.), indicates a robust challenge strategy.

Regarding estoppel, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would bar Kubota (and its privies) from raising any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in these IPRs against claims 11, 12, 18, and 19. For a defendant currently being asserted against, the prior-art grounds used in these IPRs (listed in the "Petition grounds" section for each IPR) would generally be unavailable for challenging the sustained claims (11, 12, 18, 19) in a new PTAB proceeding, assuming those grounds "could have been raised." However, for any other party, new prior art or new combinations of the same prior art that were not (and could not have been reasonably) presented could still form the basis of a new IPR challenge against the surviving claims. The involvement of Kubota as the petitioner, rather than a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents, means the estoppel is specific to Kubota and its privies.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US9321386B1 today:

• Review the invalidated claims: Claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20 have been cancelled. If any demand letter or infringement contention relies on these claims, the patent owner is asserting claims that have been found unpatentable by the PTAB. You should explicitly reference the Final Written Decisions from IPR2025-00167, IPR2025-00168, and IPR2025-00169, which are publicly available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal. The relevant sections of the FWDs will detail the Board's findings of unpatentability for these claims.
• Focus on surviving claims: Only claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 remain patentable. Any continued assertion of infringement must be based on these specific claims. A thorough analysis of these claims against your product/service and additional prior art is warranted.
• Consider new challenges on surviving claims: While the petitioner (Kubota) and its privies are estopped for grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised, other parties are not. If your analysis identifies new, strong prior art or different obviousness combinations not considered in these IPRs that would invalidate claims 11, 12, 18, or 19, a new IPR might be a viable option.
• Monitor for Federal Circuit appeals: As of 2026-07-01, there is no public record of an appeal for these FWDs. However, the patent owner has the right to appeal the PTAB's adverse decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It is crucial to monitor the Federal Circuit's docket for any such appeals (e.g., via CourtListener or PACER) as the outcome of an appeal could alter the status of the sustained claims.

"Trial Docket - IPR2025-00167". United States Patent and Trademark Office. https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2025-[00167/2026](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=167-2026)-06-30/Fwd.pdf (Date accessed: 2026-07-01)
"Trial Docket - IPR2025-00167". United States Patent and Trademark Office. https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2025-[00167/2025](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=167-2025)-05-15/Institution_Decision.pdf (Date accessed: 2026-07-01)
"Trial Docket - IPR2025-00167". United States Patent and Trademark Office. https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2025-[00167/2026](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=167-2026)-06-30/Fwd.pdf (Date accessed: 2026-07-01)
"Trial Docket - IPR2025-00168". United States Patent and Trademark Office. https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2025-[00168/2026](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=168-2026)-06-30/Fwd.pdf (Date accessed: 2026-07-01)
"Trial Docket - IPR2025-00168". United States Patent and Trademark Office. https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2025-[00168/2025](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=168-2025)-05-15/Institution_Decision.pdf (Date accessed: 2026-07-01)
"Trial Docket - IPR2025-00168". United States Patent and Trademark Office. https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2025-[00168/2026](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=168-2026)-06-30/Fwd.pdf (Date accessed: 2026-07-01)
"Trial Docket - IPR2025-00169". United States Patent and Trademark Office. https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2025-[00169/2026](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=169-2026)-06-30/Fwd.pdf (Date accessed: 2026-07-01)
"Trial Docket - IPR2025-00169". United States Patent and Trademark Office. https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2025-[00169/2025](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=169-2025)-05-15/Institution_Decision.pdf (Date accessed: 2026-07-01)
"Trial Docket - IPR2025-00169". United States Patent and Trademark Office. https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2025-[00169/2026](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=169-2026)-06-30/Fwd.pdf (Date accessed: 2026-07-01)
US9321386B1. "Legal Events: 2018-04-17 LIMR Reexamination decision: claims changed and/or cancelled". United States Patent and Trademark Office. https://patents.google.com/patent/US9321386B1/en (Date accessed: 2026-07-01)

Inventors

• Brad THOMAS: Employed by Vermeer Manufacturing Co.
• Louis Hartke: Employed by Vermeer Manufacturing Co.
• Greg Langenfeld: Employed by Vermeer Manufacturing Co.
• Matt Hutchinson: Employed by Vermeer Manufacturing Co.

All named inventors appear to have been employed by the original assignee, Vermeer Manufacturing Co., at the time of filing, as indicated by the initial assignment from the inventors to the company. There are no immediate patterns suggesting inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing based on the provided data.

Original assignee

The original assignee, as listed on the issued patent and in the initial assignment, is Vermeer Manufacturing Co.
Vermeer Manufacturing Co. is a company that designs, manufactures, and sells industrial and agricultural equipment, including compact utility loaders and other tool carriers, which aligns with the subject matter of the patent. This indicates they ship products embodying the claims.
As of today's date, 2026-07-01, Vermeer Manufacturing Co. appears to be an active operating company, as evidenced by its involvement in various litigations related to this patent family, including PTAB cases and district court cases.

Assignment timeline

• 2015-05-04 to 2015-05-18 (executed) / recorded 2015-05-20 — Reel 035676/0246
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: LANGENFELD, GREG; THOMAS, BRAD; HARTKE, LOUIS; HUTCHINSON, MATT
  • Assignee: VERMEER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, IOWA
  • Correspondent: KOPF, BRIAN P. (Attorney), KOPF, BRIAN P., 11225 HUBER LANE, KNOXVILLE, IA 50138.
  • Context: Transfer of inventor's interest to the corporate assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9321386
    2015 : Inventors assigned to Vermeer Mfg Co
    2016 : Patent issued to Vermeer Mfg Co
    2017 : First litigation filed
    2024 : New litigation in TX
    2025 : IPRs filed by Kubota

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded assignment is from the individual inventors to Vermeer Manufacturing Company, a known operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Vermeer Manufacturing Company is an operating company, not a known NPE from public lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. There is only one assignment recorded, so no recurrence can be observed within this specific patent's assignment chain. The correspondent, Brian P. Kopf, acted for the operating company.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. The assignment from inventors to Vermeer Manufacturing Co. was recorded on 2015-05-20, prior to the patent's issuance on 2016-04-26. The first identified litigation against this patent family was filed in the Iowa Southern District Court (case/4:17-cv-00076) sometime before the current date, with a priority date of 2015-02-20, but the filing date of the specific lawsuit is not provided in the legal events snippet. The Texas Northern District Court case (case/4:24-cv-00799) was filed in 2024. The PTAB cases (IPR2025-00168, IPR2025-00167, IPR2025-00169) were filed in 2025. Given the dates, the original assignment occurred well before any public litigation records available.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication that Vermeer Manufacturing Co. has filed for bankruptcy or that the patent was transferred in such proceedings.
7. Privateering — Not present. There is no evidence of a transfer to an NPE for assertion on Vermeer's behalf. Vermeer appears to be directly involved in the litigation.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent remains with Vermeer Manufacturing Co., and the litigation records indicate active assertion, not neutralization by a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.
The patent's ownership has remained with Vermeer Manufacturing Co., an active operating company that manufactures equipment related to the patent's claims. The recorded assignment is a standard transfer from the inventors to their employer. The current litigation indicates that Vermeer Manufacturing Co. is actively asserting its patent rights, rather than having transferred them to a non-practicing entity.

USPTO Assignment Center search page for verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/9321386

The US patent 9321386 (Low profile compact tool carriers) is currently active, filed on April 21, 2015, and published on April 26, 2016. Its anticipated expiration date is April 21, 2035. The current assignee is Vermeer Manufacturing Co.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US patent 9321386

The following patent citations are considered relevant prior art, drawn from the "Citations" and "Family Cites Families" sections of the US9321386B1 patent document. Due to the extensive number of citations, a selection of the most relevant ones has been made based on their titles and abstracts, indicating direct applicability to the field of compact tool carriers, loaders, or related mechanisms.

1. US7980569B2

• Full Citation: US7980569B2, "Platform assembly for use with working vehicle"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 2007-02-15; Publication date: 2011-07-19
• Brief Description: This patent describes a platform assembly for a working vehicle, which can include a telescoping arm assembly to position an operator platform. The platform can be stowed beneath the controls, allowing for conventional walk-behind operation. The loader can be controlled in a conventional, e.g., walk-behind, manner when the platform is stowed.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • Claim 1: This patent describes a working vehicle with a platform assembly for standing operation and supports walk-behind operation by stowing the platform. It teaches a "control station having operator controls for propelling the compact tool carrier forward and for raising and lowering the loader, the control station being mounted toward the rear of the compact tool carrier and adapted to allow for standing or walk-behind operation." It also mentions a "loader" and an "arm assembly," which could anticipate the "loader having an arm" element of claim 1.
  • Claim 15: Similar to Claim 1, this patent describes a working vehicle (analogous to a compact tool carrier) with a platform and controls for operation. While it doesn't explicitly detail "pivot points" relative to a "rotational axis D1" with specific distance ratios, the general concept of a loader, drive mechanism, and operator controls for standing or walk-behind operation could be seen as broadly similar, potentially anticipating the overarching system.

2. US20090116943A1

• Full Citation: US20090116943A1, "Compact tracked vehicle for transporting and self-loading material, that can be operated by a standing operator"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 2006-04-19; Publication date: 2009-05-07
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a compact tracked vehicle designed for transporting and self-loading material, which is operable by a standing operator.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • Claim 1: The title explicitly mentions a "compact tracked vehicle" and "operated by a standing operator," directly addressing the core elements of a compact tool carrier configured for standing operation with a drive mechanism (tracks). It likely includes a loader and controls for operation.
  • Claim 15: Similar to Claim 1, the emphasis on a "compact tracked vehicle" for "standing operator" operation aligns with many aspects of Claim 15 regarding the type of machine and its control. Depending on the detailed disclosure, it could also potentially anticipate aspects of the mainframe, loader, drive mechanism, and control station.

3. US6695568B2

• Full Citation: US6695568B2, "Low profile lift arm for small skid steer loader"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 2001-11-01; Publication date: 2004-02-24
• Brief Description: This patent details a low-profile lift arm specifically for a small skid steer loader. The term "low profile" in the title directly relates to a key inventive aspect of US9321386.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • Claim 1: The patent explicitly mentions a "low profile lift arm" for a "small skid steer loader." While US9321386 specifically excludes "full size skid steers," a "small skid steer loader" might share characteristics with a compact tool carrier, particularly regarding loader arms and the concept of a low profile. This could potentially anticipate the "loader having an arm" and the general low-profile nature of the mainframe in the context of reducing the overall height for certain applications.
  • Claim 15: The focus on a "low profile lift arm" is highly relevant to Claim 15's emphasis on a low-profile mainframe and pivot points being low relative to the rotational axis (distances D2, D3, D4 being less than 1.5 times D1). This prior art would be critical in assessing the novelty of the specific dimensional relationships claimed in US9321386B1. The concept of minimizing the mainframe height through arm design is directly addressed.

4. US5169278A

• Full Citation: US5169278A, "Vertical lift loader boom"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 1990-09-05; Publication date: 1992-12-08
• Brief Description: This patent describes a vertical lift loader boom, suggesting a loader mechanism designed to move a tool predominantly in a vertical path.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • Claim 1: The description in US9321386 discusses an advantage of a "vertical travel path" for the loader. US5169278A's title explicitly refers to a "Vertical lift loader boom," which could anticipate the functionality of the loader's travel path as described in the specification of US9321386, even if the specific linkage and actuator arrangements differ.
  • Claim 15: The concept of a vertical lift loader boom directly relates to the movement of the loader. While Claim 15 focuses on pivot point geometry, the underlying function of lifting a tool vertically, as achieved by the described linkages and actuators, could be anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art focused on vertical lift mechanisms.

5. US8821104B2

• Full Citation: US8821104B2, "Loader work machine"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 2008-06-26; Publication date: 2014-09-02
• Brief Description: This patent generally describes a loader work machine. While broad, its recent publication date relative to US9321386 and its classification as a loader could indicate relevance.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • Claim 1 & 15: As a general "loader work machine," this patent could potentially anticipate foundational elements of a compact tool carrier, loader, mainframe, and drive mechanism, depending on the specific details disclosed within its claims and specification. Further examination of its content would be necessary to determine the extent of its overlap with the specific features of claims 1 and 15, such as the engine bracket, pivot point arrangements, and low-profile dimensions.

Note: A comprehensive anticipation analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102 would require a detailed claim-by-claim comparison of all elements of claims 1 and 15 against the full disclosures of each cited prior art reference. The descriptions above provide an initial assessment based on the titles and abstracts, indicating areas of potential overlap.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is obvious 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."

To analyze obviousness for US patent 9321386, we need to consider combinations of the cited prior art references. The patent itself lists several prior art references in its "Citations" section. Since the current date is April 26, 2026, and the patent's priority date is February 20, 2015, any prior art cited with a publication date before February 20, 2015, is relevant.

Claim 1 Obviousness Analysis

Claim 1 describes a compact tool carrier (mass < 1500 kg) with a loader (arm, actuator, linkage), a mainframe with an engine bracket, and a rear-mounted control station for standing/walk-behind operation. Key features include the loader arm not being directly attached to the mainframe, and the engine bracket being spaced from the rear.

Let's consider the following combination of prior art references:

• US20090116943A1 (Messeri's P.A.): This patent application describes a "Compact tracked vehicle for transporting and self-loading material, that can be operated by a standing operator." This reference establishes a compact, tracked vehicle with standing operator control and self-loading capabilities, which aligns with the general description of a compact tool carrier with a loader.
• US7980569B2 (The Toro Company): This patent describes a "Platform assembly for use with working vehicle." This reference specifically addresses a platform for a standing operator on a working vehicle, reinforcing the concept of standing operation.
• US6695568B2 (Clark Equipment Company): This patent discloses a "Low profile lift arm for small skid steer loader." This reference teaches the concept of a low-profile lift arm on a small skid steer loader, which is functionally similar to the loader arm of a compact tool carrier.
• US6098739A (Caterpillar S.A.R.L.): This patent describes a "Main frame assembly." This reference provides a general understanding of mainframe structures in heavy equipment.

Motivation for Combination:

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in 2015 would have been motivated to combine these references to achieve a more compact, stable, and user-friendly compact tool carrier with improved visibility, as disclosed in US9321386.

1. Starting with Messeri's (US20090116943A1): This patent provides a foundational compact tracked vehicle for standing operators with loading capabilities. The industry trend towards compact equipment for tight spaces (as noted in the background of US9321386) would motivate a PHOSITA to enhance such a vehicle.
2. Incorporating Toro's Platform (US7980569B2): To improve the operator's comfort and control for standing operation on Messeri's vehicle, a PHOSITA would naturally look to existing solutions for standing platforms. Toro's patent provides a relevant example of a platform assembly for a working vehicle.
3. Adopting Clark's Low-Profile Lift Arm (US6695568B2): Given the objective of creating a "low profile compact tool carrier" and improving operator visibility (as stated in the advantages of US9321386), a PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate a low-profile lift arm design, such as that taught by Clark, into Messeri's vehicle. The low-profile design would also contribute to lowering the center of gravity, improving stability.
4. Implementing Caterpillar's Mainframe Concepts (US6098739A): To support the integrated components (loader, engine, drive mechanism), a PHOSITA would refer to known mainframe designs. Caterpillar's patent provides a general mainframe assembly, and a PHOSITA would adapt such a frame to accommodate the specific components and achieve the desired low-profile characteristics. The placement of an engine bracket, as generally understood in the art of vehicle design, would be a matter of engineering choice to optimize weight distribution and component accessibility within the mainframe. The concept of a loader arm not being directly attached to the mainframe, but rather through a linkage and actuator, is a common mechanical design principle for achieving specific lift paths and would be an obvious engineering choice when designing such a system.

The combination would result in a compact tool carrier with a low-profile mainframe, a loader arm connected via linkages and an actuator, a drive mechanism, and a rear-mounted control station suitable for standing or walk-behind operation, having an engine mounted on an engine bracket spaced from the rear. These elements are individually present in the prior art, and the motivation to combine them would stem from the desire to create a more efficient, stable, and ergonomic compact tool carrier.

Claim 15 Obviousness Analysis

Claim 15 builds upon Claim 1 by introducing specific dimensional relationships regarding the pivot points and the rotational axis of the drive mechanism, specifically, "each vertical distance between the rotational axis and a pivot point being less than 1.5 times D1," where D1 is the vertical distance between the rotational axis and the bottom of the compact tool carrier.

Let's consider the same combination of prior art references, with an emphasis on how a PHOSITA would arrive at the dimensional limitations.

• US20090116943A1 (Messeri's P.A.): Provides the basic compact, tracked, standing-operator vehicle with loading.
• US7980569B2 (The Toro Company): Reinforces the standing operator platform.
• US6695568B2 (Clark Equipment Company): Teaches a "Low profile lift arm for small skid steer loader."
• US6098739A (Caterpillar S.A.R.L.): Discloses a "Main frame assembly."

Motivation for Combination and Dimensional Limitations:

The motivation to combine the references remains the same: to create a more compact, stable, and user-friendly compact tool carrier. The additional dimensional limitations in Claim 15 (pivot points being low relative to the rotational axis and the bottom of the carrier) would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA seeking to optimize the benefits described in the initial combination.

1. Low Profile Design for Stability and Visibility: The "low profile" aspect is explicitly stated as an advantage in US9321386, improving visibility and lowering the center of gravity for enhanced stability. Clark (US6695568B2) already teaches a "low profile lift arm for small skid steer loader." A PHOSITA, when designing a compact tool carrier for standing or walk-behind operation, would recognize that lowering the pivot points of the loader mechanism relative to the drive mechanism's rotational axis and the ground contact point (D1) would inherently contribute to both operator visibility and overall machine stability. This is a common engineering principle for heavy equipment, especially those operating in tight spaces or requiring precise control.
2. Optimizing Kinematics for Vertical Lift: The patent also mentions that positioning the actuator between linkages results in a vertical travel path for the loader, which is more effective. To achieve such a vertical or near-vertical lift path in a compact machine, careful consideration of pivot point placement is necessary. A PHOSITA would understand that to keep the loader arms and linkages contained within a compact envelope while achieving a useful lift height and path, the pivot points on the mainframe would need to be relatively low. The specific ratio of "less than 1.5 times D1" would be a result of routine engineering optimization based on desired lift height, stability requirements, and the compact nature of the machine. It is a quantifiable expression of the general "low profile" design choice.

Therefore, the combination of Messeri, Toro, Clark, and Caterpillar, combined with the recognized benefits of low-profile designs for stability, visibility, and efficient loader kinematics, would lead a PHOSITA to design a compact tool carrier with pivot points positioned relatively low as defined in Claim 15. The specific numerical limitation "less than 1.5 times D1" would be an obvious design choice within the realm of routine engineering for such a machine.

Note on Reexamination:
The information provided indicates that US9321386B1 underwent reexamination. During the reexamination, claims 15, 17, and 19 were determined to be patentable as amended, while claim 15 was proposed to be canceled. Claims 2 and 14 were not reexamined. New claims 21-63 were added and determined to be patentable. This suggests that the initial claims, or at least some of them, faced challenges based on prior art. The current analysis is based on the claims as originally presented in the patent document, and the reexamination status indicates that these claims may have been further refined or modified to overcome obviousness rejections. Amendments in reexamination proceedings cannot enlarge the scope of the claims or introduce new matter.