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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) filed 11/26/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 35 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.
Regarding claims 19 and 35, the idea of a tooth adaptor is known in the art. For example, Jakubisin and Jones (prior art of record) both present different designs of tooth adaptors with slots that define a flaring section. However, neither of these references, nor any other reference, provide adequate teachings for a boss at a junction of the legs that is received in the leading edge. In view of the prior art of record, any obvious combination to include a boss at a junction of the legs as currently claimed would require improper hindsight reasoning and render the prior unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. For this reason, the claims are allowable.
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) 13, 15-18, 29, 31-34, 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jakubisin et al. (US 20190040608).
Regarding claim 13, Jakubisin discloses a tooth adaptor for a leading edge of excavation equipment, comprising a body having legs defining a cavity, the legs being commonly part of a monoblock portion of the body, the legs having contact surfaces delimiting the cavity (Fig 7A; body 118 with legs 120/122 are considered a monoblock portion of the body; contact surfaces 710 and 610 delimiting cavity in Fig 7A), the body adapted to be mounted to the excavation equipment by the leading edge received in the cavity, a tooth interface at a leading end of the body (Fig 11 depicts leading edge 102 of excavation equipment; tooth interface 124), wherein the contact surfaces each include a slot extending in a leading-to-trailing direction of the tooth adaptor, the slot defining a flaring section in which at least one sidewall of the slot diverges from the leading-to-trailing direction (Figs 7B and 7C depict contact surfaces 610 and 710 each with a slot 615 and 702; both slots define flaring sections; see Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
204
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 15, Jakubisin discloses the tooth adaptor wherein both of the sidewalls of the slot diverge from the leading-to-trailing direction (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Jakubisin discloses the tooth adaptor wherein the slot extends and opens to a trailing end of the tooth adaptor (claim language is broad; the slot is considered to extend and open to the trailing end of the adaptor).
Regarding claim 17, Jakubisin discloses the tooth adaptor wherein the flaring section has a constant depth (the flaring section is considered to have a constant depth; Fig 7A).
Regarding claim 18, Jakubisin discloses the tooth adaptor wherein the flaring section is adjacent to at least one straight section in which the sidewalls are parallel to the leading-to-trailing direction (see Annotated Fig 1; there is considered to be a straight section where the sidewalls are parallel).
Regarding claim 29, Jakubisin discloses an assembly for a leading edge of excavation equipment, the assembly comprising:
the tooth adaptor according to claim 13 (see rejection for claim 13); and
excavation equipment having a leading edge between a pair of main surfaces, abutment members projecting from the main surfaces and each having at least one lateral surface flaring away from the leading edge and accommodated in the flaring section of the slots when the tooth adaptor is mounted onto the leading edge (Fig 4 and Fig 5A depict the leading edge; see Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
561
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 31, Jakubisin discloses the assembly wherein both of the sidewalls of the slot diverge from the leading-to-trailing direction (see Annotated Figure 1; both sidewalls are considered to diverge).
Regarding claim 32, Jakubisin discloses the assembly wherein the slot extends and opens to a trailing end of the tooth adaptor (claim language is broad; the slot is considered to extend and open to the trailing end of the adaptor).
Regarding claim 33, Jakubisin discloses the assembly wherein the flaring section has a constant depth (the flaring section is considered to have a constant depth; Fig 7A).
Regarding claim 34, Jakubisin discloses the assembly wherein the flaring section is adjacent to at least one straight section in which the sidewalls are parallel to the leading-to-trailing direction (see Annotated Fig 1; there is considered to be a straight section where the sidewalls are parallel).
Regarding claim 36, Jakubisin discloses the tooth adaptor wherein the legs have a similar length (Fig 7A depicts the legs of the adaptor having similar length).
Regarding claim 37, Jakubisin discloses the assembly wherein the legs have a similar length (Fig 7A depicts the legs of the adaptor having similar length).
Regarding claim 38, Jakubisin discloses a tooth adaptor for a leading edge of excavation equipment, comprising a body having legs defining a cavity, the legs being commonly part of a monoblock portion of the body, the legs having contact surfaces delimiting the cavity (Fig 7A; body 118 with legs 120/122 are considered a monoblock portion of the body; contact surfaces 710 and 610 delimiting cavity in Fig 7A), the body adapted to be mounted to the excavation equipment by the leading edge received in the cavity, a tooth interface at a leading end of the body (Fig 11 depicts leading edge 102 of excavation equipment; tooth interface 124), wherein at least one of the contact surfaces includes a slot extending in a leading-to-trailing direction of the tooth adaptor, the slot defining a flaring section in which at least one sidewall of the slot diverges from the leading-to- trailing direction, and wherein the legs have a similar length (Figs 7B and 7C depict contact surfaces 610 and 710 each with a slot 615 and 702; both slots define flaring sections; see Annotated Figure 1; Fig 7A depicts the legs of the adaptor having similar length).
Claim(s) 14, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jakubisin.
Regarding claim 14, Jakubisin appears to disclose the tooth adaptor wherein the at least one sidewall diverges at an angle ranging between 1 and 15 degrees (see Annotated Figure 1).
However, for the sake of argument that Jakubisin does not expressly disclose that the diverging angle is between 1 and 15 degree, it does disclose that the angle could be adjusted in order for the slot 702 to fit over the boss 302 (para [0045]). As a result of the angle controlling the fit against a corresponding boss structure, the divergent angle is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the angle may be adjusted in order to fit on a boss given a specific proportion of slot to boss size. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the relative angle to be between 1 and 15 degrees, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding claim 30, Jakubisin appears to disclose the assembly wherein the at least one sidewall diverges at an angle ranging between 1 and 15 degrees (see Annotated Figure 1).
However, for the sake of argument that Jakubisin does not expressly disclose that the diverging angle is between 1 and 15 degree, it does disclose that the angle could be adjusted in order for the slot 702 to fit over the boss 302 (para [0045]). As a result of the angle controlling the fit against a corresponding boss structure, the divergent angle is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the angle may be adjusted in order to fit on a boss given a specific proportion of slot to boss size. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the relative angle to be between 1 and 15 degrees, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights