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 .
Claims 48-50, 56 and 60-62 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the Applicant argues
“Paragraph 42 of the present application states: “The present invention is suited for monitoring the status, health and performance of wear parts used on excavating equipment in the form of, for example, excavating buckets, blades, lips, teeth, and shrouds” (underlining added). The application therefore discloses an invention “for monitoring the…health…of…lips…” There is no ambiguity in this sentence. It clearly states the present invention is for monitoring the health of wear parts used on excavating equipment and that one example of such a wear part is a lip.
Paragraph 3 corroborates that, in this application, lips are considered a kind of wear part for use with earth working equipment: “In mining and construction, wear parts (e.g., teeth, shrouds, and lips) are commonly provided along the edges of excavating equipment to protect the underlying equipment from undue wear” (underlining added)”.
The arguments are not persuasive. Merely mentioning an intended use of “for monitoring” “lips” and mentioning that in “mining and construction” that “wear parts” may be “lips” as done in the specification does not indicate that the inventors had possession of a “monitoring device” that is “in” the “lip” of a bucket and that monitors a “health” or damage of the “lip”. In fact, paragraphs [03] and [42] make no mention whatsoever of a “monitoring device” that is “in” the “lip”. A “monitoring device” that is “in” the “lip” of a bucket and that monitors a “health” of the “lip” is an embodiment that is claimed and therefore must be supported by the disclosure, however, the disclosure as originally filed does not support such an embodiment. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Similarly, paragraph 44 of the present application states: “However, the invention could be used to monitor the presence and/or health of a wear member on a base on various types of earth working equipment and may monitor a point on an adapter, a point on an intermediate adapter, an intermediate adapter on an adapter, an adapter, a nose of a cast lip, a shroud, a lip, a blade, a wear runner, a truck line, or other wear member of other kinds of earth working equipment” (underlining added). Like paragraph 42, the paragraph discloses the invention can “monitor the…health of a…lip…” Again, there is no ambiguity in this sentence. It clearly states that the invention is for monitoring the health of wear members and that one example of such a wear member includes lips”.
The arguments are not persuasive. Paragraphs [44] makes no mention whatsoever of a “monitoring device” that is “in” the “lip”, which is an embodiment that is claimed and therefore must be supported by the disclosure. Furthermore, paragraph [44] does not describe how a determination of a “health” or damage of a “lip” itself of a bucket can be performed in a manner that shows possession of the claimed invention. For example, paragraph [44] describes “tooth assemblies” and “shrouds” that may be “attached to lip 5 of bucket 3”, and recites “the application generally discusses monitoring the presence and/or health of a wear member on a base secured to an excavating bucket” and “the wear member wears out and needs to be replaced a number of times”, and provides no indication of replacing the “lip 5” of the “bucket 3”, and paragraph [44] is then clearly directed to the “tooth assemblies” and “shrouds”, not the lip of the bucket, and as further support o of the Examiner’s interpretation of this paragraph, paragraph [44] concludes by reciting “However, the invention could be used to monitor the presence and/or health of a wear member on a base on various types of earth working equipment and may monitor…a lip…”, which clearly shows that all lines of paragraph [44] prior to this conclusion do not describe a system and process for monitoring the lip of the bucket, as this conclusion clearly mentions the “lip” as an alternative, as seen by the use of “However”. Furthermore, merely mentioning that the invention “could be used” to monitor a “lip” does not provide sufficient disclosure to show possession of a “monitoring device” that is “in” the “lip” of a bucket and that monitors the “health” of the “lip”, which is an embodiment that is claimed and therefore must be supported by the disclosure. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Paragraph 52 provides an example of monitoring the health of the lip: “The monitoring system may be equipped with electronic sensors that are capable of determining high impact events on the bucket digging edge (i.e., higher than experienced during normal digging operation).” Although the term “digging edge” is used here, paragraph 44 indicates that the lip is the digging edge: “The bucket 3 has a lip 5 that extends forward of the bottom wall 10 and is the digging edge of the bucket (Figures 2 and 3).” Accordingly, the present application provides a specific example of monitoring the health of the lip by detecting high impact events on the lip. With this example, the application discloses that various kinds of sensors may be used to detect the high impact events: “The monitoring system may be equipped with electronic sensors that are capable of determining high impact events on the bucket digging edge (i.e., higher than experienced during normal digging operation). For example, the monitoring system may utilize an accelerometer, strain gauge, load cell, or pressure sensor to determine peak impacts (not shown)” (paragraph 52)”.
The arguments are not persuasive. Paragraph [52] does not provide sufficient disclosure to show possession of a “monitoring device” that is “in” the “lip” of a bucket and that monitors the “health” of the “lip”. Also, the Applicant appears to mischaracterize paragraph [52], as paragraph [52] does not appear to related the “high impact events” to any “health of the lip” as argued by the Applicant, and instead merely mentions
“The monitoring system may be equipped with electronic sensors that are capable of determining high impact events on the bucket digging edge (i.e., higher than experienced during normal digging operation). For example, the monitoring system may utilize an accelerometer, strain gauge, load cell, or pressure sensor to determine peak impacts (not shown)”,
which is a description of sensors that may be equipped “that are capable of determining high impact events”, and describes that the system may “utilize an accelerometer, strain gauge, load cell, or pressure sensor to determine peak impacts”, but there is no disclosure whatsoever in paragraph [52] of any algorithm of using any “high impact events” and “peak impacts” to determine a “health of the lip”, or the health of anything.
Therefore, the argument “Paragraph 52 provides an example of monitoring the health of the lip” is entirely baseless and is not supported by the specification as written, and the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Paragraph 18 discloses that the information detected by the sensors may be communicated wirelessly to a remote device: “In another aspect of the invention, the monitoring system provides alerts to equipment operators, databases, and remote devices when the wear parts on the excavating equipment need maintenance. In one preferred construction, the monitoring system communicates wirelessly.” The system can identify the need for maintenance on wear parts and can wirelessly communicate the need to a remote device. As noted above, the term “wear parts” includes lips in this application, and sending an alert that maintenance is needed on the lip is a disclosure of “wirelessly communicating information about the health of the lip to a remote device” as recited in claims 48 and 62.
Therefore, the originally-filed application discloses “an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health of the lip to a remote device,” as recited in claims 48 and 62, and provides examples of how such could be implemented. For the above reasons, Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a), first paragraph”.
The arguments are not persuasive. Paragraph [18] describes an intended advantage of use of the invention, and does not provide sufficient disclosure to show possession of a “monitoring device” that is “in” the “lip” of a bucket and that monitors the “health” of the “lip”, which is an embodiment that is claimed and therefore must be supported by the disclosure. In fact, paragraph [18] provides no information whatsoever of any specific structure or algorithm that shows possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the Applicant argues
“The term “health” recited in claims 48 and 62 is a common term that would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. As discussed above, the originally-filed application discloses the monitoring of high impact events on the lip as one way of monitoring the health of the lip and that sensors suitable for such monitoring could include an accelerometer, strain gauge, load cell, or pressure sensor (paragraph 52). Also, as discussed above, the originally-filed application discloses the sending of an alert to indicate when the lip is in need of maintenance as part of the monitoring of the lip. It is well known to those skilled in the art that lip maintenance can be needed due to such things are wear, deformation and cracking. These are examples in the specification that provide clarity to the noted limitations in claims 48 and 62 which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art”.
The arguments are not persuasive. Regarding the argument “the originally-filed application discloses the monitoring of high impact events on the lip as one way of monitoring the health of the lip and that sensors suitable for such monitoring could include an accelerometer, strain gauge, load cell, or pressure sensor (paragraph 52)”, as already mentioned above, there is no disclosure whatsoever in paragraph [52] of any algorithm of using any “high impact events” and “peak impacts” to determine a “health of the lip”, or the health of anything. The sensors listed in paragraph [52] are not used to monitor the health of a lip of a bucket. Regarding the argument “the originally-filed application discloses the sending of an alert to indicate when the lip is in need of maintenance as part of the monitoring of the lip”, the Applicant apparently refers to paragraph [18] which recites “In another aspect of the invention, the monitoring system provides alerts to equipment operators, databases, and remote devices when the wear parts on the excavating equipment need maintenance. In one preferred construction, the monitoring system communicates wirelessly”, which provides no information whatsoever of any specific structure or algorithm that shows possession of the claimed invention.
Therefore, there is nothing in the claims or specification that clearly and unambiguously describes what “the health characteristic of the lip” is and how it is monitored.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, the Applicant argues
“While Lujan discloses a bucket with a sensor in recess 17 in a lip, the sensor is not “for monitoring the health of the lip” as required in claims 48 and 62. The Lujan sensor in the lip is for detecting loss of an adapter secured to the lip (see, e.g., col. 4, lines 23-38). The examiner appears to agree that the Lujan sensor is for detecting loss of an adapter, but argues that this is a monitoring of the health of the lip because the application discloses the monitoring of the health of teeth attached to the bucket such as in paragraphs 44 and 57. While it is true that the application discloses the monitoring of the teeth attached to a lip, the application is not limited to this disclosure. As discussed above, the application discloses the monitoring of the health of the lip itself”.
The arguments are not persuasive. There is no disclosure of a “monitoring device” that is “in” the “lip” of a bucket and that monitors the “health” of the “lip” as claimed, and additionally, loss of a tooth structure attached to a lip or leading edge of a bucket can in fact indicate the “health” of the lip or leading edge, as a “health” of the “lip” encompasses a status of attachments on the “lip”, for example, a loss of a tooth may be considered a “health” of the “lip”, as a health status of the “lip” can be interpreted to encompass a status of anything attached to the “lip”, and additionally, a status of the “lip” can be indirectly indicated or presumed by the loss of a tooth. Also, another interpretation is that a “health” of a “lip” is dependent on the status of a tooth structure on the lip, for example, a “lip” may be considered “healthy” or normal if all tooth structures are attached, and “unhealthy” or abnormal if any tooth structure is lost. Because the claims do not specify what is meant by “health” or “about the health”, nothing in the claims or specification contradict or exclude these interpretations of Claim 48. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Even in paragraph 44 (noted by the examiner), the paragraph does indeed disclose the monitoring of teeth on a lip, but goes on to expressly note: “However, the invention could be used to monitor the presence and/or health of a wear member on a base on various types of earth working equipment and may monitor a point on an adapter, a point on an intermediate adapter, an intermediate adapter on an adapter, an adapter, a nose of a cast lip, a shroud, a lip, a blade, a wear runner, a truck liner, or other wear member of other kinds of earth working equipment” (underlining added). The monitoring of the “lip” itself is expressly mentioned as one of the “various types” of monitoring that can be accomplished by the arrangements disclosed in the application”.
The arguments are not persuasive. Paragraph [44] merely mentioning that the invention “could be used” to monitor a “lip” does not provide sufficient disclosure to show possession of a “monitoring device” that is “in” the “lip” of a bucket and that monitors the “health” of the “lip”, which is an embodiment that is claimed and therefore must be supported by the disclosure. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive. See the above response already given with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and paragraph [44].
The Applicant further argues
“Moreover, the term “lip” is used in its ordinary way to mean the body of steel that is welded into the shell of the bucket to define a digging edge for the bucket. The teeth are not part of the lip. Rather, the teeth are secured to the lip” and
“These are but some examples found in the application; others exist. The application is clear that when the term “lip” is used it refers to the steel body welded into the shell of the bucket and that when teeth, adapters and shrouds are mentioned it refers to components that can be attached to the lip. The term “lip” is not used in this application to refer to an assembly that includes the lip and various attached wear parts. The way this application uses the term “lip” is the common meaning for the term lip to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, when claims 48 and 62 recite “an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip” it refers to monitoring the health of the lip itself and not the monitoring of teeth or adapters attached to the lip. Lujan discloses the monitoring of the adapters but does not disclose monitoring of the health of the lip.
While Bierwith discloses a lip with noses for mounting shrouds, it does not disclose the use of any kind of sensor much less one to monitor the health of the lip”.
The arguments are not persuasive. As already mentioned above, there is no disclosure of a “monitoring device” that is “in” the “lip” of a bucket and that monitors the “health” of the “lip” as claimed, and additionally, loss of a tooth structure attached to a lip or leading edge of a bucket can in fact indicate the “health” of the lip or leading edge, as a “health” of the “lip” encompasses a status of attachments on the “lip”, for example, a loss of a tooth may be considered a “health” of the “lip”, as a health status of the “lip” can be interpreted to encompass a status of anything attached to the “lip”, and additionally, a status of the “lip” can be indirectly indicated or presumed by the loss of a tooth. Also, another interpretation is that a “health” of a “lip” is dependent on the status of a tooth structure on the lip, for example, a “lip” may be considered “healthy” or normal if all tooth structures are attached, and “unhealthy” or abnormal if any tooth structure is lost. Because the claims do not specify what is meant by “health” or “about the health”, nothing in the claims or specification contradict or exclude these interpretations of Claim 48. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues “The other claims depend from claims 48 and are allowable for this same reasons given above. Applicant submits that all the claims are now allowable”.
All claims are rejected for the reasons given above and the reasons given in the rejection. See the new grounds of rejection.
All claims are rejected. No new prior art is introduced. See below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 48-50, 56 and 60-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per Claim 48, the subject matter is the claimed “a monitoring device in or on the lip, the monitoring device including an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health of the lip to a remote device”.
There is no disclosure of “an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health of the lip to a remote device”, therefore, the amendments to Claim 48 introduce new matter.
The Examiner notes that the disclosure does recite determining the status of elements attached to a bucket lip, where [57] recites using an “electronic sensor” to determine a state of a “wear member”, where a “wear member” in the form of a tooth may be attached to a lip of a bucket as seen in [44], but there is no disclosure of any determination of a “health” or damage of a “lip” itself of a bucket.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of a ground-engaging bucket for earth working equipment comprising a shell defining a cavity for gathering material during an earth working operation, a lip for supporting ground-engaging wear parts and working the ground during use of the earth working equipment, and a monitoring device in or on the lip, the monitoring device including an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health of the lip to a remote device.
As per Claim 62, the subject matter is the claimed “a monitoring device in or on the lip, the monitoring device including an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health characteristic to the remote device”.
There is no disclosure of “an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health characteristic to the remote device”, therefore, the amendments to Claim 62 introduce new matter.
The Examiner notes that the disclosure does recite determining the status of elements attached to a bucket lip, where [57] recites using an “electronic sensor” to determine a state of a “wear member”, where a “wear member” in the form of a tooth may be attached to a lip of a bucket as seen in [44], but there is no disclosure of any determination of a “health” or damage of a “lip” itself of a bucket.
As such, there is no indication in the specification that the inventors had possession of a monitoring system comprising a ground-engaging bucket for earth working equipment and a remote device; the ground-engaging bucket including a shell defining a cavity for gathering material during an earth working operation, a lip for supporting ground-engaging wear parts and working the ground during use of the earth working equipment, and a monitoring device in or on the lip, the monitoring device including an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health characteristic to the remote device; and the remote device including a computer system, database and/or HMI.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 48-50, 56 and 60-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 48, the limitations “a monitoring device in or on the lip, the monitoring device including an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health of the lip to a remote device” are unclear.
Specifically, it is unclear what “the health of the lip” is and how it is monitored.
There is no disclosure of “an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health of the lip to a remote device”, therefore, the amendments to Claim 48 introduce new matter, and the disclosure provides no clarification to Claim 48.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 62, the limitations “a monitoring device in or on the lip, the monitoring device including an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health characteristic to the remote device”.
Specifically, it is unclear what “the health of the lip” is and how it is monitored.
There is no disclosure of “an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health characteristic to the remote device”, therefore, the amendments to Claim 62 introduce new matter, and the disclosure provides no clarification to Claim 62.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 48, 49, 56 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lujan et al. (6,870,485).
Regarding Claim 48, Lujan et al. teaches the claimed ground-engaging bucket for earth working equipment comprising a shell defining a cavity for gathering material during an earth working operation (“…bucket 14…”, see col.3, particularly lines 6-9 and FIG. 1), a lip for supporting ground-engaging wear parts and working the ground during use of the earth working equipment (“The leading edge 16 of the bucket 14 has a plurality of recesses 17, one for each tooth 32”, see col.3, particularly lines 6-9 and FIGS. 2 and 5), and a monitoring device in or on the lip (“…a transducer housing assembly 40 is contained within each such recess 17”, see col.3, particularly lines 6-9), the monitoring device including an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health of the lip to a remote device (“…the unexpected loss of a tooth structure is prevented by detecting its separation from the leading edge of the bucket, at an early stage in the separation process, and providing a warning signal to the operator's cab of the machine so as to allow the operator to shut down the machine in a timely manner” and “…an electromechanical transducer is in the form of a spring-loaded switch sandwiched between the metal parts, which upon partial separation of the metal surfaces expands and turns on an electrical switch to activate a radio transmitter”, see col.2, particularly lines 34-45).
Regarding Claim 49, Lujan et al. teaches the claimed ground-engaging bucket in accordance with claim 48, wherein the shell includes a bottom wall, a rear wall and sidewalls to define [[a]] the cavity for gathering earthen material during use of the earth working equipment (“…bucket 14…”, see col.3, particularly lines 6-9 and FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 56, Lujan et al. teaches the claimed ground-engaging bucket in accordance with claim 48, wherein the monitoring device identifies and communicates the performance of the product (“…the unexpected loss of a tooth structure is prevented by detecting its separation from the leading edge of the bucket, at an early stage in the separation process, and providing a warning signal to the operator's cab of the machine so as to allow the operator to shut down the machine in a timely manner” and “…an electromechanical transducer is in the form of a spring-loaded switch sandwiched between the metal parts, which upon partial separation of the metal surfaces expands and turns on an electrical switch to activate a radio transmitter”, see col.2, particularly lines 34-45).
Regarding Claim 62, Lujan et al. teaches the claimed monitoring system comprising a ground-engaging bucket for earth working equipment and a remote device (“…the antenna output signal 60 is freely transmitted through plastic cap 44 into the surrounding atmosphere, and reaches the operator's cab 12, where it is received by receiver 62”, see col.4, particularly lines 23-33);
the ground-engaging bucket including a shell defining a cavity for gathering material during an earth working operation (“…bucket 14…”, see col.3, particularly lines 6-9 and FIG. 1), a lip for supporting ground-engaging wear parts and working the ground during use of the earth working equipment (“The leading edge 16 of the bucket 14 has a plurality of recesses 17, one for each tooth 32”, see col.3, particularly lines 6-9 and FIGS. 2 and 5), and a monitoring device in or on the lip (“…a transducer housing assembly 40 is contained within each such recess 17”, see col.3, particularly lines 6-9), the monitoring device including an electronic sensor for monitoring the health of the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health characteristic to the remote device (“…the unexpected loss of a tooth structure is prevented by detecting its separation from the leading edge of the bucket, at an early stage in the separation process, and providing a warning signal to the operator's cab of the machine so as to allow the operator to shut down the machine in a timely manner” and “…an electromechanical transducer is in the form of a spring-loaded switch sandwiched between the metal parts, which upon partial separation of the metal surfaces expands and turns on an electrical switch to activate a radio transmitter”, see col.2, particularly lines 34-45); and
the remote device including a computer system, database and/or HMI (“As shown in FIG. 7, the operator's cab is equipped with various alarm devices 65, both visual and aural, to inform the operator that an adapter is breaking loose”, see col.4, particularly lines 34-38, and “…whenever a signal is received at the monitoring station, generating an alarm…”, see Claim 3, where the alarm devices teach a “HMI”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 50 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lujan et al. (6,870,485) in view of Bierwith (8,464,444).
Regarding Claim 50, Lujan et al. does not expressly recite the claimed ground-engaging bucket in accordance with claim 48, wherein the lip includes an elongate structural body with a front edge adapted to mount the ground-engaging wear parts and a rear edge welded into a bucket.
However, Bierwith (8,464,444) teaches a lip that may attached to a bucket, where an edge of the lip not attached to the bucket may support digging teeth (Bierwith; “A front lip 6 is normally separately attached in any one of a variety of manners to the bucket…”, see col.4, particularly lines 60-67 and col.5, particularly lines 1-7, and see col.10, particularly lines 25-41 and FIG. 3), where a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious that one of “variety of manners” to attach the lip to the bucket would include any known technique for attaching two objects such as welding, where the Examiner notes that welding was common practice for attaching two objects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lujan et al. with the teachings of Bierwith, and wherein the lip includes an elongate structural body with a front edge adapted to mount the ground-engaging wear parts and a rear edge welded into a bucket, as rendered obvious by Bierwith, in order to provide a “connection for firmly securing an adapter for detachably carrying a replaceable digging tooth at its front end to a lip of an excavating container of excavating equipment” (Bierwith; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 61, Lujan et al. does not expressly recite the claimed ground-engaging bucket in accordance with claim 48, wherein the lip is cast with noses for supporting the ground-engaging wear parts.
However, Bierwith (8,464,444) teaches a nose portion that engages a bucket lip and that receives a tooth (Bierwith; see col.10, particularly lines 29-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lujan et al. with the teachings of Bierwith, and wherein the lip is cast with noses for supporting the ground-engaging wear parts, as rendered obvious by Bierwith, in order to provide a “connection for firmly securing an adapter for detachably carrying a replaceable digging tooth at its front end to a lip of an excavating container of excavating equipment” (Bierwith; see Abstract).
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lujan et al. (6,870,485) in view of Alipov (SU781281A1).
Regarding Claim 60, Lujan et al. does not expressly recite the claimed ground-engaging bucket in accordance with claim 48, wherein the electronic sensor includes a strain gauge.
However, Alipov (SU781281A1) teaches a tooth of a bucket that includes strain gauges (Alipov; “Measuring tooth bucket of an excavating machine, including a housing with front and rear faces and strain gauges”, see Claim and Description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lujan et al. with the teachings of Alipov, and wherein the electronic sensor includes a strain gauge, as rendered obvious by Alipov, in order to “improve the accuracy of measuring the pressure of the soil on the tooth” (Alipov; see Description).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662