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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Claims 48-50, 56 and 60-62 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Examiner’s Note:
The 05/20/2026 claim amendments have rendered moot the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as the claim limitations necessitating these rejections have been deleted.
Furthermore, the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments, as it has been determined that the Claim 48 limitation “the health of the lip in or on the lip” encompasses a status of attachments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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the Applicant argues “
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. As discussed above, the application discloses the monitoring of the health of the lip itself, not to be confused with loss, e.g., status. See, again paragraph 8”.
The arguments are not persuasive. First, the Examiner did not argue 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”, and the actual rationale for the 102 rejection is written in the rejection. The “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, where this interpretation of the scope of the limitation “health” is not dependent on paragraphs [44] and [57] of the present application, but is based on the scope of the claimed limitation “health”, and this interpretation is not excluded by the claims. Furthermore, the claims do not specify that “health of the lip itself” excludes “loss, e.g., status” as argued by the Applicant, therefore, this argument is not directed to the claims as written and is then moot.
Furthermore, paragraph [59] and FIGS. 17-18 support the Examiner’s interpretation of the “health of the lip itself”, as it can be clearly seen that FIGS. 17-18 are concerned with displaying only the status of each “wear member” or each tooth “77” attached to the bucket. Therefore, the Applicant’s attempts to characterize the claimed “health of the lip itself” as excluding the “loss, e.g., status” of wear members such as teeth is contradicted by the Applicant’s own specification and figures, as clearly the disclosed and claimed invention is intended to monitor attached wear members such as teeth.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“While it is true that the application discloses the monitoring of the teeth attached to a lip, the application makes clear that loss is separate from health. In many instances of the application, the system monitors the status, health, and performance of wear parts. See many instances of the specification, paragraphs 2, 19-21, 42, and many others. This makes clear that the specification is not saying "loss, loss, and performance." Figure 7A and Figure 7B are described in paragraph 28 as the process steps for monitoring status and health in accordance with the present invention, e.g., they are two different things. In review of these Figures, Figure 7B gives clear examples of the difference between status (produce missing wear part error) and health (wear park ok for continued operation or product worn wear part error signal). This aligns with the example given in paragraphs 8 and 52. The examiner has taken the position that loss is equivalent to health and for the many reasons cited above, this is in error with the plain meaning of the terms in the specification even given its broadest interpretation”.
These arguments are not persuasive and are in fact moot as they are not directed to the claims as written. Specifically, the claims do not specify that “loss is separate from health”, and do not specify that “health of the lip itself” excludes “loss”, therefore, the argument that “loss is separate from health” is not directed to the claims as written and is moot. The argument “In many instances of the application, the system monitors the status, health, and performance of wear parts. See many instances of the specification, paragraphs 2, 19-21, 42, and many others. This makes clear that the specification is not saying "loss, loss, and performance." is not directed to any specific claim limitation, and is then moot. The argument referring to FIGS. 7A and 7B of the present application is not directed to any specific claim limitation, and this argument is then moot.
The argument “The examiner has taken the position that loss is equivalent to health and for the many reasons cited above, this is in error with the plain meaning of the terms in the specification even given its broadest interpretation” is not persuasive for the reasons given above. The argument provides no persuasive rebuttal whatsoever to the Examiner’s interpretation of the scope of the claims and the scope of the claimed limitation “health of the lip”.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Additionally, regarding the Applicant’s reference to FIGS. 7A and 7B of the present application, the Examiner indicates for the record that FIG. 7B recites “Product worn wear part error signal” and “Produce missing wear part error signal”, and it is clear that the “wear” and “missing” terms are directed to teeth, not to a lip. There is no disclosure whatsoever that clearly describes how it would be determined that a “lip” is missing, and it is clear that FIGS. 7A-7B are directed to “wear members” that may be missing such as teeth, as described in paragraph [59] and FIGS. 17-18 of the present application.
Furthermore, Claim 62 recites “communicating information about the health characteristic to the remote device” and “the remote device including a…HMI”, where the HMI of paragraph [59] and FIGS. 17-18 is equivalent to the claimed “HMI”, and there is no indication whatsoever in paragraph [59] and FIGS. 17-18 that a “health characteristic” of a “lip”, that is somehow separate and distinct from “wear member” or tooth information, is communicated to and displayed by the HMI, as clearly FIGS. 17-18 are concerned with displaying only the status of each “wear member” or each tooth “77” attached to the bucket. Nowhere in the specification is there disclosure of communicating “lip” information that is separate and distinct from “wear member” or tooth information to an HMI, or of displaying such “lip” information on the HMI.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive in showing error in the rejection, or in showing error in the interpretation of the scope of the claimed invention.
The Applicant further argues
“Though teeth are indeed attached to lips, the claim even mentions that a "lip for supporting ground-engaging wear parts", but the claimed subject matter is for monitoring the health of the lip and does not claim health of the ground-engaging wear parts. The claim has been amended for clarity that no other wear parts are being monitored, only the lip itself. The teeth are not part of the lip. Rather, the teeth are separately securable to the lip.
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. Therefore, claims 48, 49, 56 and 62 are believed to be in condition for allowance”.
The arguments are not persuasive. The “health” of the “lip itself” 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, and this interpretation is not excluded by the claims. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“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). While Bierwith in cited combination discloses a lip with noses for mounting shrouds, it does not disclose the use of any kind of sensor in the lip, much less one to monitor the health of the lip. 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”.
The “sensor” of Claims 48 and 62 is rejected by the teachings of Lujan et al., not the teachings of Bierwith. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive and are in fact moot as they are not directed to the rejection as written.
No claims are allowable. All claims are rejected. No new prior art is introduced.
See the new grounds of rejection.
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 (“…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 in or on the lip and a communication device for wirelessly communicating information about the health of the lip itself 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 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 (“…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 in or on the lip for monitoring the health of the lip itself 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
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
Prosecution Insights