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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 and 21 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.
In claim 1, lines 8-9, applicant claims “…wherein the at least one wear plate and the fasteners securing the at least one wear plate to the main body are entirely inward the inner surface and/or entirely outward of the outer surface relative to the inner cavity.” As employed, the phrase “and/or” is inherently unclear in that “the at least one wear plate” cannot be secured to the inner surface and outer surface at the same time. The lack of clarity renders the claimed subject matter indefinite.
Note: A similar issue exists in claim 21 with “…wherein the at least one wear plate and the fasteners securing the at least one wear plate to the main body and/or the door are entirely inward of the inner surface and/or entirely outward of the outer surface.”
Note: To replace “and/or” with –or—would overcome the lack of clarity.
Claims 2-10 are rejected based on their claim dependencies.
Note: Applicant’s arguments with respective to the above rejection are not persuasive. It remains unclear as to how a single wear plate and its fasteners “are entirely inward of the inner surface and entirely outward of the outer surface” at the same time. This would require at least two separate assemblies, which is not what is being claimed.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lombardo et al. (USP 10,428,494).
Regarding claim 1: Lombardo discloses a bucket (column 1, lines 15-17) comprising:
a main body defining an inner cavity (column 2, lines 25-27, incorporating by reference the bucket structure of USP 8,336,233),
at least one wear plate (as seen in figure 1A, generally 12) covering an inner surface and/or an outer surface of the main body (as seen in figures 4D and 4E; also, column 3, lines 1-9), the wear plate having holes therein (as seen in figure 1A, area of 81); and
fasteners (as seen in figure 1A, at 13 and 14) passing through the holes and secured to the main body by screwing engagement (as seen in figures 3C and 3D), the fasteners having a portion thereof (as seen in figure 2A, at 13) in a fixed position (as seen in figure 3A, moved into a “fixed” position, in phantom view; also, column 5, lines 34-67) on the main body prior to a securing of the at least one wear plate, such that the portion of the fasteners is immovable prior to the securing (inherently occurring once fastener 14 is inserted and prior to tightening/securing);
wherein the at least one wear plate and the fasteners securing the at least one wear plate to the main body are entirely inward the inner surface or entirely outward of the outer surface relative to the inner cavity (as seen in figures 3B-3E, relative to inner surface at 15).
Regarding claim 2: Lombardo discloses the bucket of claim 1. Further, Lombardo discloses wherein the fasteners include bolts (as seen in figures 3B and 3E, at 14) passing through the holes, and nuts (as seen in figure 2A and 3E, at 13).
Regarding claim 3: Lombardo discloses the bucket of claim 2. Further, Lombardo discloses wherein the nuts are secured to the main body (as seen in figure 3E).
Regarding claims 5 and 6: Lombardo discloses the bucket of claim 2. Further, Lombardo discloses wherein the nuts (as seen in figure 3E, at 13) and bolts (as seen in figure 3E, at 14) are fixed in a retainer cup (as seen in figure 3E, area of 86) on the main body.
Regarding claim 7: Lombardo discloses the bucket of claim 1. Further, Lombardo discloses wherein the wear plate has edge portions against supports separated by a spacing, the fasteners being partly received in the spacing (as seen in annotated figure 3E below).
PNG
media_image1.png
227
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 8 and 9: Lombardo discloses the bucket of claim 1. Further, Lombardo discloses wherein the at least one wear plate is against the inner surface of a bottom portion of the bucket and has a surface against the inner surface and/or the outer surface of the bucket, the surface having a complementary negative geometry to that of the inner surface and/or the outer surface. (as seen in figure 3B with the inner surface being 15; also, column 2, lines 25-27, incorporating by reference the bucket structure of USP 8,336,233, figure 1).
Regarding claim 10: Lombardo discloses the bucket of claim 1. Further, Lombardo discloses wherein the holes in the at least one wear plate are counterbore holes (as seen in figures 3B-3E, area of 81).
Claims 11-15, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hren et al. (USP 8,590,180).
Regarding claim 11: Hren discloses a bucket (as seen in figure 1, at generally 62) comprising:
a main body defining an inner cavity (as seen in figure 1, area of 78),
a door (as seen in figure 1, area of 86) pivotally mounted to the main body (as seen in figure 1, via 90), the door having a main front surface (as seen in figures 9 and 16),
at least one wear plate laid against a surface of the main body or a surface of the door (as seen in figure 4, member 104 being part of the door and thus part of its “surface”) at an interface therebetween (as seen in figure 8, at 113), the wear plate having holes therein (as seen in figures 5 and 8, at 112); and
fasteners passing through the holes and secured to the main body or the door by screwing engagement (as seen figure 8, unnumbered but members above “FIG. 8” and to the right of reference numeral 108).
Regarding claim 12: Hren discloses the bucket of claim 11. Further, Hren discloses wherein the fasteners include bolts passing through the holes, and nuts (as seen in annotated figure 8 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
430
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13: Hren discloses the bucket of claim 11. Further, Hren discloses the fasteners have heads trapped in a wear plate mounting area via counterbore holes defined on the main body or the door (as seen in the annotated figure above and figure 8, recess in member 113 ”traps” the nut head with member 113 being part of the door structure 86).
Regarding claim 14: Hren discloses the bucket of claim 13. Further, Hren discloses wherein the mounting area extends along one of a front lip of the door (as seen in figure 4, between reference numerals 108 and 112) and a rear lip of the main body (as seen in figures 1 and 5, area of 100), the front lip and the rear lip facing each other, the front lip and the rear lip movable towards and away each other as the main body and the door pivot relative to each other (as seen in figure 1, via pivot at 90 as well as “closing” movement as seen between figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 15: Hren discloses the bucket of claim 13. Further, Hren discloses wherein the mounting area is defined by a mounting plate (as seen in figure 8, at 113) forming an integral part of the main body (as seen in figure 11 when fully assembled).
Regarding claim 17: Hren discloses the bucket of claim 11. Further, Hren discloses wherein the wear plate has at least one guiding member at a back thereof (as seen in figure 8), the guiding member engageable with a complementary feature of the main body or the door aligning with the guiding member (as seen in annotated figure 8 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
291
363
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21: Hren discloses the bucket of claim 11. Further, Hren discloses wherein the at least one wear plate and the fasteners securing the at least one wear plate to the main body and/or the door are entirely outward of the outer surface (as seen in figures 11 and 23B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardo et al. (USP 10,428,494) in view of Henning et al. (USP 10,113,297).
Regarding claim 4: Lombardo discloses the claimed device substantially as discussed above but fails to show the use of welded nuts. However, Henning teaches that it is well known to employ such welded nuts (as seen in figure 6, at 22N) in concert with an excavating bucket type arrangement (as seen in figure 7, generally 10). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Lombardo with the teachings of Henning in order to provide an excavating bucket with a fastening means having a more positive securement and therein providing greater ease of installation, absent any showing to the contrary.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hren et al. (USP 8,590,180) in view of Lammli (USP 9,840,830).
Regarding claim 16: Hren discloses the claimed device substantially as discussed above but fails to show the use of a sliding lock incorporated with fasteners and mounting means of a bucket wear assembly. However, Lammli teaches that it is well known within the excavating art to employ such a sliding lock arrangement (as seen in figures 3-7 ) having a wear member (as seen in figures 3-6, at 16), mounting (as seen in figures 3-6, at 18) and fastening means (as seen in figure 7, at 30) in concert with an excavating bucket type arrangement (as seen in figure 3, generally 100). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Hren with the teachings of Lammli in order to provide an excavating bucket with a sliding fastener means therein providing for greater time saving and ease of installation, absent any showing to the contrary.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hren et al. (USP 8,590,180) in view of Long et al. (USPGPub 2017/0314236).
Regarding claims 18 and 19: Hren discloses the claimed device substantially as discussed above but fails to show internal and external wear plates of varying geometry. However, Long teaches that it is well known within the excavating art to have both internal and external wear plates in varying locations on a bucket and of varying geometries (as seen in figures 1-23). Long teaches to provide an excavating bucket with both wear plates which have an L-shaped profile (as seen in figures 17-19, generally 194) as well as complimentary negative geometry to the inner or outer surface to which they may be applied (as seen in figure 9, at 178 or figures 13 and 14, at 186). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Hren with the teachings of Long in order to provide an excavating bucket with a more diverse replaceable wear means and thus allow for greater operational life to the bucket assembly at large.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of “and/or” under 35 USC 112. The attorney for the applicant argues: “claim 1 uses the transitional phrase "at least one wear plate" to cover embodiments in which (1) a wear plate is secured entirely inward of the inner surface, (2) a wear plate is secured entirely outward of the outer surface, or (3) both - that is, a first wear plate is on the inner surface and a second wear plate is on the outer surface. The Examiner's position appears to rest on the premise that "the at least one wear plate" necessarily refers to a single wear plate. This is incorrect. The open-ended expression "at least one" expressly encompasses one or more wear plates.” The examiner strongly disagrees. Firstly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim language when the phrase “at least one (feature)” is employed all succeeding limitations must be able to be achieved by a single one of those features. For the applicant’s representative to argue that what is meant by “at least one (feature)” needs “at least two (features)” to achieve (a first wear plate is on the inner surface and a second wear plate is on the outer surface.) is improper and fails under 35 USC 112 and therein requiring the examiner to maintain the rejection. If the attorney for the applicant maintains the position of needing “at least two wear plates” then it is suggested that the claim language be amended to reflect such a position.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments of claim 1: Claim 1 has been amended to include: “such that the portion of the fasteners is immovable prior to the securing” and subsequently argues that Lombardo fails to teach/disclose such a feature. The examiner disagrees. The phrase “prior to securing” is incredibly broad and open to interpretation. For example: wherein applicant’s attorney’s arguments of
“In Lombardo, the nuts 13, which the Examiner alleges read on "a portion" of the fasteners of claim 1 (Office Action, page 4, line 13) are inserted through the aperture 34 into the slot 25 of the base 11. Once in the slot 25, the nuts 13 are translatable - they slide along the slot from a first position registered in the aperture 34 to a second position offset from the aperture 34. As Lombardo itself makes clear, "the only direction in which the nut 13 can move other than out through the aperture 34, is in a translational or lateral direction between the opposed ends 26 and 27 of the base 11" (Lombardo, column 5, lines 14-17). Lombardo further states that "the nut 13 is translated through the slot 25 to a second position" (Lombardo, column 5, lines 18-19)” are valid, once the fastener 14 of Lombardo is engaged and prior to tightening (i.e., “securing”) the “portion 13” would be immoveable and therein allowing Lombardo to anticipate the claim as currently written.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments of claim 11: Claim 11 has been amended to include: “a door pivotally mounted to the main body, the door having a main front surface, at least one wear plate laid against a surface of the main body or the main front surface”. The amendment added “a main front surface” and subsequently referred to that “main front surface” in the alternative (“a surface of the main body or the main front surface of the door”) thus not necessarily changing the scope of the claim or as to how the prior art was applied to the claim therein allowing Hren to continue to anticipated the claim as currently written.
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 ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights