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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
In Applicant’s most-recent response filed 27 January 2026, claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 14, and 17 were amended. These amendments have been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 27 January 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Language
From the outset, it should be noted that some of the language in the claims is functional in nature. For example, throughout the claims the language related to a “bumper” of a “work/agricultural vehicle” as well as the language related to a “pin” is functional in nature and limited patentable weight is given to this section of the claim. Additionally, Examiner notes that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does and thus, a prior art device must be capable of performing the stated function in order to read on the functional limitation. In this instance, the prior art discloses every structural limitation of the claim and thus this limitation fails to distinguish the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. Please see MPEP 2114.
Note: Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended by Applicant to clarify the scope of each of these claims as it relates to the “bumper interface” and the “attachment interface”. Below is the Examiner’s interpretation of each of these claims and their respective dependent claims:
Re Claims 1-8: In independent claim 1 the claimed “attachment system” positively claims the “bumper interface”, but only functionally recites the “attachment interface” as an intended use of the positively claimed bumper interface.
Dependent claim 4 (and claims 5-8 depending therefrom); however, does positively recite the “attachment interface” as a part of the claimed “attachment system”.
Re Claims 9-16: Further, in independent claim 9 the claimed “attachment system” positively claims the “attachment interface”, but only functionally recites the “bumper interface” as an intended use of the positively claimed attachment interface.
Dependent claim 10 (and claims 11-16 depending therefrom); however, does positively recite the “bumper interface” as a part of the claimed “attachment system”.
Re Claims 17-20: Finally, in independent claim 17 the claimed “attachment system” positively claims both the “attachment interface” and the “bumper interface”.
[Examiner notes that this section of the Office Action does not constitute a rejection or objection, but is merely meant to indicate the manner in which the claims have been interpreted by the Examiner.]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US Patent 4,854,812).
Re Claim 1: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4) for a bumper (for example, as shown for quick coupler assembly 10; see note above related to this functional language) of a work vehicle comprising:
a bumper interface (10) configured to support a substantially downward load (for example, caused by the weight of bucket 16) exerted by an attachment interface (the attaching portions of bucket 16, specifically at pins 26 and gusset plates 54), the substantially downward load is directed in a substantially downward direction, the bumper interface (10) comprising:
a bumper pin retainer (slotted end 24) configured to retain a pin (26), the pin (26) configured to couple to the attachment interface, and the pin (26) configured to transfer the substantially downward load (caused by the weight of bucket 16) exerted by the attachment interface to the bumper interface; and
a bumper anti-rotation feature (comprising brackets 20 in the area of openings 28 in combination with mounting pins 30) configured to block rotation in a first direction of the attachment interface about the pin (26) based on a surface (for example, the surfaces of openings 28 and mounting pins 30) of the bumper anti-rotation feature exerting a force directly onto a first anti-rotation arm (gusset plats 54, specifically in the area of openings 32) of the attachment interface in a direction crosswise to the substantially downward direction, wherein a magnitude of the force is a portion of a weight of the attachment interface.
Re Claim 2: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the bumper pin retainer (24) comprises a hook feature, the hook feature comprises a first arm and a second arm separated by an open slot (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and the hook feature is configured to receive the pin (26) via the open slot.
PNG
media_image1.png
495
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
386
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
480
493
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 3: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the bumper anti-rotation feature (comprising brackets 20 in the area of openings 28 in combination with mounting pins 30) comprises a second second anti-rotation arm and a third anti-rotation arm separated by a gap (see annotated portion of Fig. 1 below).
Re Claim 4: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), comprising the attachment interface (the attaching portions of bucket 16, specifically at pins 26 and gusset plates 54), wherein the attachment interface comprises an attachment anti-rotation feature, the attachment anti-rotation feature comprising the first anti-rotation arm (see annotated portion of Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
448
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 5: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the gap (see annotated portion of Fig. 1 above) is configured to receive the first anti-rotation arm.
Re Claim 6: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the bumper anti-rotation feature (comprising brackets 20 in the area of openings 28 in combination with mounting pins 30) is configured to:
contact (via pin 30) the attachment anti-rotation feature (see “1st anti-rotation arm” in annotated portion of Fig. 1 above) of the attachment interface; and
support a second load exerted by the attachment anti-rotation feature.
Re Claim 7: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the bumper anti-rotation feature (comprising brackets 20 in the area of openings 28 in combination with mounting pins 30) is configured to align a first hole (28) of the bumper anti-rotation feature with a second hole (32) of the attachment anti-rotation feature.
Re Claim 8: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the first hole (28) and the second hole (32) are configured to retain a fastener (30), and the fastener is configured to block rotation in a second direction opposite the first direction of the attachment interface about the pin (26).
Re Claim 9: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4) for a bumper (for example, as shown for quick coupler assembly 10; see note above related to this functional language) of an agricultural vehicle comprising:
an attachment interface (the attaching portions of bucket 16, specifically at pins 26 and gusset plates 54) configured to support a substantially downward load exerted by a weight (caused by the weight of the bucket 16) coupled to the attachment interface, the substantially downward load is directed in a substantially downward direction, the attachment interface comprising:
an attachment pin retainer (the portions of gusset plates 54 connecting to pins 26) configured to retain a pin (26), the pin (26) configured to couple to a bumper interface (10), the pin (26) configured to transfer the substantially downward load from the attachment interface to the bumper interface; and
an attachment anti-rotation feature (comprising the portions of gusset plates 54 in the area of openings 32) configured to block rotation (via mounting pins 30) of the attachment interface about the pin (26) based on supporting a force exerted by a surface (the surface of pins 30 and openings 28) of the bumper interface (10) directly onto an anti-rotation arm (see “1st anti-rotation arm” in annotated portion of Fig. 1 above) of the attachment anti-rotation feature in a direction crosswise to the substantially downward direction, wherein a magnitude of the force is a portion of a weight of the attachment interface.
Re Claim 10: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), comprising the bumper interface (10), wherein the bumper interface comprises a bumper pin retainer (24).
Re Claim 11: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4),wherein the bumper pin retainer (24) comprises a hook feature, the hook feature comprises a first arm and a second arm separated by an open slot (see annotated Fig. 3 above), and the hook feature is configured to receive the pin (26) via the open slot.
Re Claim 12: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the attachment pin retainer comprises a first eyelet (the opening in a first gusset plate 54 to retain pin 26; see annotated portion of Fig. 1 above) configured to retain the pin (26).
Re Claim 13: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the attachment pin retainer comprises a second eyelet separated by a gap from the first eyelet, the second eyelet (the opening in a second gusset plate 54 to retain pin 26; see annotated portion of Fig. 1 above) configured to retain the pin (26).
Re Claim 14: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), comprising a bumper anti-rotation feature (comprising brackets 20 in the area of openings 28 in combination with mounting pins 30) of the bumper interface (10), wherein the bumper anti-rotation feature comprises the surface (the surfaces of pin 30 and openings 28).
Re Claim 15: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the attachment anti-rotation feature (the portions of gusset plates 54 in the area of openings 32) is configured to align one or more first holes (32) of the attachment anti-rotation feature with one or more second holes (28) of the bumper anti-rotation feature.
Re Claim 16: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the one or more first holes (32) and the one or more second holes (28) are configured to retain a fastener (30), and the fastener is configured to block rotation of the attachment interface about the pin (26).
Re Claim 17: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4) for a bumper (for example, as shown for quick coupler assembly 10; see note above related to this functional language) of a work vehicle, comprising:
an attachment interface (the attaching portions of bucket 16, specifically at pins 26 and gusset plates 54);
a bumper interface (10) configured to support a substantially downward load (caused by the weight of bucket 16) exerted by the attachment interface, the substantially downward load is exerted in a substantially downward direction, the bumper interface (10) comprising:
a bumper pin retainer (24) configured to retain a pin (26), the pin configured to couple to the attachment interface, and the pin configured to transfer the substantially downward load exerted by the attachment interface to the bumper interface; and
a bumper anti-rotation feature (comprising brackets 20 in the area of openings 28 in combination with mounting pins 30) configured to block rotation of the attachment interface about the pin (26);
wherein the attachment interface is configured to support the substantially downward load exerted by a weight coupled to the attachment interface, the attachment interface comprising:
an attachment pin retainer (the portions of gusset plates 54 connecting to pins 26) configured to retain the pin (26), the pin configured to couple to the bumper interface (!0), the pin configured to transfer the substantially downward load from the attachment interface to the bumper interface; and
an attachment anti-rotation feature (comprising the portions of gusset plates 54 in the area of openings 32) configured to contact the bumper anti-rotation feature (28, 30) to block rotation of the attachment interface about the pin (26) based on supporting a force exerted by a surface (the surfaces of openings 28 and pins 30) of the bumper anti-rotation feature directly onto an anti-rotation arm (see “1st anti-rotation arm” in annotated portion of Fig. 1 above) of the attachment anti-rotation feature in a direction crosswise to the substantially downward direction, wherein a magnitude of the force is a portion of a weight of the attachment interface.
Re Claim 18: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the bumper pin retainer (24) comprises a hook feature (24), the hook feature comprising a first arm and a second arm separated by an open slot (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Re Claim 19: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the hook feature (24) is configured to receive the pin (26) via the open slot and retain the pin in a closed end of the open slot (see Fig. 4).
Re Claim 20: Smith discloses an attachment system (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the attachment pin retainer (the portions of gusset plates 54 connecting to pins 26) comprises a first eyelet feature (the opening in a first gusset plate 54 to retain pin 26; see annotated portion of Fig. 1 above) and a second eyelet feature (the opening in a second gusset plate 54 to retain pin 26; see annotated portion of Fig. 1 above) separated by a gap, the first eyelet feature and the second eyelet feature configured to retain the pin (26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
/MATTHEW R MCMAHON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678