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 Objections
Claims 4, 7, 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4:
The limitation “a circular piece of metal” in line 3 of claim 4 appears to be referencing the same circular piece of metal as introduced in line 1-2 of claim 2. Examiner suggests amending the limitation of claim 4 to read –the circular piece of metal--.
Claim 7:
The limitation “a circular piece of metal” in line 3 of claim 7 appears to be referencing the same circular piece of metal as introduced in line 11 of claim 5. Examiner suggests amending the limitation of claim 7 to read –the circular piece of metal--.
Claim 9:
The limitation “a circular piece of metal” in line 3 of claim 9 appears to be referencing the same circular piece of metal as introduced in line 11 of claim 8. Examiner suggests amending the limitation of claim 9 to read –the circular piece of metal--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-9 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "said pin" in line 3. It is unclear to which pin this limitation is referring. Appropriate action is required. Claims 3-4 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said pin" in line 13. It is unclear to which pin this limitation is referring. Appropriate action is required. Claims 6-7 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said pin" in line 13. It is unclear to which pin this limitation is referring. Appropriate action is required. Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 8.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes (US 4189854) in further view of Frederick (US 6098321).
Regarding claim 1, Haynes discloses an attachment device comprising:
A coupling, having a rectangular piece of metal that has a width slightly less than the width of the inside of a standard excavator bucket, having a top portion and a bottom portion (coupling with top portion 40 and bottom portion 22; 40 is considered to be rectangular and have a width less than the inside of the bucket);
A piece of heavy wall tubing attached to said top portion (portion 40 is considered to be tubing as it is depicted as hollow in Fig 3);
A hole in the middle of said bottom portion (Figs 3-4 depict a bolt through the middle of the bottom portion 22);
Said coupling secures to said excavator bucket by inserting said top portion of said coupling device inside said excavator bucket (the top portion is secured inside of the excavator bucket),
An attachment that attaches to the coupling device (71).
Haynes fails to specifically disclose securing the top portion of the coupling to the bucket by inserting a metal pin through the sides of the bucket and through the tubing of the top portion. Haynes also fails to disclose the use of a lynch pin to secure the metal pin. However, Haynes does disclose securing the top portion to the bucket by jack screws that create a tight frictional engagement between the top portion and the bucket side walls (col 4, lines 50-54). One looking to improve upon the invention of Haynes would consider different ways to connect the top portion to the bucket. Frederick teaches an attachment secured to a construction implement with what could be considered a metal pin and a lynch pin (Fig 3; pin 21; lynch pin 20; holes in sides )fasteners through holes in the sides of the bucket (fasteners 20 in holes 18).
Haynes and Frederick are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of attaching tools to a construction bucket-type implement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haynes to incorporate the teachings of Frederick and modified the securing structure of the crossbar to include a pin that is inserted into the hollow crossbar and secured in place with a lynch pin. One would have made this modification to quickly secure and remove the attachment to the bucket (Frederick; col 5, lines 14-19).
This combination is considered to meet the claim limitations of a metal pin inserted through holes in the sides of the bucket and through the tubing of the top portion in the same way as Applicant’s invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 2 needs to be rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 2, 5, 8, the idea of an attachment for an excavator bucket is known in the art. For example, Haynes presents a coupling for attaching a grading blade to an excavator bucket similar to the claimed invention. The fastening system of Haynes comprises a frictional fit of the coupler to the bucket; however, Frederick teaches another way to connect an attachment to an earth-working bucket-type machine. The attachment of Frederick is attached with a pin and lynch pin mechanism which is considered an equivalent way to connect an attachment to an earth-working machine. This combination still does not disclose the circular piece of metal as claimed with the spring pin in combination with the rest of the claimed features. The references, together, render the general idea of connecting an attachment for an excavator bucket with a coupler and fastening mechanism as claimed; however, neither of these references, nor any other reference, teaches the use of a circular piece of metal with a spring pin to connect the attachment to the coupling device as claimed in claims 2, 5, and 8. In addition, it cannot be considered obvious to further modify coupling device of the prior art to include a circular piece of metal with a spring pin to connect the attachment to the coupling device. In view of the prior art of record, any obvious combination to further modify the coupling device to include the circular piece of metal with a spring pin to connect the attachment to the coupling device would require improper hindsight reasoning. For this reason, the claims are allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Von Schalscha (US 5596825) discloses a similar device to the claimed invention with a similar “circular piece of metal” to connect the attachment to an analogous coupling device, but still lacks the spring pin and other claimed limitations of the “circular piece of metal”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671