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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curry, Jr. (USPGPub 2020/0222999).
Regarding claim 1: Curry discloses an apparatus comprising:
a disc (as seen in figure 2, generally 18) having a center (as seen in figure 2, area of 30) and terminal periphery (as seen in figure 2, area of 26); and
a plurality of tooth assemblies (as seen in figures 2 and 3, 42, 46), comprising:
a cartridge (as seen in figure 4, at 42) attached to the periphery of the disc, the cartridge having a cavity opening away from the center of the disc (as seen in annotated figure below); and
a tooth (as seen in figure 4, at 46) configured for removable attachment to the cartridge (as seen between figures 3 and 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curry, Jr. (USPGPub 2020/0222999) in view of Davis (USP 3,614,164).
Regarding claim 2: Curry discloses the apparatus of claim 1 substantially as discussed above. Further, Curry discloses the tooth comprises a body (as seen in figure 4, area of 46) having a forward cutting face (as seen in figures 3 and 4, via unnumbered inserts) but fails to show the cavity defining a profile as discussed by the applicant or the projection defining a cross-hole. However, Davis teaches that it is well known in the excavating art to provide such a combination in concert with an excavating device. Davis discloses wherein a cavity defines a profile (as seen in figure 1), and:
a projection extending from a body (as seen in figure 1, area of 10), wherein the projection has an external profile complementary to the profile of the cavity (as seen in exploded view in figure 1 and assembled view in figure 3), and wherein the projection defines a cross-hole (as seen in figure 1, at 20 in the projection). 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 Curry with the teachings of Davis since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of a tooth assembly having a tooth more positively secured due to a complimentary cartridge sizing and being surrounded thereby that cartridge.
Regarding claim 3: Curry as modified by Davis discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Further, Davis discloses wherein the apparatus comprising a pin (as seen in figure 1, at 22) configured for placement in the cross-hole (as seen in assembled figure 3, at 22).
Regarding claim 4: Curry as modified by Davis discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Further, Davis discloses wherein the cartridge comprises a channel, the channel having a first opening within the cavity and a second opening at a surface of the cartridge, wherein the channel is substantially radially oriented (as seen in annotated figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
229
257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 5-9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curry, Jr. (USPGPub 2020/0222999) in view of Davis (USP 3,614,164) as applied to claims 2-4 above, and further in view of Kopinski et al. (USP 5,184,412)..
Regarding claims 5-7: Curry as modified by Davis discloses the apparatus of claim 4 substantially as discussed above but fails to discloses the use of a shim made of a rubber material. However, Kopinski teaches that it is well known within the excavating or earthworking tooth assembly art to employ such shims in concert with those tooth assemblies (as seen in figures 1-7). Kopinski discloses the use of a rubber (column 5, lines 49-51) shim member (as seen in figure 4, generally 8) wherein the shim member is placed in a channel (as seen in figure 6) between a cavity (as seen in figure 6, area between members 14) and a projection (as seen in figure 6, area of 40) extending into the cavity whereby the shim contacts the projection at a first opening (as seen in figure 5, area of 54 and annotated figure 6 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
266
299
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Curry as modified by Davis with the teachings of Kopinski since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of a tooth assembly having a shim member whereby that shim member would allow for a better sealing of connections between allied members as well as to taking advantage of the inherent shock absorbing characteristics of such a member and therein allow for greater operational effectiveness and greater longevity of working parts.
Regarding method claims 8, 9 ,11 and 12: In view of the structure disclosed by Curry as modified by Davis and Kopinski, the method of replacing a tooth would be obvious since it is the normal and logical means by which a tooth could be replaced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-17 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 11 and 12 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
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