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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lian et al. (USPGPub 2003/0007831).
Regarding claim 1: Lian discloses a lock assembly (as seen in figures 1-6) for securing a wear member (as seen in figure 1, generally 14) to a support structure (as seen in figure 1, generally 12), comprising:
a lock body (as seen in figure 6, generally 16’) comprising:
a top surface (as seen in figure 6, area of 38);
a first lateral side surface (as seen in figure 6, area of 36); and
a bore (as seen in figure 4, area of 40) extending linearly along an axis that intersects the top surface and the first lateral side surface (as seen in figure 4); and a pin (as seen in figure 1, generally 18) configured to be received in the bore of the lock body (as seen between figures 3 and 4), the pin comprising:
a head (as seen in figure 3, area of 44);
a tip (as seen in figure 3, area of 46); and
a shaft (as seen in figure 3, area of 42) extending between the head and the tip, the pin having a retracted configuration in which the tip is retained within the bore (as seen in figure 3) and a seated configuration in which the shaft extends laterally outward from the bore beyond the first lateral side surface (as seen in figure 4).
Regarding claim 10: Lian discloses the lock assembly of claim 1. Further, Lian discloses the lock body comprises:
a second lateral side surface disposed on a side of the lock body opposite the first lateral side surface (as seen in annotated figure 3 below); and
a bottom surface extending between the first lateral side surface and the second lateral side surface (as seen in annotated figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
278
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Creighton (USP 6,574,892).
Regarding claim 1: Creighton discloses a lock assembly (as seen in figures 1-5) for securing a wear member (as seen in figure 5, at 252) to a support structure (as seen in figure 5, at 230), comprising:
a lock body (as seen in figure 1, at 38) comprising:
a top surface (as seen in annotated figure 3 below);
a first lateral side surface (as seen in annotated figure 3 below); and
a bore (as seen in annotated figure 3 below) extending linearly along an axis that intersects the top surface and the first lateral side surface; and a pin (as seen in figure 1, at 40) configured to be received in the bore of the lock body, the pin comprising:
a head (as seen in figure 3, area of 64);
a tip (as seen in figure 3, at 70); and
a shaft (as seen in figure 3, area of 60) extending between the head and the tip, the pin having a retracted configuration (by “backing out” the pin a few turns from position as seen in figure 3) the pin in which the tip is retained within the bore and a seated configuration in which the shaft extends laterally outward from the bore beyond the first lateral side surface (as seen in figure 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
321
228
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2: Creighton discloses the lock assembly of claim 1. Further, Creighton discloses wherein the pin is configured to transition between the retracted and seated configurations by rotation about the axis (paragraph 6, lines 1-24).
Regarding claim 3: Creighton discloses the lock assembly of claim 2. Further, Creighton discloses wherein the bore of the lock body comprises a first set of threads (as seen in figure 3, at 60) and the shaft of the pin comprises a second set of threads corresponding to the first set of threads (as seen in figure 3, at 62, also, paragraph 6, lines 1-24).
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 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creighton (USP 6,574,892) in view of Cheyne et al. (USP 11,072,913).
Regarding claims 4 and 5: Creighton discloses the claimed device substantially as discussed above but fails to show the use of a pin detect mechanism. However, Cheyne teaches that it is notoriously well known to employ such a detent mechanism (as seen in figures 28-30) in concert with a lock assembly. Cheyne discloses wherein a lock body comprises a pin detent mechanism, a portion of the pin detent mechanism extending into the bore (as seen in figure 30, at 252), the pin further comprising a first indentation (as seen in figure 30, at 260) capable of being installed along an upper portion of the second set of threads, the first indentation being configured to receive the portion of the pin detent mechanism when the pin is in the seated configuration (as seen in figure 30). Also, Cheyne discloses wherein the pin detent mechanism comprises a flexible member (as seen in figure 30, at 264) and a rigid member (as seen in figure 30, at 252) secured to the flexible member, the portion of the pin detent mechanism extending into the bore comprising a portion of the rigid member (as seen in figure 30). 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 Creighton with the teachings of Cheyne since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of a locking assembly having a pin more positively engaged in the assembly and less likely to “back out” and fail during operation, absent any showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 6: The difference between the claim and the device of Creighton as modified by Cheyne is the claim recites: “a second indentation disposed along a lower portion of the second set of threads”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add multiple indentations to allow for a biased pin holdings in various locations along the length of the threads, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 7: Creighton as modified by Cheyne discloses the device of claim 5. Further, Creighton discloses a first recess is formed into the top surface of the lock body and the bore opens into the first recess (as seen in figure 3, area containing head 64).
Regarding claim 8: Creighton as modified by Cheyne discloses the device of claim 7. Further, Cheyne discloses wherein the resultant device would have a second recess (as seen in figure 30, at 262) formed into the lock body and would extend between the bore and the first recess, the second recess configured to receive the flexible member (as seen in figure 30, at 264) of the pin detent mechanism.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lian et al. (USPGPub 2003/0007831).
Regarding claims 12 and 13: Lian discloses the claimed invention except for the first lateral side being wider than the second lateral side and the use of toe structure in concert with the lock body. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the lock body dimensions and structure as needed for a given application since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 23, 27, 29-36, 40 and 76 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the Lian reference as it is applied to claim 1: Applicant’s representative argues “ Nowhere does Lian disclose that the end 46 of the leg 42 (alleged tip of the shaft) is "retained within" the channel 40 (alleged bore) in this configuration. Accordingly, Lian fails to disclose "the pin having a retracted configuration in which the tip is retained within the bore.". The examiner disagrees. While Lian may state “FIG 3 illustrates the insertion…”, as stated in the previous action, shown in figure 3 and widely known in the art, Lian clearly shows the pin in the “retracted position” of the connection system relative to the “installed position” as shown in figure 4 and therein clearly anticipating the claim, as currently written.
Regarding applicant’s representative’s arguments about Creighton. Under examination, it is a normal matter of course that the examiner to establish a relative orientation of a given device in the prior art and as so long as that orientation remains consistent throughout the examination it is quiet proper (for example, if a tractor is facing left in the prior art and the applicant claims it to the right the examiner, as a manner of course, “flips” it around) In the instant application the device lends itself to a lock assembly which can be installed in various locations and orientations so such “re-orientation would be acceptable and thus allow Creighton to anticipated the claims as currently written.
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