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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 27, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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);
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);
a bottom surface (as seen in figure 5, unnumbered but opposite surface to bore 241a) extending between the first lateral side surface and the second lateral side surface; 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). 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
321
228
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 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.
Claims 21, 23, 27, 29-36, 40 and 76 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1 and 10 had previously been rejected as anticipated by Lian et al. (USPGPub 2003/0007831) and claim 1 had previously been rejected as anticipated by Creighton (USP 6,574,892). It appears that the applicant’s representative’s position is that because claim 10 was not rejected by Creighton that to add the limitations of claim 10 to the subject matter would yield a claim that would distinguish over Creighton; however, that is not the case. Firstly, it is the Office’s policy to not been repetitive in the rejection of claims under cited prior art and a second rejection of claim 10 under Creighton would have been redundant. However, policies notwithstanding, included in the previous Office Action (and reproduced above) was/is an annotated figure clearly showing “a second lateral side surface” and as discussed in the above rejection, an opposed “bottom” surface is clearly shown in figure 5 and therein allowing Creighton to anticipate claim 1, as currently written.
Conclusion
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.
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