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 statements (IDS) submitted on November 7, 2025, November 25, 2025 and January 8, 2026 are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 2, 9-13, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardo et al. (USP 10,428,494) in view of Grewell et al. (USPGPub 2021/0246935).
Regarding claim 1: Lombardo discloses a lock assembly (as seen in figures 1A-5C) for securing a wear member (as seen in figure 1A, generally 12) to a support structure (as seen in figure 1A, generally 11), comprising:
a collar (as seen in figure 2A, generally 13) comprising:
a top surface (as seen in figure 2A, area of 41);
a bottom surface (as seen in figure 2A, area of 40) opposite the top surface; and,
an outer circumferential profile including at least eight planar surfaces extending around a perimeter of the collar between the top and bottom surfaces (as seen in annotated figure 2A below).
Further, Lombardo discloses a bore (as seen in figure 2A, area of 54) extending along a central axis from the top surface to the bottom surface; and a pin (as seen in figure 2A, generally 14) configured for receipt in the bore of the collar but fails to show a first biased detent mechanism extending outward from a first front corner surface of the collar.
PNG
media_image1.png
216
319
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. However, Grewell teaches that it is well known to employ a collar in cert with a lock assembly (as seen in figures 7 and 8) wherein a first biased detent mechanism (as seen in figures 7 and 8, area of 224) extends outward from a first front corner surface (as seen in figures 7 and 8, formed by member 236) of the collar.
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 Lombardo with the teachings of Grewell since it would be a simple matter of combining the teachings of known prior art elements to yield the predictable results of a collar more securely placed in the aperture for which it would be installed, absent any showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2: Lombardo as modified by Grewell discloses the lock assembly of claim 1. Further, Lombardo discloses wherein at least a portion of a wall defining the bore of the collar includes first threads (as seen in figure 2A, at 55) and at least a portion of an outer surface of the pin includes second threads (as seen in figure 2A, at 66) corresponding to the first threads (as seen in figure 3E).
Regarding claim 9 and 10: Lombardo as modified by Grewell discloses the lock assembly of claim 1 but fails to show a second and third biased detent mechanism extending outward of the collar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second biased detent mechanism for additional device securement, 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 11: Lombardo as modified by Grewell discloses the lock assembly of claim 1. Further, Lombardo discloses wherein the outer circumferential profile of the collar is defined at least in part by a front surface, a rear surface, opposing side surfaces, and four corner surfaces (as seen in annotated figure 2A below).
PNG
media_image2.png
211
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12: Lombardo as modified by Grewell discloses the lock assembly of claim 1. Further, Lombardo discloses wherein the outer circumferential profile of the collar is laterally symmetrical about a plane extending from a front side of the collar to a rear side of the collar and extending between the top and bottom surfaces (as seen in figure 2A and as denoted by the dashed line extending from the pin 14 to the collar 13 in figure 2B).
Regarding claims 13 and 15: Lombardo as modified by Grewell discloses the lock assembly of claim 1. Further, Lombardo discloses wherein a rear surface extending between the top surface and the bottom surface and defining a rear side of the collar is angled with respect to the central axis of the bore and tapered towards the central axis (as seen in annotated figure above and figure 2,A, the “angle” formed by the chamfer between the top and bottom edges).
Regarding claim 18: Lombardo as modified by Grewell discloses the lock assembly of claim 1. Further, Grewell discloses wherein the pin comprises a shaft that narrows toward a tip of the pin disposed opposite a head of the pin (as seen in figure 8, generally 220).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 9-13, 15 and 18 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