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 January 29, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, on lines 6-7 the claim has been amended to read “…deeper than least one portions…” . This passage appears grammatically awkward and it further appears that it should read either --…deeper than portions…-- or --…deeper than at least one portion…--.
Claim 8 depends from canceled claim 3.
Claim 10 depends from claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Note: To advance prosecution it will be assumed that claim 8 depends from claim 1.
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 8 and 10 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.
In claim 8, line 3, “the at least one relief” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is rejected based on its claim dependency.
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, 5-8, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Balan et al. (USP 9,644,348).
Regarding claim 1: Balan discloses a wear member for earth working equipment (as seen in figures 1-5) comprising
a body (as seen in figure 4, generally 28) extending in a longitudinal direction (as seen in figure 4, as denoted by axis “X”) and including:
a rear mounting portion having an exterior surface and a rearward-opening mounting cavity (as seen in figure 3, area of 40); and
a front bit portion (as seen in figures 3 and 4, area of 54) forward of the mounting cavity and having an exterior surface, the exterior surface of the front bit portion being wider (as seen in figure 4, as denoted by WFE) and deeper (as seen in figure 3, at area of 94 verses 68) than at least one portion of the exterior surface of the rear mounting portion (as seen in figure 4, as denoted by WURE), such that the exterior surface of the rear mounting portion extends inward from the surface of the front bit portion (as seen in figure 4, as denoted along lines at 82).
Regarding claim 5: Balan discloses the wear member of claim 1. Further, Balan discloses wherein the rear mounting portion includes at least one relief in the exterior surface (i.e., “a relief” is a change in elevation, as seen in figure 4, area of 110).
Regarding claim 6: Balan discloses the wear member of claim 1. Further, Balan discloses wherein herein the rear mounting portion includes at least one of a top ridge and/or a bottom ridge (as seen in figure 3,along 88) extending from the front bit portion, wherein at least a portion of the rear mounting portion with the ridges has the same depth dimension as at least a portion of the front bit portion (as seen in figure 3, ridge 88 is “horizontal” thus “the same depth”).
Regarding claim 7: Balan discloses the wear member of claim 1. Further, Balan discloses wherein the front bit portion is between 45-65% of an overall length of the wear member (as seen in figure 4).
Regarding claims 8 and 10: Balan discloses the wear member of claim 1. Further, Balan discloses wherein the rear mounting portion includes side surfaces and a lock receiving opening (as seen in figure 3, area of 44) that opens in at least one of the side surfaces, and wherein at least one relief (i.e., “a relief” is a change in elevation, as seen in figure 4, area of 110) extends below and extending upward to be between the lock hole in the at least one side surface and a rear end of the rear portion (as seen in figure 3, area of 110) and wherein the rear portion includes a rear surface at the rear end, wherein the at least one relief extends to near the rear surface of the wear member (as seen in figure 3, area of 52).
Regarding claim 11: A wear member for earth working equipment (as seen in figures 1-5) comprising:
a rear end (as seen in figure 4, area of 78) including:
a mounting cavity opening (as seen in figure 3, area of 40) in the rear end to receive a supportive base (as seen in figures 3 and 4, at 30); and
an exterior wearable surface including side surfaces, at least one of the side surfaces having a lock-receiving opening (as seen in figure 3, area of 44) for situating a lock therein to secure the wear member to the base (column 4, lines 45-56), and a side relief extending (i) between the lock-receiving opening in the respective side surface and the rear end and (ii) below and forward of the lock-receiving opening (as seen in annotated figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
158
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12: Balan discloses the wear member of claim 11. Further, Balan discloses wherein each of the side surfaces includes one said lock-receiving opening and one said side relief (as seen in figure 4, areas of 110).
Regarding claims 13 and 14: Balan discloses the wear member of claim 11. Further, Balan discloses wherein the side reliefs are separated by adjacent axial ridges along a bottom of the rear mounting portion of the wear member (as seen in figure 3, along ridges formed by intersection of surface 67 and 86).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5-8 and 10-14 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
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
/Matthew Troutman/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights