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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 80-89 and 92-93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall et al. (Pat. No.: 11,952,740; hereinafter Hall).
Regarding independent claim 80, Hall discloses a bucket (10) for moving material, the bucket (10) comprising:
an elongate engagement beam (12, See Fig. 1 where the engagement beam 12 extends across the width of the bucket and is therefore elongate) for engaging a machine, the engagement beam (12) being formed of one or more cast components and at least a portion of the engagement beam (12) includes a closed hollow section (See Fig. 14 where the closed hollow section is depicted); and
a basket (14) supported by the engagement beam (12), the basket (14) having a basket body (22) defining a basket interior (See Fig. 1 where the basket interior is depicted),
wherein the engagement beam (12) comprises a beam body and end portions (See Fig. 9 where the beam body corresponds to element 42 and the end portions correspond to element 44), the beam body (42) comprising the closed hollow section and the closed hollow section (depicted in Fig. 14) extending along a longitudinal axis (claimed axis corresponds to the horizontal axis of the bucket extending across the width) between the end portions (note that the claimed limitation of extending along a longitudinal axis between the end portions is broad, since the closed hollow section extends across the width of the bucket it therefore corresponds to the limitation of “extending along a longitudinal axis between the end portions), and a plurality of lugs extending from the beam body (lugs seen in Fig. 10), wherein the end portions (44) are configured to be fixed to the beam body (42) to cap the closed hollow section (See Fig. 14 where the end portions 44 are depicted as capping the closed hollow section, also See Fig. 9-10 where the end portions are fixed to the beam body).
Regarding claim 81, Hall discloses the bucket of claim 80, and also discloses wherein the basket (14) is removable to allow for replacement of at least a portion of the basket body (See col. 10, lns. 33-35 where it discloses the basket 14 can then be replaced with a new undamaged and unworn lower section).
Regarding claim 82, Hall discloses the bucket of claim 80, and also discloses wherein each end portion (44) is integrally cast (See Fig. 9-10 where elements 42 and 44 are of one-piece construction, i.e., integrally cast) with the beam body (42)
Regarding claim 83, Hall discloses the bucket of claim 80, and also discloses wherein the basket body (22) includes basket members (24, 26, and 28), the basket members comprise side plates (30) in facing arrangement with one another and one or more shell plates (32), the one or more shell plates extend between the side plates (30), and wherein at least some of the basket members are removable to allow for replacement of the at least some of the basket members (See col. 9, lns. 4-5 where it discloses “the plates 24, 26, 28 are welded to the frame 22 and are able to be removed when they become worn or damaged”).
Regarding claim 84, Hall discloses the bucket of claim 83, and also discloses wherein each end portion (44) includes a body portion (44a-44b) which extends along the longitudinal axis and a side wall portion (46) configured to abut (at 20, See col. 9, lns. 10-15 where it discloses side wall portion 46 forms a peripheral edge that interacts with the complementary further peripheral edge formation 20 on the basket 14) the respective side plate of the basket (30).
Regarding claim 85, Hall discloses the bucket of claim 84, and also discloses wherein the side wall portion (46) of each end portion (44a-44b) includes a forward facing edge (62) aligned with a leading edge (20m) of the basket body (22) to form a forward edge of the bucket (See Fig. 9 for forward edge of the bucket, and further See col. 9, lns. 41-46 where it discloses the alignment of the 20m with 62) and a rear side wall portion (44c as seen in Fig. 10) extending to and abutting the one or more shell plates (32, See extension and abutment in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 86, Hall discloses the bucket of claim 84, and also discloses wherein each end portions (44a-44b) includes an arcuate transition region between the body portion and the side wall portion (See Fig. 10 where the arcuate transition region, i.e., curved portion of 12 between 44a and 46 is depicted).
Regarding claim 87, Hall discloses the bucket of claim 80, and also discloses wherein the beam body and/or the end portions may be adjusted by trimming the beam body and/or the end portions to a predetermined length (since Hall discloses the claimed structural details of the end portions and beam body, the end portions and beam body will also be capable of the claimed functional language of trimming the elements to a predetermined length).
Regarding claim 88, Hall discloses the bucket of claim 80, and also discloses wherein the engagement beam (12) includes a lug (66) being integrally formed (i.e., not immediately removable so as to work together as a single complete piece or unit) with the beam body.
Regarding claim 89, Hall discloses the bucket of claim 88, and also discloses a plurality of lug tails (See Fig. 3 where the lug tails correspond to the unlabeled element extending perpendicular to the inner and outer lug ear plates 64) wherein the lug tails are formed separately (i.e., are of a different component) and coupled (at least operably) to the basket extending respectively from each lug.
Regarding claim 92, Hall discloses the bucket of claim 80, and also discloses wherein the engagement beam (12) is separable from the basket body (22) to allow for removal of the basket body (22) from the engagement beam (12) and attachment of a new basket body to the engagement beam (12) such that the engagement beam (12) is re-usable (See col. 10, lns. 33-46 where it discloses attachment of a new basket body of the basket 12 to the reusable engagement beam 14).
Regarding claim 93, Hall discloses the bucket of claim 83, and also discloses wherein at least one of the side plates (30) is formed as a casting (i.e., a single piece).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 80, 90-91, and 94-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magliulo et al. (Pub. No.: 2018/0127952; hereinafter Magliulo in view of Hu et al. (Pat. No.: 11,346,075; hereinafter Hu).
Regarding independent claim 80, Magliulo discloses a bucket (30) for moving material, the bucket (30) comprising:
an elongate engagement beam (52) for engaging a machine, and at least a portion of the engagement beam (52) includes a closed hollow section (58, cavity 58 depicted in Fig. 3); and
a basket (36) supported by the engagement beam (52), the basket (36) having a basket body (body of 36) defining a basket interior (See Fig. 2 where the basket interior is depicted),
wherein the engagement beam (52) comprises a beam body (body of 52) and end portions (See Fig. 3 where the side portions of the bucket side that cover the cavity 58 correspond to the claimed end portions), the beam body (body of 52) comprising the closed hollow section (58) and the closed hollow section extending along a longitudinal axis (i.e., a width of the bucket) between the end portions (as seen in Fig. 3), and a plurality of lugs extending from the beam body (plurality of lugs depicted in Figs. 2-3), wherein the end portions are configured to be fixed to the beam body to cap the closed hollow section (See Fig. 2 where the end portions, i.e., bucket sides associated with 52, are depicted as capping the closed hollow section).
Magliulo fails to specifically disclose wherein the engagement beam is formed of one or more cast components.
Hu, discloses a bucket comprising an elongate engagement beam (240) for engaging a machine and a basket (210) supported by the engagement beam (240), the basket having a body defining a basket interior (as seen in Fig. 7). More specifically, Hu teaches the engagement beam (240) being formed of one or more cast components (See col. 9, lns. 36-43 where it discloses element “240 is manufactured through a casting process as an integral structure.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the engagement beam of Magliulo from one or more cast components, as taught by Hu, since “the casting of the hinge assemblies as an integral structure, as opposed to forming the hinge assemblies from a plurality of welded together pieces, makes manufacturing the bucket simpler and less time consuming” (See col. 10, lns. 1-5). It is further noted that para. [0006] of Applicant’s disclosure discloses that “in some forms the engagement beam is cast” and is therefore not disclosed as a critical feature of the invention.
Regarding claim 90, the above combination discloses the bucket of claim 80. Magliulo, of the combination, discloses wherein the beam body (body of 52) includes a wall (64) having a variable thickness (See Fig. 3 where the wall 64 is depicted having variable thickness resulting from the two upper corner cutouts).
Regarding claim 91, the above combination discloses the bucket of claim 90. Magliulo, of the combination, discloses wherein the beam body (body of 52) includes an inner surface (56) defining the closed hollow section (58) and the beam body further comprises a plurality of internal supports (67) extending in a lateral direction from the inner surface (56) offset from the plurality of lugs (See Fig. 3 where the supports 67 are depicted extending laterally from and across the inner surface 56 and offset from the lugs in Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 94, the above combination discloses the bucket of claim 80. Magliulo, of the combination, discloses wherein the engagement beam (52) comprises at least one access portal (86) extending into the hollow section (58) of the engagement beam (See para. [0032] where it discloses the first and second access portals extend between the engagement beam 52 and the second compartment 74, See Fig. 2 where the access portal 86 is depicted extending into the hollow section 58 at 93).
Regarding claim 95, the above combination discloses the bucket of claim 94. Magliulo, of the combination, discloses equipment housed in the hollow section (58) of the engagement beam (See para. [0021] where it discloses a control module 46 is mounted within the cavity 58, the control module 46 forming a part of a RADAR system 38, the radar system 38 generally corresponding to the equipment).
Regarding claim 96, the above combination discloses the bucket of claim 95. Magliulo, of the combination, discloses wherein the equipment (38) includes (operably) monitoring equipment (40, 42, 44, 46, 48, and 50) for monitoring condition and/or productivity of the bucket and/or lubrication equipment (See para. [0022] where it discloses the equipment receives a signal indicative of the presence of an object beneath the ground surface, which corresponds to the claimed productivity of the bucket since the operator will have to adjust operational course to avoid the object detected).
Regarding claim 97, the above combination discloses the bucket of claim 96. Magliulo, of the combination, discloses wherein the monitoring equipment (40, 42, 44, 46, 48, and 50) includes one or more of communications equipment, data acquisition equipment, at least one sensor, at least one transducer, at least one camera, onboard processing, power and wiring (See para. [0022] and para. [0027] where general disclosure of the elements comprising the monitoring equipment like a sensor, MCU, user interface, transmitter, receiver, wiring, and electrical power connector can be reviewed, note that the claim only requires one of presently listed monitoring equipment).
Regarding claim 98, the above combination discloses the bucket of claim 97. Magliulo, of the combination, discloses wherein the monitoring equipment (40, 42, 44, 46, 48, and 50) includes the at least one sensor (of the sensor module 40) fitted (at 95) to the at least one access portal (86) to monitor the productivity of the basket (See para. [0022] where it discloses the monitoring equipment receives a signal from the sensor module indicative of the presence of an object beneath the ground surface, which corresponds to the claimed productivity of the bucket since the operator will have to change operational course to avoid the object detected)
Claim 99 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall in view of Hampson et al. (Pat. No.: 11,933,016; hereinafter Hampson).
Regarding claim 99, Hall discloses the bucket of claim 80, but fails to disclose wherein the beam body is formed of multiple cast components that are welded together in an end-to-end configuration, and wherein weld regions between the cast components are located in areas of low stress to minimize failure of the weld regions. Like Hall, Hampson discloses a bucket comprising an engagement beam (300) comprising a beam body (320) and end portions (310). Unlike Hall, Hamspon teaches wherein the beam body is formed of multiple cast components that are welded together in an end-to-end configuration (See col. 12, lns. 11-17 where it discloses the separately formed beam body and end portions are “assembled in an end-to-end arrangement and permanently joined” to the bucket using conventional welding techniques), and utilizing conventional welding techniques so that the engagement beam reduces stress applied by the bucket (See cols. 11-12, lns. 63-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the one-piece construction of Hall, to the multiple cast component of Hampson, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Further, since the combination discloses the claimed structural limitations of the cast components and provides a discussion of conventional weld techniques aimed at reducing stress during operation, it also discloses the functional limitation of wherein weld regions between cast components are located in areas of low stress to minimize failure of the weld regions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on pgs. 7-9 that Hall does not disclose “the beam body comprising the closed hollow section and the closed hollow section extending along a longitudinal axis between the end portions” as recited in amended independent claim 1 has been considered but is unpersuasive. Applicant states that “the relied-upon void in Fig. 14 is depicted extending rearward from the bucket mouth in the section view, not ‘along a longitudinal axis between the end portions’” on pg. 9. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the closed hollow section depicted in Fig. 14 extends in at least two directions: rearward across a length of the bucket and across the width of the bucket between the end portions (i.e., a longitudinal axis). Accordingly, Hall does disclose the above limitation and further claim interpretation may be reviewed in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments on pgs. 9-10 that Magulio fails to disclose the limitations of amended claim 80 have been considered but are unavailing, these arguments will be addressed individually below.
On page 10 Applicant states that “Magulio does not disclose the first compartment 52 is formed of ‘one or more cast components.’” Applicant’s arguments with 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. Applicant should reference the rejection of claim 80 detailed above over Magliulo in view of Hu.
On page 10 Applicant states that “the cavity 58 of the first compartment 52 does not disclose ‘a closed hollow section.’” Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Additionally, the claim presently recites “at least a portion of the engagement beam includes a closed hollow section.” As discussed previously and set forth above in the rejection, the cavity 58 of Magulio corresponds to the claimed closed hollow section which is depicted in Fig. 3. Furthermore, in para. [0024] Magulio discloses that the engagement beam 52 includes a first cover plate 64 that “encloses the cavity 58” of the engagement beam 52. Accordingly, Magulio does disclose this limitation and further interpretation can be referenced in the rejection above.
On page 10 Applicant states that the basket of Magulio is not supported by the engagement beam as required by the claim since the engagement beam 52 “is merely a compartment and does not have a ‘support’ and load taking function.” However, as depicted in Fig. 3, base member 56 of the engagement beam 52 is depicted as rigidly interfacing with the side walls of the basket 36 thereby providing support; or, in para. [0024] Magulio discloses that the cover plate 64 of the engagement beam 52 may be attached via welding, also see Fig. 1 where 64 interfaces with the bucket sidewalls thereby providing load-bearing support to the basket 36 and meeting the requirements of the claimed limitation.
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 Audrey L Lusk whose telephone number is (571)272-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am-5pm.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/A.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights