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.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 recites “convert a least a portion” which should read “convert [[a]] at least a portion”;
Lines 2-3 recite “the saved weight”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; and
Line 5 recites “a bucket” which should read “[[a]] the bucket”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para. [0008] is incomplete.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Behlendorf et al. (Pat. No.: 4,944,102; hereinafter Behlendorf).
Regarding independent claim 1, Behlendorf discloses a tapered archless dragline bucket (See Fig. 1 for bucket 13 that is archless and tapered) comprising:
a bucket (13) having no spreader bar (See claim 3 where it discloses the bucket system is “devoid of any spreader means”) and a configuration to convert a least a portion of the saved weight into capacity (note that the claimed term “the saved weight” is broad as it does not recite which feature is creating the reduced/saved weight and is currently being interpreted as the weight saved by the bucket by using a bucket that “does not having a complete back”, See col. 4, lns. 4-29 where it discloses that it is not a disadvantage “from a capacity standpoint” to use a bucket that “does not have a complete back”),
wherein the tapered archless dragline bucket (13) includes no arch and no spreader bar (See Fig. 1 where the bucket has no arch; See col. 5, lns. 15-17 where it discloses that the spreader bar is eliminated) so as to provide a bucket that provides a double weight reduction that can be converted into additional bucket capacity or production (See col. 5, lns. 25-38 where it discloses that “the low profile design as well as the fewer components utilized in the bucket systems” achieves an “increase in production up to 20%” and can be fabricated for “larger capacity”, note that the claimed term “double weight reduction” is being interpreted as the weight reduction created by not having a spreader bar or an arch).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are generally directed towards arches buckets: Leslie et al. (Pub. No.: 2003/0066212), Wimer (Pat. No.: 2,334,460), and Page (Pat. No.: 3,247,606). Additional references relevant but not cited here can be found in the attached 892.
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.
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/A.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3671