DETAILED ACTION
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 12, 17-23 and 53-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lujan et al. (U.S. Patent 6,870,485) in view of either Darlington et al. (U.S. Patent 11,280,067) or Kean et al. (U.S. Patent 11,162,246).
Lujan discloses the device as discussed in previous Office actions. The wear assembly does not include all of the additional components as claimed; however, the examiner takes Official notice that the added limitations are well known. Further, these recitations would not affect the ability of Lujan to function; i.e., Lujan could function as claimed in a prior art device meeting these recitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Lujan in any known wear assembly in order to monitor the components of the wear assembly. Lujan does not teach the device to be free of moving parts; however, this configuration is well known. For example, each of Darlington (44) and Kean (410) teach monitoring devices on work implements (Darlington Figures 2 and 5, for example; Kean Figure 4, for example), the devices free of moving parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the monitoring device of Lujan with the device of Darlington or Kean, since each of Darlington and Kean teach these to be effective sensors and Lujan teaches that alternative
Regarding claim 17, the surface adjacent acts as a proximity device.
Regarding claim 18, Lujan uses a magnet (53), but is not on the wear part. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the magnet on the wear part, since this would essentially be a reversal of parts which cannot patentably distinguish a product.
Regarding use of RFID, Darlington teaches this and this is a well-known sensor type. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used this in order to convey information regarding location.
Regarding claim 20, the adapter (22) is attached to a lip of a bucket.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, the wear part is a point/shroud.
Regarding claim 22, it is known to use a plurality of adapters in earth working equipment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Lujan as claimed in order to detect an intermediate adapter.
Both Darlington and Kean teach the Hall effect sensor.
Regarding claim 55, there is a plurality of openings (24, 29) are in side surfaces (Figure 2, for example).
Regarding claim 60, there is a remote device to receive the signal (claim 1, for example).
Claim 64 is deemed inherent, since “generating a warning signal” (claim 1) would be useless without a human-machine interface, since an operator would not be notified of the absence if a warning signal was not generated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 55, there are two holes (24, 29) arranged in side surfaces. Note there is no requirement for these to be the same sides. Upper, lower, left and right are all side surfaces.
Since applicant did not challenge the Official notice in the previous Office action, this has been taken as admitted prior art.
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 GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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 on 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights