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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RU209115 (cited by applicant) (henceforth RU).
Regarding claim 1, RU discloses a wear member comprising:
A body extending from a front surface to a rear surface disposed generally perpendicular to a longitudinal axis, the body defining a midplane for the rear surface, the midplane being perpendicular to the rear surface and including the longitudinal axis, wherein the front surface is disposed on one side of the mid plane (Figure 1)
top outer surface (6);
bottom outer surface (7), the top outer surface and the bottom outer surface extending from the rear surface and converging at the front surface;
first and second side outer surfaces disposed about the longitudinal axis, and extending from the rear service to the front surface and between the top outer surface and the bottom outer surface
a rib (5) protruding from the top outer surface
a scoop (8) extending into the body from the bottom outer surface towards the top outer surface
Regarding claim 2, Ru discloses that the front surface is generally parallel to the rear surface
Regarding claim 4, RU discloses that the rear surface extends from a rear surface lower edge to a rear surface upper edge and the front surface extends from a front surface lower edge to a front surface upper edge.
Regarding claim 5, a first height of the front surface upper edge relative to the mid plane is less than or about equal to a second height of the rear surface upper edge relative to the mid plane.
Regarding claim 7, RU discloses the bottom outer surface includes a rear bottom surface (9,10; Figure 5) extending from the rear surface towards the front surface; a front bottom surface extending from the front surface toward the rear surface (front bottom arrow – Figure 7), and an intermediate bottom surface extending from the rear bottom surface to the front bottom surface (middle bottom curved arrow – Figure 7).
Regarding claim 8, RU discloses that the front bottom surface is inclined at a first angle relative to the mid plane and the intermediate bottom surface is angled at a second angle relative to the midplane, the second angle being different from the first angle (RU – Figure 7).
Regarding claim 10, the scoop is disposed on the intermediate bottom surface.
Regarding claim 11, Ru discloses that the ratio of wear member to a scoop length is between about 2.0 to 2.5 (Figure 5).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU209115.
Regarding claim 9, Ru discloses the invention as described above, but fails to specifically disclose the angles of the angled bottom portions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle limitations disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al. (9,003,681) in view of Renski (9,057,177).
Regarding claim 1, Simmons discloses a wear member comprising:
A body extending from a front surface to a rear surface, the body defining a midplane for the rear surface, the midplane located along a longitudinal axis, wherein the front surface is disposed on one side of the mid plane
top outer surface (36);
bottom outer surface (32), the top outer surface and the bottom outer surface extending from the rear surface and converging at the front surface;
first and second side outer surfaces (34) disposed about the longitudinal axis, and extending from the rear service to the front surface and between the top outer surface and the bottom outer surface
While Simmons discloses the invention as described above, it fails to disclose a rib protruding from the top outer surface, a scoop extending into the body from the bottom outer surface towards the top outer surface, or that the rear surface is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. Like Simmons, Renski also discloses a wear member (72) for an excavating tooth. Unlike Simmons, Renski discloses a wear member (72) than can have a flat rear face (70), a scoop (196) on the bottom face and a rib (82) on the top face. Renski discloses that the scoop on the bottom surface and the cutouts to form the rib on the top surface to reduce the weight of the top. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize cutouts on the top and bottom of the tooth to save on material costs as taught by Renski as it would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rear face perpendicular to the longitudinal axis since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses that the front surface is generally parallel to the rear surface.
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses that the front surface is narrower than the rear surface (Simmons – Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses that he rear surface extends from a rear surface lower edge to a rear surface upper edge and the front surface extends from a front surface lower edge to a front surface upper edge.
Regarding claim 5, a first height of the front surface upper edge relative to the mid plane is less than or about equal to a second height of the rear surface upper edge relative to the mid plane (Simmons – Figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Simmons and Renski discloses the invention as described above but fails to specifically disclose that a first height of the front surface upper edge relative to the mid plane is greater than a second height of the rear surface upper edge relative to the mid plane. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the height limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, the bottom outer surface includes a rear bottom surface (1st 1/3) extending from the rear surface towards the front surface; a front bottom surface extending from the front surface toward the rear surface (3rd 1/3), and an intermediate bottom surface extending from the rear bottom surface to the front bottom surface (middle 1/3).
Regarding claim 10, the combination would disclose that the scoop is disposed on the intermediate bottom surface.
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses the invention as described above, but fails to specifically disclose the claimed ratio. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the scoop ratio limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Edmunds (1,835,701) also discloses a wear member with a front surface curved upwardly with respect to the rear surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamie L McGowan whose telephone number is (571)272-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:00 CST.
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, Chris 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