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 .
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hankland et al. (USPGPub 20220243428).
Regarding claim 1: Hankland discloses a wear component assembly (as seen in figures 1-21) for use with a material handling implement,
the wear component assembly comprising:
a forward stabilizer (as seen in figure 3, at 22, figure 5A and figure 6) configured to attach to a forward end of a lip of the material handling implement (as seen in figure 4A, via weld “W”), the forward stabilizer comprising first and second inwardly facing abutment surfaces (as seen in figure 5A, at 51a and 51b), in which the first and second inwardly facing abutment surfaces are configured to engage respective first and second outwardly facing abutment surfaces (as seen in figure 10, at 65a and 65b) formed in an adapter to thereby limit lateral movement of the adapter on the material handling implement lip (page 6, paragraph [0085]),
in which the forward stabilizer comprises an internal radius configured to engage a radiused external surface on the forward end of the lip, in which the forward stabilizer comprises an external radius configured to engage a radiused internal surface on the adapter, and in which the internal and external radii of the forward stabilizer are concentric (because a radius is a line and crosses all surfaces as a single point any radius line drawn would cause the above to inherently occur regardless of surface shapes, as shown in annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
269
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3: Hankland discloses the wear component assembly of claim 1. Further, Hankland discloses the forward stabilizer comprising a recess/opening formed therein (as seen in figure 6, at 22a’), the recess being configured to receive a protrusion that extends forward from the lip of the material handling implement (page 4, paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 4: Hankland discloses the wear component assembly of claim 3. Further, Hankland discloses the protrusion comprises third and fourth outwardly facing abutment surfaces formed thereon (as seen in figure 17, at 2010 and 2012), the third and fourth outwardly facing abutment surfaces being configured to engage respective third and fourth inwardly facing abutment surfaces formed in the adapter (page 4, paragraph [0067], lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 5: Hankland discloses the wear component assembly of claim 1. Further, Hankland discloses wherein each of the first and second inwardly facing abutment surfaces wraps around the forward end of the material handling implement lip (as seen in figure 7 with embodiment 22 and figure 6 at 22b’ and 22c’ with embodiment 22’).
Regarding claim 8 : Hankland discloses the wear component assembly of claim 1. Further, Hankland discloses wherein a thickness of the forward stabilizer decreases rearward of the external radius (as seen in annotated figure 7 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
226
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10: Hankland discloses the wear component assembly of claim 1. Further, Hankland discloses wherein a gap between the forward stabilizer and the adapter increases rearward of the external radius (as seen in annotated figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
252
292
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campomanes et al. (USP 10,519,632).
Regarding claim 1: Campomanes discloses a wear component assembly (as seen in figures 1-36) for use with a material handling implement,
the wear component assembly comprising:
a forward stabilizer (as seen in figure 10) configured to attach to a forward end of a lip of the material handling implement (as seen in figure 6), the forward stabilizer comprising first and second inwardly facing abutment surfaces (as seen in annotated figure 11 below), in which the first and second inwardly facing abutment surfaces are configured to engage respective first and second outwardly facing abutment surfaces (as seen in figure 22, area of 424 and 424’) formed in an adapter to thereby limit lateral movement of the adapter on the material handling implement lip,
in which the forward stabilizer comprises an internal radius configured to engage a radiused external surface on the forward end of the lip, in which the forward stabilizer comprises an external radius configured to engage a radiused internal surface on the adapter, and in which the internal and external radii of the forward stabilizer are concentric (because a radius is a line and crosses all surfaces as a single point any radius line drawn would cause the above to inherently occur regardless of surface shapes, as shown in annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
269
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
255
315
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3: Campomanes discloses the wear component assembly of claim 1. Further, Campomanes discloses the forward stabilizer comprising a recess/opening formed therein (as seen in figure 10, at 202), the recess being configured to receive a protrusion that extends forward from the lip of the material handling implement (as seen in figure 6, area of 114).
Regarding claim 5: Campomanes discloses the wear component assembly of claim 1. Further, Campomanes discloses wherein each of the first and second inwardly facing abutment surfaces wraps around the forward end of the material handling implement lip (as seen in figures 6, 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 6: Campomanes discloses the wear component assembly of claim 1. Further, Campomanes discloses wherein the forward stabilizer comprises third and fourth inwardly facing abutment surfaces (as seen in annotated figure 29 below), the first and second inwardly facing abutment surfaces being positioned on a first side of the material handling implement lip, and the third and fourth inwardly facing abutment surfaces being positioned on an opposite second side of the material handling implement lip (as seen in figures 28-31, because the stabilizer has 4 “legs” all face inwardly and contact the adapter at various locations wherein each location can be considered.
PNG
media_image5.png
227
263
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7: Campomanes discloses the wear component assembly of claim 6. Further, Campomanes discloses wherein the forward stabilizer further comprises third and fourth outwardly facing abutment surfaces, the third and fourth outwardly facing abutment surfaces (as seen in annotated figure 29 below) being configured to engage respective fifth and sixth inwardly facing abutment surfaces formed in the adapter (as seen in figure 27 and assembled figure 5).
PNG
media_image6.png
183
285
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative’s sole argument is “Neither Hankland nor Campomanes discloses or suggests a forward stabilizer having concentric internal and external radii. Thus, the amended claim 1 is not anticipated by either of the Hankland or Campomanes disclosures.” The examiner disagrees. As stated in the above rejection the amended language of “in which the forward stabilizer comprises an internal radius configured to engage a radiused external surface on the forward end of the lip, in which the forward stabilizer comprises an external radius configured to engage a radiused internal surface on the adapter, and in which the internal and external radii of the forward stabilizer are concentric” does not include relative locations of surfaces but rather radii. As demonstrated by the above annotated figure any number of radii can be drawn in the given construction and because the line that represents each radius would only be required to contact each surface at a single point no relative locations of those surfaces could be established and therein continuing to allow both Hankland and Campomanes to anticipate the claims as currently written.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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