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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "cylindrical outside surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this limitation should read --outside cylindrical surface—.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14-16, 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrurier et al. (US 20170328037) in further view of Song et al. (KR 101911513).
Regarding claim 14, Serrurier discloses a spring loaded retainer comprising:
a lug receiving portion defining a first maximum outside dimension, the lug receiving portion also defining a lug receiving slot that extends partially through the lug receiving portion, forming a first sidewall, a second sidewall, and a catch surface connecting the first sidewall to the second sidewall (Figs 16-17; lug receiving portion 60; first maximum outside dimension of skirt 63; lug receiving slot 62 extends through element 60 to form the skirt 63 having two sidewalls and a catch surface 64 connecting the sidewalls together);
a drive portion defining a second maximum outside dimension (drive portion 87 defines a second maximum outside dimension); and
Serrurier fails to specifically disclose a first flat on the outside of the lug receiving portion, but does disclose recesses (67) that appear to be for a similar purpose. However, Song discloses a similar bucket tooth retaining assembly (Figs 2-8b) and teaches the outside of a lug receiving portion having multiple flats for a resilient member to push against (resilient member 22/23; flats 3131/3132/3133; Fig 8b and Fig 10).
Serrurier and Song are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of retaining mechanisms for bucket teeth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Serrurier to incorporate the teachings of Song and made the recesses be flat surfaces that the resilient member can push against. One would have made this modification to still accomplish retaining the wear member on the bucket while more easily manufacturing flat locking surfaces rather than shallow detents.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Serrurier and Song discloses the spring loaded retainer wherein the lug receiving portion includes a lug receiving cylindrical portion including an outside cylindrical surface defining a radial direction, a circumferential direction, and a cylindrical axis, and the first maximum outside dimension is an outside cylindrical surface diameter, and the drive portion includes a drive cylindrical portion and the second maximum outside dimension is a drive cylindrical portion diameter that is less than the outside cylindrical surface diameter of the lug receiving cylindrical portion (Serrurier; Fig 16 depicts cylindrical axis 65, circumferential direction along the axis, and radial direction being radially from the cylindrical axis; the diameter of the curved drive cylindrical surface 87 is less than the diameter of the outer cylindrical surface 66; para [0058], lines 7-12).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Serrurier and Song discloses the spring loaded retainer wherein the first flat is disposed on the outside cylindrical surface and is circumferentially aligned with the first sidewall, and further comprising a second flat disposed on the outside cylindrical surface that is also circumferentially aligned with the second sidewall (Serrurier Figs 16-17; the flats of the combination are considered to replace the detents 67 which are aligned as claimed in the figures).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Serrurier and Song discloses the spring loaded retainer wherein the first flat is disposed on the outside of the lug receiving portion proximate to the first sidewall or the second sidewall (Serrurier Figs 16-17; the flats of the combination are considered to replace the detents 67 which are aligned as claimed in the figures).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Serrurier and Song discloses the spring loaded retainer wherein the drive portion defines a polygonal shaped aperture (Serrurier; Fig 16 depicts a square polygon).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Serrurier and Song discloses the spring loaded retainer wherein the aperture is square shaped (Serrurier; Fig 16 depicts a square polygon).
Regarding claim 21, Serrurier discloses a spring loaded retainer comprising:
a lug receiving portion including an outside cylindrical surface defining a cylindrical axis extending between a first axial side and a second axial side of the lug receiving portion (Fig 16; lug receiving portion 60 with outside cylindrical surface 66 and axis 65 extending between the axial sides; para [0058], lines 7-12);
the lug receiving portion forming a lug receiving slot upon the first axial side that extends partially through the lug receiving portion, and includes a first sidewall, a second sidewall, and a catch surface extending between the first sidewall and the second sidewall (Fig 17; lug receiving slot 62 extends through element 60 to form the skirt 63 having two sidewalls and a catch surface 64 connecting the sidewalls together);
a drive portion extending from the second axial side of the lug receiving portion (drive portion 87).
Serrurier fails to specifically disclose a first flat on the outside of the lug receiving portion, but does disclose recesses (67) that appear to be for a similar purpose. However, Song discloses a similar bucket tooth retaining assembly (Figs 2-8b) and teaches the outside of a lug receiving portion having multiple flats for a resilient member to push against (resilient member 22/23; flats 3131/3132/3133; Fig 8b and Fig 10).
Serrurier and Song are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of retaining mechanisms for bucket teeth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Serrurier to incorporate the teachings of Song and made the recesses be flat surfaces that the resilient member can push against. One would have made this modification to still accomplish retaining the wear member on the bucket while more easily manufacturing flat locking surfaces rather than shallow detents.
The flats of the combination are considered to circumferentially offset from the outside cylindrical surface as this claim limitation is broad.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Serrurier and Song discloses the spring loaded retainer further comprising a second flat disposed on the lug receiving portion and arranged circumferentially opposite to the first flat (Serrurier Figs 16-17; the flats of the combination are considered to replace the detents 67 which are aligned as claimed in the figures).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Serrurier and Song discloses the spring loaded retainer wherein each of the cylindrical outside surface and the first flat extends from the first axial side to the second axial side, and the outside cylindrical surface extends between the first flat and the second flat (Serrurier Figs 16-17; the flats of the combination are considered to replace the detents 67 which are aligned as claimed in the figure).
Claim(s) 17, 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrurier and Song as applied to claims 15 and 21 above, and further in view of Bilal (US 9441352).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Serrurier and Song discloses the spring loaded retainer further comprising a stop projection that is circumferentially aligned with the first flat (stop projection 88 is circumferentially aligned with the first flat of the combination).
The combination fails to specifically disclose the stop projection extending axially away from the drive portion as claimed. However, Bilal discloses a similar retaining mechanism of a wear member (Fig1 and Fig 7) and teaches a similar stop projection extending axially away from the drive portion (projections 50 and 52).
Serrurier, Song, and Bilal are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of excavating bucket wear member retaining mechanisms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the retainer of Serrurier to incorporate the teachings of Bilal and extended the stop projection axially away from the drive portion. One would have made this modification to have the surface of the stop portion that contacts the tooth be larger in order to better lock the tooth to the adapter (Bilal; col 5, lines 43-60). Based on Fig 12 of Serrurier, the axial extension of the stop projection of the combination need not extend beyond the lock boss to meet the claim language.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Serrurier and Song discloses the spring loaded retainer further comprising a stop (88).
The combination fails to specifically disclose the stop projecting axially away from the lug receiving portion as claimed. However, Bilal discloses a similar retaining mechanism of a wear member (Fig1 and Fig 7) and teaches a similar stop projection extending axially away from the lug receiving (projections 50 and 52).
Serrurier, Song, and Bilal are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of excavating bucket wear member retaining mechanisms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the retainer of Serrurier to incorporate the teachings of Bilal and extended the stop projection axially away from the lug receiving portion. One would have made this modification to have the surface of the stop portion that contacts the tooth be larger in order to better lock the tooth to the adapter (Bilal; col 5, lines 43-60). Based on Fig 12 of Serrurier, the axial extension of the stop projection of the combination need not extend beyond the lock boss to meet the claim language.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Serrurier, Song, and Bilal discloses the spring loaded retainer wherein the stop is in circumferential alignment with the first flat (Serrurier Figs 16-17; the stop is in circumferential alignment with the detents 67 which are replaced by the flats as taught by Song).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Serrurier, Song, and Bilal discloses the spring loaded retainer wherein the stop projects from the drive portion (based on the teachings of Bilal, the stop projects away from the drive portion of the combination).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Serrurier and Song discloses the spring loaded retainer wherein the drive portion includes therein an aperture located radially inward of the stop (Serrurier; Fig 16 depicts an aperture 84 located radially inward of the extended stop of the combination).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Harder et al. (US 8397405) discloses a similar wear member retaining mechanism with similar components to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights