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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “protrusion comprising a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape such that the protrusion is wider toward a bottom of the protrusion and narrower toward a top of the protrusion where the protrusion protrudes from the underside of the base (Claim 1, lines 14-16)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20220297207 to Jacobson et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20210154753 to Johnson et al., and in further view of US Patent No. 9,132,490 to Ramun.
In re claim 1, Jacobson teaches a tip assembly for a jaw of a jaw set for demolition and construction equipment comprising:
a base (600) having:
a top side (see Annotated Figure 1, below) comprising a mounting surface (see Annotated Figure 1, below, the mounting surface is the surface which engages a corresponding surface of the upper jaw, 40) for engaging a surface of the jaw and an underside opposite the top side;
a protrusion protruding from the underside away from the top side and extending along a longitudinal axis;
a first insert (620) mounted to the base and a second insert (622) mounted to the base, wherein each insert has:
a first wall (632) and an opposing second wall (634) with a front side (636) extending therebetween; and
a locking recess (as shown in at least Figure 15B) that conforms to the protrusion to limit movement of the insert in directions perpendicular to the longitudinal axis;
wherein the protrusion comprises a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (as shown in at least Figure 6, if the cross section is taken along the length of 606, the shape of the protrusion will be generally trapezoidal).
PNG
media_image1.png
559
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, wherein the first wall (632) of the first insert contacts the first wall of the second insert (632 of 622) to enclose the inserts over the protrusion (as shown in at least Figures 1-5).
In re claim 3, wherein the front side (636) and a bottom side (644) of each insert intersect to form a piercing edge (654).
In re claim 4, wherein the piercing edges (654) of the first insert and the second insert abut to define an expanded piercing edge (as shown in at least Figures 1-5).
In re claim 8, wherein each insert (620,622) has a bore (660) extending therethrough, wherein the bores are offset from one another and the protrusion (600) has matching offset bores (as shown in at least Figure 17) which align with the insert bores such that a separate bolt may be dedicated to mating each insert to the base (Para 0043).
In re claim 9, wherein one bore (660) within each insert is threaded and each insert is secured to the opposing insert with threaded bolts that mate with the threaded bore of each insert such that for each insert movement in all directions is limited (Para 0043).
In re claim 11, wherein the locking recess of each insert has an engaging tab (646) that engages with a matching indentation within the protrusion (Para 0041).
In re claim 14, wherein the underside of the base further includes a concave segment (see Annotated Figure 1, below) adjacent to the protrusion and wherein the top of the insert includes a matching shape.
Regarding claim 1, Jacobson teaches a protrusion comprising a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape that is wider toward a bottom, but does not teach the cross section is narrower toward a top of the protrusion where the protrusion protrudes from the underside of the base and the locking recess comprises a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape extending into the first wall such that the locking recess is narrower toward a top of the locking recess where the locking recess is open.
Johnson teaches a protrusion comprising a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape that is wider toward a bottom (as shown in at least Figure 2, the bottom being 270e) and is narrower toward a top of the protrusion where the protrusion protrudes from the underside of the base (as shown in at least Figure 2) and the locking recess (325) comprises a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (as shown in at least Figure 5) extending into the first wall such that the locking recess is wider toward a bottom (480) of the locking recess and narrower toward a top (see Annotated Figure 3, below) of the locking recess where the locking recess is open.
Johnson teaches the protrusion narrows towards a top portion, which is best shown in at least Figure 5 (and Annotated Figure 3, below), which provides details to the contour of the locking recess (which follows the contour of the base).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the protrusion and locking recess of Jacobson to have a narrower shape toward the top of the locking recess and the protrusion as taught by Johnson to maintain protection of the nose portion from wear during use of the shears (Abstract, Paras 0047,0088,0091).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches a base having a detachable portion (Para 0046), but does not teach the base having the top side, the underside, and the protrusion is removable from the jaw.
Regarding claim 1, Ramun teaches a base (200) having a top side (216), an underside (218), and as protrusion (228) removable from the jaw (22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the base including the top side, the underside, and protrusion of Johnson to be removable from the jaw as taught by Ramun which is advantageous for removing the entire tip to make the tip disposable (Col. 8, lines 9-11). It is further known to make structures separable to access an end and/or opening. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP 2144.04
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson et al. in view of Johnson ‘753, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 20200086326 to Johnson et al. (hereinafter Johnson ‘326).
In re claim 5, modified Jacobson teaches an insert having an expended piercing edge, but does not teach wherein there is a notch at each end of the expanded piercing edge, the notch has walls that form an angle of at least 90 degrees (claim 6), and wherein a cutting edge is defined at the intersection of the second wall and the notch and the notch extends along the entire length of the cutting edge (Claim 7).
Johnson ‘326 teaches an insert having a notch (between 670c and 670d) at each end of the piercing edge, the notch (as shown in Figure 11) has walls that form an angle of at least 90 degrees (see Annotated Figure 2, below), and wherein a cutting edge (670a-d) is defined at the intersection of the second wall (see Annotated Figure 2, below) and the notch and the notch extends along the entire length of the cutting edge (Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the end of the piercing edge of modified Jacobson with a notch as taught by Johnson ‘326 to focus the piercing force at the notched locations (Para 0161, Johnson).
PNG
media_image2.png
533
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson et al. in Johnson ‘753, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of WO2019209537 to Johnson et al. (hereinafter Johnson ‘537) or US Patent Application Publication No. 20130068079 to Kimura et al.
In re claim 15, modified Jacobson teaches the inserts and base are made of a material, but does not teach the inserts and the base are made of casting material.
Johnson ‘537 teaches inserts (310,320) are metal bodies (Col. 9, lines 61-67, Col. 10, lines 1-3).
Kimura teaches the jaw material is usually made of a softer metal than the inserts, which are made of a hard metal (Para 0009,0046).
It has been interpreted that the material merely has to be capable of being cast. A metal material has the characteristics of being cast (via a mold). Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term casting is defined as something cast in a mold.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the base and inserts of modified Jacobson via a casting material as taught by Johnson ‘537 or Kimura to form an insert of a harder material than the base to increase wear and the tool life of the insert.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson et al. in view of Johnson et al.
In re claim 16, Jacobson teaches an insert to be used with a base attached to a jaw of a jaw set for demolition and construction equipment comprising:
a first wall (632) and an opposing second wall (634) with a front side (636) extending therebetween, wherein an edge of the first wall is a piercing edge (654);
and a locking recess (see Annotated Figure 3, Pg. 10, below) extending within the first wall;
a first bore (660) having a first bore diameter (668 of 660, Para 0043) and inner and outer bore walls (the bore has an inner and outer bore wall disposed between the first and second walls), wherein the first bore (660) extends through the first wall and second wall (as shown in at least Figures 15a,15b);
a second bore (660, see Annotated Figure 3, Pg. 10, below) having a second bore diameter and inner and outer bore walls;
wherein the inner bore wall of the first bore is spaced from the inner bore wall of the second bore by a length at least equal to the diameter of the first bore wall (see Annotated Figure 3, below),
and the locking recess comprises a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (the cross section taken along the length of 636 in the direction toward 653) extending into the first wall such that the locking recess (Annotated 3, below) is wider toward a bottom of the locking recess.
PNG
media_image3.png
376
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 17, wherein the locking recess further includes a convex segment (see Annotated Figure 2, above).
In re claim 18, wherein the first bore (660) is blank to permit a bolt to extend therethrough and the second bore is threaded to engage a threaded bolt (Para 0043).
Note, at least a portion of the first bore is blank, since it has a concentric counterbore, 668.
Regarding claim 16, Jacobson teaches a protrusion comprising a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape that is wider toward a bottom, but does not teach the cross section is narrower toward a top of the protrusion where the protrusion protrudes from the underside of the base and the locking recess comprises a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape extending into the first wall such that the locking recess is narrower toward a top of the locking recess where the locking recess is open.
Johnson teaches a protrusion comprising a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape that is wider toward a bottom (as shown in at least Figure 2, the bottom being 270e) and is narrower toward a top of the protrusion where the protrusion protrudes from the underside of the base (as shown in at least Figure 2) and the locking recess (325) comprises a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (as shown in at least Figure 5) extending into the first wall such that the locking recess is wider toward a bottom (480) of the locking recess and narrower toward a top (see Annotated Figure 4, Pg. 12, below) of the locking recess where the locking recess is open.
Johnson teaches the protrusion narrows towards a top portion, which is best shown in at least Figure 5 (and Annotated Figure 4, Pg. 12, below), which provides details to the contour of the locking recess (which follows the contour of the base).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape of the protrusion and locking recess of Jacobson to have a narrower shape toward the top of the locking recess and the protrusion as taught by Johnson to maintain protection of the nose portion from wear during use of the shears (Abstract, Paras 0047,0088,0091).
PNG
media_image4.png
424
495
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Jacobson teaches a base, but does not teach the base includes a support bar spanning between the protrusion and a remaining portion of the underside of the base. Johnson further teaches a base, but does not teach support bar spanning between the protrusion and the remaining portion of the underside of the base. A modification to the prior art of record would have relied on hindsight reasoning, since there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections in the Office Action mailed July 29, 2025 have been obviated by the amendments filed October 29, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 15-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724