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 § 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.
Claims 1-15, 17 and 19 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the rotational friction" in line 18; “the separation distance” in page 2 line 4; “the width” in page 2 line 5; “the load” in page 2 line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8, 17 and 19 include similar errors. Appropriate correction is required and the entirety of the claims should be carefully reviewed for further indefiniteness and antecedent basis issues.
Claims 1-21 are 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. The claims refer to both a “fin” and a “fin edge portion” as element (8) and refer to both a “hub” and “bushing” as element (4). Clarification/consistency is required as the same reference numeral can not be used to designate two different elements.
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) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbaugh et al. (9,587,375) in view of Boeckman et al. (8,381,363).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Carbaugh et al. discloses a pin locking device for monitoring and preventing wear of bushings and pins in bucket connections of shovels that use padlocks (column 1 lines 7-28)
wherein it comprises
A pin (18) that connects with an ear (12) of the bucket (10) with the connection elements (14) of a padlock (16)
A removable retention mechanism (36) at one of the ends of the pin (18) to restrict the longitudinal movement of the pin
A fin (24) or retaining arm located at the other end of the pin, being arranged perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the pin, which comprises a rim that surrounds and joins said end of the pin and a fin edge portion (44) projecting from said edge
A bushing (32,34) between the pin (18) and the ear (12) of the bucket (10) and the connection elements of the lock (correct to read “padlock” for antecedent basis) which receives rotational friction; and
Retaining elements (26) that receive and engage with the edge portion (44) of the fin (24) so that said fin restricts the longitudinal and rotational movement of the pin
Where the retention elements (26) correspond to two guide straps/forked shaped piece (Carbaugh shows two “prongs” 26 that are considerd the forked shape), installed in the upper front part of the bucket, on the outside of each connection of the bucket between an ear and the padlock (Figure 1), the guide straps being separated from each other so that it allows receiving and retaining the fin edge portion in which a separation distance of the guide straps is greater than a width of the end of the fin edge portion so that there is a play that allows a small movement of the fin between said guide straps without said fin being able to free itself from these, preventing the transfer of load, by restricting the movement of the pin, towards the retention elements, preventing them from detaching from the bucket (Figure 1)
While Carbaugh discloses the invention as described above, it fails to disclose that the removable retention mechanism comprises two removable shackles joined together by bolts in housings. Like Carbaugh, Boeckman also discloses a pin with a retention mechanism for limiting longitudinal movement of a pin. Unlike Carbaugh, Boeckman discloses that the retention mechanism includes two removable elements (42,44) joined together by bolts (54, unnumbered) that extend between the two removable elements (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the retention mechanism of Boeckman to limit movement of the pin of Carbaugh as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbaugh et al. (9,587,375) in view of Kidd (2003/0182761).
Regarding claim 20, Carbaugh discloses that bushings are subject to wear in bucket and door connections of electric shovels (see description as it relates to claims 17 and 19 above). Carbaugh fails to specifically disclose monitoring for the degree of wear. Like Carbaugh, Kidd discloses hinged door connections that are subject to bushing wear. Unlike Carbaugh, Kidd discloses that wear is evidenced by sag of the door and misalignment of elements between the door and the frame (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor for wear of the bushings in Carbaugh via misalignment of elements as taught by Kidd as it would be applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 21, the examiner takes Official Notice that relative degree indicators are old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a visual indicator in the combination of Carbaugh and Kidd to indicate door misalignment that utilizes multiple sections/colors to denote a larger degree of misalignment (See for example, Engelmann 2017/0130405 – pgph 0042).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16, 18 are allowed (assuming antecedent basis and clarity issues indicated above are addressed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hicok discloses an indicator element for an excavator. Salazar (2006/0076195) discloses a multi color wear indicator.
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