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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Chile on 12/7/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CL202203482 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. An attempt to electronically retrieve the documents failed on 5/7/2024. A certified copy of the foreign application should be filed with the next response to avoid processing delays.
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) 20 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 et al. discloses a pin locking device comprising:
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 considered 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)
Regarding claim 20, Carbaugh discloses that bushings are subject to wear in bucket and door connections of electric shovels. 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)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
Claim 21 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 20, Applicant argues that Kidd does not teach or suggest any wear indicator for monitoring and preventing wear of bushings. The examiner disagrees. Kidd disclose that sag in the door is an indicator of wear and indicates that a bushing should be replaced. The sagging of either end of the bucket would result in the door being skewed from the horizontal line of the bucket edge. When the bushings are new, the door and the bucket would align. When wear occurs, they would not align and the horizontal line of the bucket would not align with the door (the bucket edge being the reference line). There is insufficient structure/detail in the current claim to prevent this disclosure of monitoring a door for sag from reading on the claimed “wear indicator.”
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 4/7/2026, with respect to claim 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 21 has been withdrawn.
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 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
Prosecution Insights