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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group III in response to the Restriction Requirement dated 1/7/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 47, 50-52 have been examined on the merits.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 51-52 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 51-52, while retainer plates to secure wear members to an adapter are well-known, neither Stepe, Kawai (prior art of record), nor any other reference, teaches the use of a retainer plate as claimed. Specifically, Examiner interprets the reinforced region to be on the flange itself (Applicant’s Figure 34, element 29 on flange 3). The prior art discloses no such reinforced region (claim 51). Any teaching reference that might modify the prior art would exist outside the art of wear members for an earth working machine and any obvious combination to include the reinforced region as currently claimed would require improper hindsight reasoning. Similarly, no prior art, nor any other reference, teaches the specific geometry of the flange in accordance with the planes, zones, and curvature as claimed in claim 52. Any obvious combination to modify the flange as claimed would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Claim Objections
Claim 67 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 67 is not noted as withdrawn, but it is drawn to a non-elected species. This claim has not been examined on the merits and is considered withdrawn.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 47, 50-52 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 47, line 19, recites “said opening”. The claim contains a “nose opening” and “at least one through opening”. It is unclear to which opening this limitation is referring. The claims is rendered indefinite for this reason. Claims 50-52 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 47. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner believes the limitation to be –said nose opening--.
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) 47, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepe (US 3997989) in further view of Kawai (EP 1630426).
Regarding claim 47, Stepe discloses a retainer suitable for blocking a pin, said pin being suitable for fixing a wear element in a support element of an earth moving machine, said wear element comprising a cavity where, in an assembled position in which said wear element is assembled on said support element, a nose present in said support element is housed in said cavity, where said cavity is demarcated by side walls with at least one through opening arranged in one of said side walls, where said nose has a nose opening which, in said assembled position, is aligned with said through opening of said wear element, where, in said assembled position said pin is housed in said through opening and said nose opening, where said through opening defines a longitudinal axis, said longitudinal axis having a direction of insertion corresponding to the direction in which said pin is introduced in said through opening to achieve said assembled position (Figs 1-4; retainer 20 and 22; pin 10; wear member 3 with cavity 4; support element 2 with nose at front tip of 2; Fig 3 depicts side walls with aligned openings 5 and 6 in the side walls; nose opening 7 aligns with openings 5 and 6 in Fig 3 which depicts the assembled position; Fig 3 depicts pin 10 in in through openings 5 and 6 and nose opening 7; the longitudinal axis is defined by the openings 5 and 6; the direction of insertion of the pin is along the longitudinal axis to achieve the assembled position in Fig 3),
Stepe discloses a retainer with a perimeter segment and closed perimeter frame that fits into a perimeter region of the nose opening (retainer 20 and 22 fit into perimeter region 30 of the nose opening). Stepe further discloses the retainer with free ends that connect to the perimeter segment of the retainer and the free end extending towards the inside of the frame that clip onto the pin (free ends 11 connect to the perimeter segment at 20 and extend towards the inside of the frame in Fig 4 to clip to the pin 10). Stepe further discloses two free ends arranged in opposite regions of the closed perimeter frame with the other end of the free end joined to the closed perimeter frame and the free end extending toward the inside of the frame (free ends 11 are arranged in opposite regions of the closed perimeter in Fig 4 and connected to the closed perimeter frame at the other end 20; the free end 11 extends toward the inside of the frame in Fig 4). Stepe fails to disclose the free ends being flanges, the retainer being formed from a sheet material, the flanges shifted forward according to the direction of insertion, the retainer and nose opening comprising snap-fitting means to fix the retainer in the nose opening.
However, Kawai discloses a similar fastener and clip assembly (Figs 1-8) and teaches free ends of the retainer being flanges (flange free ends 15), the flanges being shifted forward according to the direction of insertion (Figs 6-7 depict the flanges 15 as shifted forward), the retainer with elastic engagement leaves that are considered to snap-fit against the second component face when assembled (Fig 9; elastic leaves 18 and second component 23).
Stepe and Kawai are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of fastening components together. 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 Stepe to incorporate the teachings of Kawai and replaced the retainer with the similar retainer with flanges of Kawai. One would have made this modification as a simple substitution of a retainer plate in use with a pin to secure a first component to a second component (Kawai; para [0007]).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Stepe and Kawai discloses the retainer wherein said flange has reinforcing means (claim language is broad; Kawai’s flanges 15 are reinforced by receiving portions 13 to secure the components together).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ortiz Garcia et al. (US 20190024349) discloses a similar retaining device 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