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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 does not end in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 12 reads, “positing.” It appears it should read, --position--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross et al. (9,915,053).
Regarding claims 1 and 16-17, Gross discloses a bucket comprising:
A main body (70) defining a cavity and an opening for unloading a content of the bucket from the cavity
A door (75) pivotally mounted on the main body (70), the door (75) movable between a closed position in which the opening is substantially closed by the door and an opened position in which the content may exit the bucket via the opening
A locking mechanism having a latch bar (150) movable between locked and unlocked positions to selectively lock or unlock the door to close or open the opening
A latch keeper assembly cooperating with the latch bar (150) comprising;
A latch keeper (160) configure to be in a ledge of the bucket, the latch keeper (160) defining a recess (165)
A member (172) received within the recess (165) of the latch keeper (160)
A dutchman (170) removably securable to the member (172) and including rolling elements such that the latch bar (250)is rollingly engaged to the latch keeper in the locked position of the latch bar
Regarding claim 2, the member (172) is removably securable to the latch keeper (160) within the recess (165).
Regarding claim 3, the member (172) is opened on a rear end of the latch keeper, the member closing the recess (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, the member (172) is locked within the recess by abutting shoulders.
Regarding claim 8, the dutchman (170) has a front face configured to contact a latch in the recess, the front face being curved.
Regarding claim 13, the dutchman (170) has a cylindrical portion, the cylindrical portion configured to contact a latch in the recess.
Regarding claims 18-19, the rolling element (outer/rolling surface of element 170 secured to unnumbered removable shaft that extends into member (172)).
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) 7, 9-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (9,915,053) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Little (4,215,884).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Gross discloses the invention as described above including a dutchman that has a cylindrical portion, but it fails to disclose a bearing mounted thereon that contacts a latch recess. Like Gross, Little also discloses a roller keeper element for a latching mechanism. Unlike Gross, Little discloses that instead of a one piece element, the latching element can include an interior cylindrical member (52) with at least one bearing (54) mounted thereon for contact with the latch element (26). IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a bearing element on a shaft as taught by Little in place of the one piece rotating member (170) of Gross since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Further, regarding claim 7, the combination of Gross and Little discloses the invention as described above, but fails to disclose multiple rollers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to comprise a plurality of rollers, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See also, MPEP § 2144.05 which states: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It is noted that the rollers located on the cylindrical shaft are considered to be “protruding from the front face” since the rollers are extending past all sides of the cylindrical shaft. Further structure is required to clarify how the rollers are “protruding” to read over the combination of Gross and Little.
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses a bearing with rolling elements (outer sleeve is the rolling element on the cylindrical member (52)).
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses that the bearing is a plain bearing.
Regarding claim 12, the combination discloses that the bearing is a bushing.
Regarding claims 14-15, the combination discloses the invention as described above including the member 172 having support blocks having cavities for receiving ends of the dutchman. The combination fails to specifically discloses that the ends include flats to prevent rotation of the cylindrical portion with respect to the bearing. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to utilize flats/keys to prevent rotation between shafts and bearings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize keys or flats on the cylindrical portion of the combination to prevent rotation between the support blocks and the cylindrical portion to reduce wear due to friction of the support member thereby concentrating wear on the bearing member so fewer parts need replacement due to wear.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (9,915,053) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above and further in view of Mounsey (11,920,319).
Regarding claim 5-6 and 20, Gross et al. discloses the invention as described above and discloses a roller element interface between the latch bar and the latch keeper, but fails to disclose that the roller elements are located on the latch bar. Like Gross et al., Mounsey also discloses a latch bar and keeper mechanism for a dipper door bucket. Unlike Gross, Mounsey discloses the roller element located on the latch bar instead of the keeper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the roller element on the latch bar in Gross as taught by Mounsey and utilize a flat/angled dutchman and member received within the recess since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hren et al. (8,590,180) also discloses a latch mechanism for a dipper door with a rolling dutchman element. Little (5,613,308) specifically discloses utilizing a “dutchman” to limit damage to latch structures in dipper buckets.
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