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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/616,413, filed on 22 November 2019.
Specification
The previous objection to the abstract has been overcome by the response filed 10 August 2026.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CLAIMS 1, 3-5, 9-11 AND 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beckmann et al. (EP 2905384 A1) in view of Von Carnop (US 2,515,384 A).
CLAIM 1 Beckmann et al. ‘384 (“Beckmann”) discloses a bucket (126) for moving ground material, the bucket comprising:
a load section (130) for receiving ground material and at least partially defining an open mouth through which ground material enters and is discharged from the bucket in use, the load section comprising:
a frame (Figs. 3A and 3B; 140 and 144, collectively) defining a three- dimensional internal frame space and forming at least one frame opening bounding the internal frame space, the at least one frame opening having a removeable plate (142) mounted on the frame and extending across the frame opening;
wherein the removable plate (142) is configured and dimensioned to be received within the frame opening and have a peripheral edge positioned adjacent to the frame or in contact with the frame along its length;
the removable plate (142) is welded to the frame along its peripheral edge to form a bucket surface across the frame and the removable plate ([0042]); and
the removable plate is separable from the frame by separation comprising breaking the weld, to allow replacement of the removable plate by another removable plate which is welded to the frame along its peripheral edge.
Beckmann fails to teach the removable plate being snugly received within the frame opening. Von Carnop ‘384 (“Von Carnop”) shows a bucket and teaches side plates (16, 17) that are configured and dimensioned to be snugly received within a frame opening (col. 3, ll. 11-22). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured and dimensioned the removable plate (Beckmann, 142) for snug receipt withing the frame opening, as suggested by Von Carnop. The motivations for making the modification would have been to (a) enhance the strength of connection between the removable plate and the opening, and (b) prevent spillage of excavated earth (Von Carnop, col. 4, ll. 40-3), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 3 In the prior art combination, Beckmann teaches a weld (Beckmann, [0042]) but fails to disclose the same as continuous. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the weld continuous, extending around the full peripheral edge of the removable plate (Beckmann, 142) forming a continuous and uninterrupted bucket surface across the frame and the removable plate. The motivation for making the modification would have been to inhibit spillage from the bucket.
CLAIM 4 In the prior art combination, the at least one frame opening comprises a plurality of frame openings, and the load section comprises a respective said removeable plate mounted across each respective frame opening (Beckmann, Fig. 2A).
CLAIM 5 In the prior art combination, the frame comprises two side frame sections (Beckmann, 140 and 144, collectively), one on each side of the load section, and each side frame section comprises a continuous side frame member that surrounds and defines a said frame opening with a said removable plate (Beckmann, 142) extending across the frame opening (Beckmann, Fig. 2A).
CLAIM 9 In the prior art combination, the load section (Beckmann, 130) is configured with a substantially box-like configuration and forms an open top.
CLAIM 10 In the prior art combination, the load section (Beckmann, 130) comprises a base having four sides and a wall extends up from the base along three sides thereof, and a fourth side extending up from the base is open and provides at least part of the mouth.
CLAIM 11 In the prior art combination, the mouth is positioned between the two side frame sections, and the bucket further comprises a scraper (Beckmann, 136) mounted on the frame at or adjacent to the mouth.
CLAIM 18 The prior art combination shows a ground moving machine (Beckmann, 100) comprising: a support (Beckmann, 103); an articulating member extending from the support (Beckmann, boom); and a bucket (Beckmann, 126) according to claim 1 mounted on an end of the articulating member remote from the support (Beckmann, Fig. 1).
CLAIM 19 All of the method steps recited therein are inherent to replacement of the removable plate (Beckmann, [0002]) of the bucket (Beckmann, 126) taught by the combination of Beckmann and Von Carnop, as applied above to CLAIM 1.
CLAIM 20 The prior art fails to disclose “excessive deformation or failure of the removable plate;” however, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the step of replacing such that it would have been performed when the removable plate was excessively deformed or failed, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the practice of replacing excessively damaged working parts. The motivation for making the modification would have been to maintain the prior art bucket (Beckmann, 126) in proper working order.
Additionally, the prior art fails to teach the step of detecting being performed by an operator of the machine to which the bucket is attached. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the machine operator detect damage to the removable plate, since the examiner takes Official Notice of the practice as common. The motivation for making the modification would have been to have the person closest and most familiar with the appearance of the removable plate detect damage.
CLAIM 21 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Beckmann and Von Carnop, as applied above to CLAIM 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
CLAIMS 6-8 AND 12-17 are 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, see Remarks filed 10 August 2026, with respect to the rejection of CLAIMS 1 AND 3-21 under § 103 as unpatentable over Crane (US 1,582,577 A) in view of Pratt (US 2018/0087246 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Beckmann et al. (EP 2905384 A1) in view of Von Carnop (US 2,515,384 A).
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 TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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.
/TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
14 October 2026
