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 § 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) 1, 6 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steel Castings Handbook (cited by applicant) (hereafter SCH) in view of Ollinger, IV et al. (9,963,853).
Regarding claim 1, SCH discloses an alloy with high tensile and impact strength and resistance to cavitation and corrosion comprised of a ferrous alloy having 10-15% chromium, 3-6% Nickel, 0.12% or less carbon and less than or equal to 3% manganese and a primarly martensitic structure formed by casting and hardened during manufacture using a heat treating (pages 2-3) but fails to specifically disclose use in fabricating an excavating bucket lip. Like SCH, discloses making castings of elements for environments requiring high impact/high strength applications. 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 ferrous alloy of SCH to form a cast bucket lip since Ollinger discloses it is known to utilize casting to make bucket lips and that lips of high strength and durability is required (column 1 lines 55-57) and SCH discloses that the disclosed ferrous alloy is advantageous in high impact/strength environments and that its list of applications is not comprehensive (page 3).
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses that the lip includes a plurality of forwardly projecting noses, each for mounting a tooth component and a plurality of mounting areas for mounting shrouds between the plurality of forwardly projecting noses.
The combination discloses the claimed invention except for the total weight and thickness of the bucket. The examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the bucket of any size to suit the needs of the excavating operation, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 21, the ferrous alloy includes 0.10% or less carbon by weight (SCH – page 2).
Regarding claim 36, the combination discloses that the ferrous alloy includes 11.5-14% chromium, 3.5-4.5% nickel, 0.4-1% molybdenum, less than or equal to 1% silicon, less than or equal to 0.04% phosphorous, less than or equal to 0.03% sulfur, less than or equal to 1% manganese and less than or equal to 0.06% carbon and a primarily martensitic structure (SCH page 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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 with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 6, 19-21 and 36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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