Final 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner wishes to respond to specific arguments made by applicant.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC 112(b), the amended language presented overcomes prior rejections of record, and said rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(2), applicant argues that examiner does not identify where Dennis (WO 2017075663 A1) discloses a bucket corner arranged for receiving a ground engaging tool (GET) as claimed, presenting the prior art rejection of record as claiming that lock surfaces 32 and lock 200 of Dennis correspond to the recited boss and GET respectively. Applicant posits that the lock 200 is a retaining component for corner shroud 110, not the ground engaging tool itself, arguing that the prior art rejection of record equates the lock 200 to the GET of the claimed invention, and as such, Dennis does not disclose every element of the amended claim 1, failing to disclose the claimed relationship between the bucket corner arranged for receiving the GET, and the boss configured to engage the GET.
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. To quote the prior art rejection of record, examiner cited the disclosure of Dennis: “Fig. 12, floor portion 12 comprises lock engaging surfaces 32 configured to engage lock 200 of the corner shroud 110”, to reject the phrase “Wherein a boss, having a central horizontal longitudinal axis and configured to engage a ground engaging tool, is provided on the upper GET contacting surface”. Specifically, examiner equated floor portion 12 (upper contacting GET surface) comprising lock engaging surfaces 32 (a boss, having a central horizontal longitudinal axis and configured to engage a ground engaging tool), and shroud 110 (the ground engaging tool). The specification of lock 200 was used to explicitly support the recitation of the limitation of the boss being configured to engage the ground engaging tool, as lock engaging surfaces 32 act to abut the lock 200, which is a subcomponent of shroud 110, and therefore lock engaging surfaces 32 engage shroud 110. All further recitations of “the GET” clearly refer to shroud 110, with lock 200 specifically being cited as a component of the shroud 110 which engages with the lock engaging surfaces 32, which are presented as analogous to the boss of the claimed invention.
In light of the above, the arguments regarding claims 10-12 and 15-16 are moot.
Regarding claim 3, applicant argues that Tarrant (GB 1315057 A) does not teach of the claimed relationship between the upright outside GET contacting surface and inside GET contacting surface of the bucket corner, as the rearward facing channels 26 are part of the ground engaging tool rather than bucket edge 8.
After further consideration of the prior art reference, examiner cedes that the cited language of Tarrant indicates that the bottom of the rearward facing channel 26 is parallel to the leading edge of bucket edge 8, and therefore the equating of the two side members of rearward facing channel 26 as parallel is not appropriate. While it appears to be shown that the two opposite side walls of the bucket are parallel, there is no explicit textual recitation of this relationship, and as such, the rejection under 35 USC 103 as obvious over Dennis in view of Tarrant is withdrawn. However, a new grounds of rejection is being presented below in light of Klett et al as part of US 4182057 A, hereinafter referred to as Klett.
Regarding Claim 4, applicant further argues that the modification of Dennis in view of Dallard (US 20150211215 A1) is improper, as changing the shape of the corner transition of Dennis would fundamentally alter the structure and function of the corner to shroud connection of Dennis, as Dennis relies on several elements for bearing engagements and load transfer arrangements, specifically noting forward portion 28, upper lip 36, and mating cavity 116 of the corner shroud.
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. It is noted in the disclosure of Dennis that corner shrouds are known to have increased stress at contact points (Dennis: Paragraph 6, tightening of corner shrouds can increase stress concentrations at contact points of the corner shroud), and further that modifications and variations as would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed are deemed within the scope of the disclosure (Dennis: Paragraph 69). As such, the problem of reducing stresses that the intermediate portion of Dallard solves would be an obvious, reasonable modification to be made to the structure of Dennis, while maintaining corresponding bearing surfaces that are noted to be beneficial in reducing stresses on the components in use (Dennis: Paragraph 58, the array of bearing surfaces act to stabilize and secure the corner shroud during use; Dallard: Paragraph 17, the smooth radiused connection between the first and second portions with the intermediate portion avoid creating stress zones at the corners).
Further, the courts have held it to be obvious that a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As such, changing the curved corner shape of Dennis to incorporate the intermediate portion of Dallard in the interest of reducing stresses on the corner of the bucket and the GET would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed as a matter of a beneficial design choice.
Regarding Claim 7, applicant argues that the chamfered boundary 38 of Dallard does not constitute a chamfer between the leading edge and the inside GET surface, the top GET surface, and the upper GET surface respectively, claiming that examiner has not identified the chamfer between the leading edge and the inside GET contacting surface, the leading edge and the upper GET contacting surface, and the leading edge and the top GET contacting surface. Examiner cedes this was a misinterpretation of the claimed language, as examiner read the phrase “between the leading edge and [the GET contact surfaces]” as “between [the GET contacting surfaces] at the leading edge”. Examiner presents a clarified, corrected rejection below, as the previous rejection misrepresents the claim language.
Regarding claim 8, applicant argues that examiner fails to define a bevel or a sloped surface intersecting a radiused surface as required by the claim, only defining the radiused junction between front lip 14 and shoulder 58, and that a radiused surface is not the claimed bevel structure.
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Examiner relied on the presence of a sloped surface that was apparent from the display of Fig. 1 of Dennis, as shoulder 58 is shown to be at a slope relative to the surrounding surfaces, specifically with respect to front lip 14. Further, a bevel is defined by Merriam Webster as “the angle that one surface or line makes with another when they are not at right angles”, which would indicate that the shoulder portion 58, not being at a right angle to front lip 14, would constitute a bevel by definition. Further, the shoulder portion 58 does intersect the radiused portion acknowledged as being present by applicant at a first edge, as is shown in Fig. 1. A specified rejection clarifying the specific sloped surface intersecting the bevel formed by the radiused surface and shoulder 58 between floor portion 12 and front lip 14 is presented below.
Regarding Claim 9, a similarly modified grounds of rejection is presented below.
Regarding Claim 13, applicant argues that the pads 74 and 78 taught by Klett are force transmitting bearing surfaces on a bucket adaptor, not a locking mechanism, and therefore do not yield the claimed invention. In light of the response above with regard to claim 1, this argument is moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dennis.
Regarding Claim 1: Dennis teaches of An earth moving equipment bucket corner arranged for receiving a ground engaging tool (GET), the earth moving bucket corner comprising:
a side upright portion attachable to a bucket sidewall, the side upright portion defining an upright outside GET contacting surface on an outside of the side upright portion and an upright inside GET contacting surface on an inside of the side upright portion (Fig. 1, side wall 18 of bucket 10 defines an upright outside contacting surface and upright inside contacting surface on the respective inside and outside of the bucket 10 in thickened portion 50);
A floor portion, defining a horizontal plane, attachable to a bucket floor lip, the floor portion having an upper GET contacting surface and a lower GET contacting surface (Fig. 1, floor portion 12 define an upper contacting surface main portion 54 and lower contacting surface underside 52);
And an intermediate portion extending between and angled with respect to the side upright portion and the floor portion (Fig. 1-2, corner 24 extends between and is angled with respect to the side wall 18 and floor portion 12),
Wherein a boss, having a central horizontal longitudinal axis and configured to engage the ground engaging tool, is provided on the upper GET contacting surface (Fig. 12, floor portion 12 comprises lock engaging surfaces 32 configured to engage corner shroud 110 via lock 200),
And wherein the upper GET contacting surface is parallel with the lower GET contacting surface to within an angle from 0 degrees to 5 degrees (Fig. 4, main section 54 and underside 52 of floor portion 12 are parallel).
Regarding Claim 10: Dennis teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
816
1418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dennis further teaches wherein the central horizontal longitudinal axis of the boss and the inside GET contacting surface of the side upright portion are parallel to within +/- 10 degrees (See annotated Fig. 3, the longitudinal horizontal axis of the lock engaging surfaces 32 is parallel to the thickened portion 50 of side wall 18, as shown by dashed lines A1 and A2).
Dennis: Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding Claim 11: Dennis teaches of an earth moving bucket lip protection system comprising:
a bucket corner as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1)
and the GET for connection with the bucket corner (Fig. 7, corner shroud 110 is connected to the corner of bucket 10).
Regarding Claim 12: Dennis teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Dennis further teaches wherein the GET is connectable with the bucket corner at defined contact points on the GET configured to extend from the outer surface of the GET (Fig. 12, lock 200 is shown to extend away from the surface of the corner shroud 110 to engage the lock engaging surfaces 32).
Regarding Claim 15: Dennis teaches of an earth moving equipment bucket comprising a bucket corner as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 16: Dennis teaches of an earth moving equipment bucket comprising an earth moving bucket lip protection system as claimed claim 11 (see claim 11).
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis in view of Klett.
Regarding Claim 3: Dennis teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Dennis does not teach wherein the outside GET contacting surface and the inside GET contacting surface are parallel.
Klett teaches of an earth moving bucket corner comprising an outside GET contacting surface and in side GET contacting surface, wherein the outside GET contacting surface and the inside GET contacting surface are parallel (Klett: Fig. 3, the sidewall member 12 of earthmoving implement 10 is shown to contact the adapter 26 on an inner and outer surface within slot 38 of the adapter, wherein the inner and outer contact surface of sidewall member 12 are shown to be parallel).
While Dennis does not teach of the outside GET contacting surface and the inside GET contacting surface are parallel, Dennis does teach of the bucket’s GET contacting surfaces locally matching the corresponding contact surfaces of the GET. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the apparatus of Dennis to incorporate the known parallel upright inside and outside GET contacting surfaces as taught by Klett to create an apparatus that closely matches the shape of the tool being attached to the contacting surfaces (Klett: col. 2, line 57-68, the slot 38 closely straddles sidewall 12, having only about 1mm of clearance). Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of incorporating parallel upright inside and outside GET contacting surfaces to match the profile of a ground engaging member.
Note that those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art, and that parallel upright contact surfaces are known in the art such as those taught by Klatt. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding Claim 13: Dennis teaches of the apparatus described in claim 12.
While Dennis does demonstrate that the lock 200 comprises specific contact surfaces, as described in claim 12, Dennis does not specifically refer to the contact surface or surfaces of the lock 200 comprising a pad or pads.
Klett teaches of an earth moving equipment bucket corner, wherein a ground engaging tool is connectable with a bucket corner at defined contact points on the ground engaging tool configured to extend away from the surface of the ground engaging tool (Klett: Fig. 1-2, adaptor 26 connects to the corner of implement 10, making contact at defined, upstanding bearing surfaces 74 and 78), wherein the GET comprises pads defining the contact points (Klett: Col. 3, line 26-39, bearings surfaces 74 and 78 are considered pads).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified contact portion of Dennis with pad structures taught by Klett to improve force transfer from the GET to the bucket (Klett: Col. 3, line 26-39, pas 74 and 78 transmit external working forces to the bottom edge of the cutting edge). Such a substitute would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of improving force transfer between the ground engaging tool and the bucket (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Claims 4-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis in view of Klett, further in view of Dallard.
Regarding Claim 4: Regarding Claim 4: Dennis in view of Klett teaches of the apparatus of claim 3.
Dennis in view of Klett does not teach wherein the intermediate portion defines a top GET contacting surface and a bottom GET contacting surface disposed parallel with the top GET contacting surface.
Dallard teaches of an earth moving equipment bucket corner comprising a side upright portion attachable to a bucket sidewall, the side upright portion defining an upright outside GET contacting surface on an outside of the side upright portion and an upright inside GET contacting surface on an inside of the side upright portion (Dallard: Fig. 1-2, first portion 14 defines an upright outside GET contacting surface and an inside GET contacting surface on the respective inside and outside of the bucket 10)
a floor portion, defining a horizontal plane, attachable to a bucket floor lip, the floor portion having an upper GET contacting surface and a lower GET contacting surface (Dallard: Fig. 1-2, second portion 12 defines a floor portion attached to the bucket 10, comprising an upper GET contacting surface and lower GET contacting surface on the respective inside and outside of the bucket 10);
and an intermediate portion extending between and angled with respect to the side upright portion and the floor portion (Dallard: Fig. 1-2, intermediate portion 16 extends at an angle between the first portion 14 and second portion 12),
wherein the intermediate portion defines a top GET contacting surface and a bottom GET contacting surface disposed parallel with the top GET contacting surface (Dallard: Fig. 3-4, intermediate portion 16 comprises a top surface and bottom surface, at least a portion of said top and bottom surfaces are disposed in parallel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the nonparallel, curved intermediate portion of Dennis in view of Klett with the flat, parallel intermediate portion of Dallard to create an apparatus to avoid a sharp corner of the bucket (Dallard: Paragraph 17, the smooth radiused connection between the first and second portions with the intermediate portion avoid creating stress zones at corners). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of reducing the stress placed on the bucket corner between the upright and floor portions of the bucket corner (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 5: Dennis in view of Klett, further in view of Dallard teaches of the apparatus described in claim 4.
Dennis further teaches wherein the side upright portion, the floor portion and the intermediate portion comprise a leading edge, defining a leading edge plane, for insertion in the GET (Dennis: Fig. 7, Side wall 18, corner 24, and floor portion 12 all converge and terminate at front lip 14, which defines a plane that is inserted into corner shroud 110),
and wherein the boss comprises includes a recess in the upper GET contacting surface for abutting a GET connector at an upright GET connector contacting seat (Dennis: Fig. 11a-c; Paragraph 62-65, lock engagement surfaces 32 include a bearing member 210, which extends in a transverse direction and comprises rear locating wall 216, which is vertical, and abuts lock 200 of corner shroud 110), which defines a contacting seat plane, and wherein the leading edge plane and the contacting seat plane are parallel (Dennis: Fig. 11-12, rear locating wall 216 is described as being vertical, and front lip 14 is shown to be vertical, and therefore the planes defined by the rear locating wall 216 and front lip 14 are parallel).
Regarding Claim 7: Dennis in view of Klett, further in view of Dallard teaches of the apparatus described in claim 5.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 4, Dallard further teaches wherein the side upright portion, the floor portion and the intermediate portion comprise a chamfer between the leading edge and the inside GET contacting surface, the upper GET contacting surface and the top GET contacting surface respectively (Dallard: Annotated Fig. 2, a chamfered edge is shown between the front 28 of the bucket and section B of the inside GET contact surface, section C of the intermediate portion 16, and section D of first portion 12).
PNG
media_image2.png
683
1107
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dallard: Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 8: Dennis in view of Klett, further in view of Dallard teaches of the apparatus described in claim 5.
Dennis further teaches of the apparatus further comprising a GET contacting surface transition zone disposed between the leading edge and the upper GET contacting surface, wherein the transition zone includes a bevel formed from a radiused surface and a first sloped surface intersecting with a first side of the radiused surface (Dennis: Fig. 1, the space between front lip 14 and floor portion 12 comprises sloped surface shoulder portion 58 and is shown to comprise a radiused surface; shoulder portion 58 is a sloped surface relative to the front lip 14 and the floor portion 12 that intersects the radiused surface; the radiused surface and shoulder portion 58 together comprise a bevel as described).
Regarding Claim 9: Dennis in view of Klett, further in view of Dallard teaches of the apparatus described in claim 5.
Dennis further teaches wherein the transition zone includes a second sloped surface intersecting with a second side of the radiused surface (Dennis: Fig. 2, the leading edge 14 is shown to comprise an upper and lower surface; the upper surface being sloped relative to the lower surface, shoulder portion 58, and floor section 12, and intersecting the second side of the radiused surface).
Allowable Subject Matter
As stated in prior correspondence, claim 14 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.
Regarding claim 14, while reversable teeth and other ground engaging tools to be applied to the corners of ground engaging buckets are well known in the art, no such examples were found that would be combinable with references of note above without fundamental alterations to the disclosures of note to arrive at the claimed invention, and thus would rely on an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
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 EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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 J 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
