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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fall (US 5881480 A) provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 6/21/2024, in view of Lebedev (RU 21404 U1).
Note elements in italics have been designated in the annotated image below rather than by reference character. Further, all citations to Lebedev (RU 21404 U1) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding independent claim 17, Fall discloses a machine (“grader”, col. 1 lines 6-8), comprising:
a tool (110); and
a cutting edge (100) disposed on the tool, the cutting edge further comprising:
a ground-engaging edge (220) (Fig. 2);
an end edge;
a face extending up to the ground-engaging edge and the end edge; and
a face wear protector (300) disposed on the face (Fig. 1), wherein:
a first portion of the face wear protector is disposed in a first region,
a second portion of the face wear protector is disposed in a second region, the second region more distal from the end edge than the first region (as seen below).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 1 of Fall
Fall fails to disclose wherein the first portion has a greater areal density than the second portion.
In the same area, Lebedev discloses a similar grader blade (4) comprising a face wear protector having a first portion (1) and a second portion (2), the second portion more distal from a lateral end edge of the blade than the first portion (Fig. 1), wherein the first portion has a greater thickness and thus a greater areal density (i.e. mass per unit area) than the second portion (Fig. 2, page 3 paragraph 3 “the thickness of the corner knife plates is greater than the central knife plates by 20 - 35%”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first portion (i.e. the corner/edge regions) of the face wear protector of Fall to have a greater areal density than the second portion (i.e. the middle region) of the face wear protector, as taught by Lebedev, since the corner portions are known to wear abrasively faster, therefore providing a greater thickness and volume in these areas improves the wear resistance and increases the service life of the blade as a whole (see Lebedev at page 1 paragraph 2 and page 4 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 1, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 17, therefore claim 1 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 17.
Regarding claim 2, Fall in view of Lebedev discloses the cutting edge of claim 1. Fall further teaches wherein the face wear protector (300) comprises tungsten carbide (col. 3 lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 5, Fall in view of Lebedev discloses the cutting edge of claim 1. Fall further teaches wherein the face wear protector (300) protrudes from the face in a range of about 0.5 mm to about 3 mm (col. 3 line 65 – col. 4 line 1 face protector 300 protrudes from surface of grader blade approximately 1/16 inch to 1/8 inch = approx. 1.59 mm to 3.18 mm).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Fall in view of Lebedev discloses the cutting edge of claim 1 and the machine of claim 17.
Fall further teaches a first edge tile (200) disposed within a first groove (175) within the ground-engaging edge (220) (Fig. 2, col. 4 lines 25-27 “insert 200 is formed by a plurality of short inserts fitted into groove 175 so as to position insert 200 in the center of lower edge 220 of grader blade 100”).
Claims 9-10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fall (US 5881480 A) in view of Lebedev (RU 21404 U1) and Powell (US 20170014901 A1).
Regarding independent claim 9, Fall discloses a method of fabricating a cutting edge (100, Fig. 1), comprising:
forming a base cutting edge using steel (col. 3 lines 19-20 “grader blade 100 is made from a high strength steel”), the base cutting edge including a ground-engaging edge (220), an end edge, and a face extending to the ground-engaging edge and the end edge (see annotated image of Fall above);
cladding a first portion of a face wear protector (300) on a first region of the face and cladding a second portion of the face wear protector on a second region (col. 6 lines 17-25), the second region more distal from the end edge than the first region (see annotated image above).
Fall fails to disclose wherein the first portion has a greater areal density than the second portion.
In the same area, Lebedev discloses a similar grader blade (4) comprising a face wear protector having a first portion (1) and a second portion (2), the second portion more distal from a lateral end edge of the blade than the first portion (Fig. 1), wherein the first portion has a greater thickness and thus a greater areal density (i.e. mass per unit area) than the second portion (Fig. 2, page 3 paragraph 3 “the thickness of the corner knife plates is greater than the central knife plates by 20 - 35%”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first portion (i.e. the corner/edge regions) of the face wear protector of Fall to have a greater areal density than the second portion (i.e. the middle region) of the face wear protector, as taught by Lebedev, since the corner portions are known to wear abrasively faster, therefore providing a greater thickness and volume in these areas improves the wear resistance and increases the service life of the blade as a whole (see Lebedev at page 1 paragraph 2 and page 4 paragraph 5).
Fall does not explicitly detail wherein the cladding is laser cladding.
Powell teaches that laser-cladding is a well-known additive-manufacturing technique for making a wear part with hardfacing (para. [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use laser cladding as the cladding technique in Fall, since there are a limited number of cladding techniques to use for the deposition of an additional material upon a base material (i.e. hardfacing), and it would have been obvious to consider and try laser cladding as taught by Powell to yield predictable results (Powell at para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 10, Fall in view of Lebedev and Powell discloses the method of claim 9, wherein laser cladding the first portion of the face wear protector (300) uses tungsten carbide (WC) powder (Fall at col. 3 lines 28-31 teaches use of tungsten carbide, Powell further teaches that the surfacing material for making the cladding layer comprises “tungsten carbide”, para. [0052], which may be provided as “a supply of powder”, para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 12, Fall in view of Lebedev and Powell discloses the method of claim 9. Fall further teaches wherein the face wear protector protrudes from the face in a range of about 0.5 mm to about 3 mm (Fall at col. 3 line 65 – col. 4 line 1 face protector 300 protrudes from surface of grader blade approximately 1/16 inch to 1/8 inch = approx. 1.59 mm to 3.18 mm).
Regarding claim 15, Fall in view of Lebedev and Powell discloses the method of claim 9. Fall further teaches cutting a first groove (175) into the ground-engaging edge (220); and providing a first tile (200) within the first groove (Fall at Fig. 2, col. 4 lines 25-27 “insert 200 is formed by a plurality of short inserts fitted into groove 175 so as to position insert 200 in the center of lower edge 220 of grader blade 100”).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combinations of Fall as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Cox (US 20200347569 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the combinations of Fall disclose the cutting edge of claim 1 and the method of claim 9, but fail to teach wherein the face wear protector is disposed on the face in a crisscross shape.
In the same area, Cox discloses a similar grader blade (32, Fig. 1) comprising a face wear protector (46) disposed on a face of the grader blade (Fig. 2) in a crisscross shape (Fig. 3, para. [0035] plurality of accumulation members 48 may include intersecting grooves “in a crisscrossing pattern”).
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 similar crisscrossing pattern for the face wear protector of Fall, as Cox teaches that such a pattern allows for the accumulation debris such that debris that would otherwise impact the face wear plate instead impacts the layer of debris formed thereon, thereby providing improved protection against wear to the blade and improving a usable life of the wear plate (Cox at para. [0039]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 205617458 U), provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 6/21/2024.
It is noted that all citations to Chen et al. (CN 205617458 U) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chen discloses the cutting edge of claim 1, but does not explicitly detail wherein the face wear protector (300) has a hardness exceeding 65 Rockwell Hardness Scale C (HRC).
In the same area, Chen discloses a grader blade comprising a similar face wear protector (1, Figs. 1-2) having a hardness of about 65 HRC (para. [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the hardness of the face wear protector, such as greater than or equal to 65 HRC as taught by Chen, since it has been held that In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" and/or do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combinations of Fall as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Pratt (US 20180087246 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, the combinations of Fall disclose the cutting edge of claim 1, the method of claim 9, and the machine of claim 17, but fails to disclose a first wear indicator tile disposed within a first groove within the face, the first wear indicator tile at a predetermined distance from the ground-engaging edge, the first groove a predetermined distance from the ground-engaging edge such that wherein the face wear protector is disposed more proximal to the ground-engaging edge than the first wear indicator tile.
In the same area, Pratt discloses a similar blade configured for grading operations (para. [0002] “grader blade”) comprising a first wear indicator tile (214 or 314) disposed within a first groove within a face of the blade (Fig. 6 or 10, para. [0012,0014] teaches wear indicators 214,314 include wear inserts such as wear pins, wear blocks, wear plates, and/or wear strips installed into holes or openings of blade), the first wear indicator tile and the first groove at a predetermined distance from a ground-engaging edge (212G) of the blade such that a face wear protector (212F) is disposed more proximal to the ground-engaging edge than the first wear indicator tile (Fig. 6).
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 similar wear indicator insert in the blade of Fall, as taught by Pratt, in order to allow the blade to be inspected and monitored to determine the extent or degree of wear of one or more wear surfaces of the blade such that they can be timely repaired/replaced prior to failure to prevent costly downtime during working hours (Pratt at para. [0005,0007]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fall as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bain et al. (US 5224555 A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fall discloses the cutting edge of claim 7, but fails to disclose a second tile disposed within a second groove at an interface of the ground-engaging edge and the face, the second tile including a first facet, a second facet, a third facet, a fourth facet, and a ridge between the first facet, the second facet, the third facet, and the fourth facet.
In the same area, Buxton discloses a grader blade comprising a first tile (30) disposed in a first groove (62) and a second tile (28) disposed in a second groove (66) at an interface of a ground-engaging edge (78) and a face (64) of the blade, wherein the second tile includes a first facet (48), a second facet (42), a third facet (90), a fourth facet (92), and a ridge between the first facet, the second facet, the third facet, and the fourth facet (Fig. 6, see annotated image below).
PNG
media_image2.png
408
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 6 of Bain
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a second tile at an interface of the ground-engaging edge and the face of Fall, as taught by Bain, in order to further extend the useful life of the blade by withstanding impact forces (Bain at col. 4 lines 33-34, 43-45).
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combinations of Fall as applied to claims 9 and 17 above, and further in view of Rakisits (US 3029534 A).
Regarding claims 14 and 18, The combinations of Fall discloses the method of claim 9 and the machine of claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein the cutting edge comprises a rounded corner between the ground-engaging edge and the end edge, wherein the rounded corner is at least one of a quarter circle, chamfered, or fillet.
In a similar field, Rakisits discloses a similar blade comprising a cutting edge having rounded corners (17) between a ground-engaging edge (15) and an end edge (16) of the blade, wherein the rounded corner is at least one of a quarter circle, chamfered, or fillet (Figs. 3,7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to round the corners of the cutting edge of Fall, as taught by Rakisits, in order to withstand service stresses, strengthen the corner, and provide additional material at the points subjected to the greatest wear thereby increasing service life of the edge (Rakisits at col. 1 line 24-26 and col. 2 line 65 - col. 3 line 4).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fall as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Halissy et al. (US 4770253 A).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Fall discloses the method of claim 15, but fails to disclose cutting a second groove into an interface between the ground-engaging edge and the face; and providing a second tile within the second groove, wherein the first tile is harder than the second tile.
In the same area, Halissy discloses a grader blade (18) comprising a first insert (40) disposed in a first groove and a second insert (38) disposed in a second groove at an interface between a ground-engaging edge (34) and a face (30) of the blade, wherein the first insert is harder than the second insert (col. 4 lines 47-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar second insert at the interface between the ground-engaging edge and face of Fall, as taught by Halissy, in order to better absorb impacts with the surface being worked directed to this region of the grader blade (col. 4 lines 47-52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Congdon et al. (US 20210340739 A1) discloses a corner segment having protrusions on wear zones. Parzynski et al. (US 20210301503 A1, US 20210087778 A1) discloses a cutting edge. Barimani et al. (US 10563363 B2) discloses a scraper bar for a scraper blade. Kueper (US 10392762 B2) discloses a snow-clearing strip for the blade of a snowplow. Congdon et al. (US 20190177954 A1) discloses an implement cutting edge. Winter (US 20170191236 A1) discloses a plow blade. Congdon et al. (US 20160040399 A1) discloses an implement wear member. Kueper (US 20150315757 A1) discloses a curbstone deflector. Fox (US 8984778 B2) discloses a plow blade and method. Amano et al. (US 20010005949 A1) discloses a cutting edge. Ward (US 5261170 A) discloses wear strips. Yost (US 4570366 A) discloses a snowplow having cutting blade teeth. Olson (US 4141160 A) discloses a cutting edge with wear-resistant material. O’Connor (US 2887797 A) discloses a scarper blade for road graders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights