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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13-14, 16-17, 22 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. Applicant must also address the indefiniteness rejections of any of these noted claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, various designs of retaining mechanisms exist to secure a wear member to an excavator bucket or adapter. Briscoe presents a tapered pin that screws straight into the lock. The lock of Briscoe benefits from screwing the pin farther into the lock and no other prior art of record teaches the concept of a shoulder face in view of the other inventive features; therefore, any obvious combination to include the recess terminating in a shoulder face where the head of the pin may rest would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Briscoe presents small spiral 66 that exists in the side of the wear member passage. The spiral lock of Briscoe is not shown towards the inside or outside of the wall and no other prior art of record teaches this concept in view of the other inventive features; therefore, any obvious combination to include a larger portion of the recess on the inside or outside of the wall would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 16, Briscoe presents a pin that is tapered along the entire length. While non-tapered pins exist in the art, the pin of Briscoe interfaces directly with both the adapter 14 and tip 19 across the entire length (as seen in Fig 8). therefore, any obvious combination to include a non-tapered portion of the pin would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 22, Briscoe presents a pin with the head being the end 27. While Briscoe’s Fig 4 may technically depict a detent in element 29, this detent does not engage with any complementary locating means in the wear part. No other prior art of record teaches this concept in view of the other inventive features; therefore, any obvious combination to include a detent on the head of the pin and complementary locating means in the wear part would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 20, 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the phrases "bolt or pin may rest" and “a detent may engage” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether these limitations happen in the invention or not.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "about 4.0 degrees" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the term “about” means and how close to 4.0 degrees infringement occurs.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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)(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) 1-7, 10, 12, 15, 24, 32, 41, 45, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Briscoe (US 7832129).
Regarding claim 1, Briscoe discloses a wear protection system for earthmoving and mining equipment including:
a mount adapted to be secured to a part of the equipment to be protected (Fig 1; adapter 17),
a wear part adapted to be releasably mounted on or to said mount (tip 19); and
a retainer adapted to retain or secure said wear part on or to said mount (lock 10);
wherein said mount includes a passage or recess therein (mount passage 25); and
wherein said wear part includes a wall portion having a passage therethrough, said passage being positioned to generally align with said passage or recess in said mount and wherein a spiral coil is mounted in said wear part to form a thread extending substantially around said passage or in said mount to form a thread extending substantially around said passage or recess therein (wear part passage 23 aligns with mount passage 25; Fig 7 depicts the spiral coil and the ridge 66 is stated to be helical; col 8, lines 28-31; coil 66 is considered to form a thread around the wear part passage); and
wherein said retainer includes a pin or bolt, said pin or bolt having a free end and at least a portion tapering inwards towards said free end, and a spiral groove or thread on or in at least a portion of said pin or bolt (pin 12 is tapered toward free end 18 with a spiral groove 20);
said parts being so made and arranged that said pin or bolt can be pushed into said passage in said wear part to engage with said passage or recess in said mount so as to secure said wear part to said mount and be retained by engagement of said spiral coil with said spiral groove or thread (claim language is broad and functional; the prior art is considered to be capable of functioning in this way; the pin 12 is inserted into the holes and tightened only as a final step; either way, this assembly is considered to meet the limitation of being “pushed”; col 7, lines 21-33).
Regarding claim 2, Briscoe discloses a wear protection system wherein said parts are so made and arranged that said pin or bolt can be rotated to screw and/or unscrew along said spiral groove or thread to disengage said pin or bolt from said mount to release said wear part from said mount (in addition to “pushing” the pin into the passages, the pin 12 rotates along the groove 20; the pin can be unscrewed to disengage the pin from the assembly).
Regarding claim 3, Briscoe discloses a wear protection system wherein said spiral coil is mounted in said wall portion of the wear part and extends less than one full turn about the passage therethrough (spiral coil 66 extends less than one full turn about the passage).
Regarding claim 4, Briscoe discloses a wear protection system wherein the wall portion of the wear part includes a stopper portion extending into the passage and configured to prevent the coil from rotating relative thereto (sides of recess 64 are considered a stopper portion).
Regarding claim 5, Briscoe discloses a wear protection system wherein the mount includes a nose portion and said spiral coil is mounted in said nose portion and extends less than one full turn about the passage or recess therein (Fig 12 depicts an analogous mount 14a and analogous spiral coil 60a where the coil still extends less than one full turn).
Regarding claim 6, Briscoe discloses a wear protection system wherein the nose portion of the mount includes a stopper portion extending into the passage or recess and configured to prevent the coil from rotating relative thereto (sides of recess 64 are considered a stopper portion).
Regarding claim 7, Briscoe discloses a wear protection system wherein the opposite ends of the spiral coil are arranged to abut the stopper portion (the sides of 60 abut the sides of the recess).
Regarding claim 10, Briscoe discloses a wear protection system wherein the pin or bolt has a head and the passage through the wall portion of said wear part opens outwardly to a recess adapted to accommodate the head of the pin or bolt therein (claim language is broad; Figs 6-7 depict the recess where head 27 of pin 12 is accommodated).
Regarding claim 12, Briscoe discloses a wear protection system wherein the spiral coil is mounted in a housing which in turn is mounted in the recess or passage through the wall portion of the wear part or the passage or recess in the mount (Fig 7; spiral 66 is in housing 56).
Regarding claim 15, Briscoe discloses a wear protection system wherein the pin or bolt includes a head and a shank extending from said head to said free end, and wherein a tapered portion is on said shank and said spiral groove or thread is on or in at least a portion of said shank (pin 12 is tapered from head 27 toward free end 18 with a spiral groove 20).
Regarding claim 24, Briscoe discloses a wear protection system wherein said spiral coil is mounted in a housing which is mounted in said wear part to form a thread extending substantially around said passage or in said mount to form a thread extending substantially around said passage or recess therein (Fig 7; spiral 66 is in housing 56 and forms a thread around passage).
Regarding claim 32, Briscoe discloses a retainer pin or bolt for use with a wear protection system for earthmoving and mining equipment (10), the retainer pin or bolt including:
a head and a shank extending from said head, said shank tapering inwards away from said head over at least a portion of said shank (head 27 with tapered shank 16), and
a spiral groove or thread on or in at least a portion of said shank and wherein at least two turns of said spiral groove or thread are on said tapered portion of said shank (spiral groove 20/22 has all turns of the groove on the tapered shank).
Regarding claim 41, Briscoe discloses a wear protection system for earthmoving and mining equipment including:
a first component, a second component, and a third component, wherein the third component is a helical coil adapted to be fitted to a passage or recess provided in one of said first and second components to form a thread extending substantially around said passage or recess and wherein said one component includes means for preventing or at least inhibiting unwanted rotation of said third component relative thereto (first component 17, second component 19, third component 60 fit in recess 64 of second tip component 19; Fig 7 depicts the spiral coil and the ridge 66 is stated to be helical; col 8, lines 28-31; coil 66 is considered to form a thread around the wear part passage).
Regarding claim 45, Briscoe discloses a nose mount, tooth and retainer in combination for earthmoving or mining equipment;
the nose mount having a base for securing the nose mount to the lip of a bucket and a protuberance extending forwardly therefrom with one or more recesses or passages provided therein (Fig 1; nose adapter 17; col 9, lines 46-48; protuberance 46 with nose passage 25);
the tooth having a cutting tip at its front and a mounting portion rearward of the cutting tip, the mounting portion including one or more walls defining a cavity therein opening to the rear and adapted to at least partially receive therein the protuberance of the nose mount, a passage through at least one of said one or more walls, said passage being positioned to generally align with one of said one or more recesses or passages in said protuberance and a spiral coil mounted in said passage to form a thread extending substantially around said passage (Fig 1; tooth tip 19 with mounting portion 21; cavity of tip the receives the nose 46; tooth passage 23 aligns with nose passage 25; Fig 7 depicts the spiral coil and the ridge 66 is stated to be helical; col 8, lines 28-31; coil 66 is considered to form a thread around the wear part passage);
the retainer including a pin or bolt, said pin or bolt having a head portion and a shank extending away from said head portion, said shank tapering inwards away from said head portion over at least a portion of said shank and terminating in a free end, and a spiral groove or thread on or in at least a portion of said shank (pin 12; head 27 with tapered shank 16 terminating at free end 18; spiral groove 20/22 has all turns of the groove on the tapered shank);
the parts being so made and arranged that the shank of said pin or bolt can be pushed into said passage in said wall to engage with said passage or recess in said nose mount to secure said wear part to said mount and be retained by engagement of said spiral coil with said spiral groove or thread (claim language is broad and functional; the prior art is considered to be capable of functioning in this way; the pin 12 is inserted into the holes and tightened only as a final step; either way, this assembly is considered to meet the limitation of being “pushed”; col 7, lines 21-33).
Regarding claim 50, Briscoe discloses a wear part for use with a wear protection system for earthmoving and mining equipment (wear tip 19), the wear part including:
a wall portion having a passage therethrough adapted to receive a pin or bolt therein, and a recess extending substantially about the passage, the recess being adapted to hold therein a part coil of an extension spring adapted to form a thread about the passage and stop means at the ends of the recess or in the recess adapted to engage the opposite ends or end portions of a coil in the recess (Fig 1 depicts walls of tip 19; wall passage 23 with recess 64 to hold the coil 60 depicted in Fig 7; claim language is broad; the ridge 66 is stated to be helical; col 8, lines 28-31; coil 66 is considered to form a thread around the wear part passage; the sides of the recess 64 are considered to engage opposite ends of the coil 60 in the recess).
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.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briscoe in view of Gogarty (US 4638994).
Regarding claim 8, Briscoe fails to specifically disclose a wear protection system wherein said spiral coil is a coil of a compression spring. However, Gogarty discloses a similar lock with a pin and a spiral coil (Fig 2; pin 16 and spiral coil 42 and 52) and teaches the spiral coil being a compression spring (coil of spring 52).
Briscoe and Gogarty are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of locking components together. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Briscoe to incorporate the teachings of Gogarty and replaced the resilient member with the compression spring coil of Gogarty. One would have made this modification as a simple substitution of one biasing element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Briscoe and Gogarty are silent on the spring wire diameter and type being selected to suit the size and loading of the wear part and the diameter of the pin or bolt. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selected the spring wire diameter to suit the size and loading of the wear part and the diameter of the pin or bolt. The claim merely states that the size is selected based on other elements rather than providing any details related to the actual size. A simple 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).
Claim(s) 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briscoe as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, Briscoe discloses a wear protection system with the shank being tapered. Briscoe also states the shank can be tapered at different angles (col 5, lines 53-63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the included angle of the tapered portion of the shank is in the range of 3.0 degrees to 11.0 degrees (that is 1.5 and 5.5 degrees when seen in section between the outer face and the longitudinal axis of the tapered portion). One would have made this modification to match the particular task (col 5, lines 53-63).
Regarding claim 20, Briscoe fails to specifically discloses a wear protection system wherein the included angle of the tapered portion of the shank is about 4.0 degrees.
Similarly, Briscoe states the shank can be tapered at different angles (col 5, lines 53-63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the included angle of the tapered portion of the shank about 4.0 degrees. One would have made this modification to match the particular task (col 5, lines 53-63).
Claim(s) 46, 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briscoe in view of Emrich et al. (US 20040216334).
Regarding claim 46, Briscoe discloses an adaptor, nose mount and retainer in combination for earthmoving or mining equipment;
the nose mount having a base for securing the nose mount to the lip of a bucket and a protuberance extending forwardly therefrom with one or more recesses or passages provided therein (Fig 1; nose mount base 17 with protuberance 46 and passage 25; Fig 13 depicts the bucket lip 76);
the adaptor having a mounting portion including one or more walls defining a cavity therein opening to the rear and adapted to at least partially receive therein the protuberance of the nose mount, and a passage through at least one of said one or more walls, said passage being positioned to generally align with one of said one or more recesses or passages in said protuberance of said nose mount and a spiral coil mounted in said passage to form a thread extending substantially around said passage (Fig 1; adaptor 19 with mounting portion 21; cavity of adaptor the receives the nose protuberance 46; adaptor passage 23 aligns with mount passage 25; Fig 7 depicts the spiral coil and the ridge 66 is stated to be helical; col 8, lines 28-31; coil 66 is considered to form a thread around the adaptor passage);
the retainer including a pin or bolt, said pin or bolt having a head and a shank extending from said head, said shank tapering inwards away from said head over at least a portion of said shank and terminating in a free end, and a spiral groove or thread on or in at least a portion of said shank (pin 12; head 27 with tapered shank 16 terminating at free end 18; spiral groove 20/22 has all turns of the groove on the tapered shank);
wherein said parts are so made and arranged that the shank of said pin or bolt can be pushed into said passage in said wall of said adaptor to engage with said passage or recess in said nose mount to secure said adaptor to said mount and be retained by engagement of said spiral coil with said spiral groove or thread (claim language is broad and functional; the prior art is considered to be capable of functioning in this way; the pin 12 is inserted into the holes and tightened only as a final step; either way, this assembly is considered to meet the limitation of being “pushed”; col 7, lines 21-33).
While Briscoe strictly discloses an adapter (17) and point (19) and the lock (10) connects the adapter and point, Briscoe also addresses the concept of using the lock between the adapter and the bucket lip (col 2, lines 5-11; Fig 13; “in another example, the adapter is a wear member that is fit onto a lip of an excavating bucket”; the lock would be between the adapter/wear member and the bucket lip). Further, Emrich discloses a very similar lock with an adapter, bucket lip, and a tooth tip (Fig 1; 14; 12; 45). Emrich teaches the lock connecting the bucket lip to the adapter (Fig 1; lock 60 is between the bucket lip 12 and adapter 14). The adapter of Emrich also has a protuberance adapted to receive the tooth 45.
Briscoe and Emrich are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of wear member retaining assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Briscoe to incorporate the teachings of Emrich and used the lock of Briscoe between the adapter and bucket lip as taught by Emrich. One would have made this modification to repair the adapter as they are also subjected to wear (Emrich; para [0003], lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 48, Briscoe discloses an adaptor, tooth and retainer in combination for earthmoving or mining equipment;
the adaptor having a mounting portion and a protuberance extending forwardly therefrom with one or more recesses or passages provided therein (Fig 1; adaptor 17 with protuberance 46 and passage 25; Fig 13 depicts the bucket lip 76);
the tooth having a cutting tip at its front and a mounting portion rearward of the cutting tip, the mounting portion including one or more walls defining a cavity therein opening to the rear and adapted to at least partially receive therein the protuberance of the adaptor, a passage through at least one of said one or more walls, said passage being positioned to generally align with one of said one or more recesses or passages in said protuberance of said adaptor and a spiral coil mounted in said passage to form a thread extending substantially around said passage (Fig 1; tooth 19 with cutting tip at front and mounting portion 21; cavity of the tooth the receives the adaptor protuberance 46; tooth passage 23 aligns with mount passage 25; Fig 7 depicts the spiral coil and the ridge 66 is stated to be helical; col 8, lines 28-31; coil 66 is considered to form a thread around the tooth passage);
the retainer including a pin or bolt, said pin or bolt having a head portion and a shank extending from said head portion, said shank tapering inwards away from said head portion over at least a portion of said shank and terminating in a free end, and a spiral groove or thread on or in at least a portion of said shank (pin 12; head 27 with tapered shank 16 terminating at free end 18; spiral groove 20/22 has all turns of the groove on the tapered shank);
the parts being so made and arranged that the shank of said pin or bolt can be pushed into said passage in said wall of said tooth to engage with said passage or recess in said protuberance to secure said wear part to said adaptor and be retained by engagement of said spiral coil with said spiral groove or thread (claim language is broad and functional; the prior art is considered to be capable of functioning in this way; the pin 12 is inserted into the holes and tightened only as a final step; either way, this assembly is considered to meet the limitation of being “pushed”; col 7, lines 21-33).
While Briscoe strictly discloses an adapter (17) and point (19) and the lock (10) connects the adapter and point, Briscoe also addresses the concept of using the lock between the adapter and the bucket lip (col 2, lines 5-11; Fig 13; “in another example, the adapter is a wear member that is fit onto a lip of an excavating bucket”; the lock would be between the adapter/wear member and the bucket lip). Further, Emrich discloses a very similar lock with an adapter, bucket lip, and a tooth tip (Fig 1; 14; 12; 45). Emrich teaches the lock connecting the bucket lip to the adapter (Fig 1; lock 60 is between the bucket lip 12 and adapter 14). The nose mount wedge 12 of Emrich also has a protuberance at 16 adapted to be received in the mounting cavity of the adaptor 14.
Briscoe and Emrich are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of wear member retaining assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Briscoe to incorporate the teachings of Emrich and used the lock of Briscoe between the adapter and bucket lip as taught by Emrich. One would have made this modification to repair the adapter as they are also subjected to wear (Emrich; para [0003], lines 8-11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tuto et al. (US 20180044894) discloses a similar locking device for a wear member with analogous features depicted in Figures 6A-C and Figures 7A-7B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE SCOVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30-6 (ET).
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 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.
/BLAKE E SCOVILLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights