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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 13th, 2024 and April 23rd, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in a lower part the rear face” (Line 5) should read -- in a lower part the rear face --. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 and 8 are 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one second retainer assembly” in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "each second recess" in Line 2. It is not clear what this limitation refers to since there is only one recess claimed in claim 1, which claim 8 depends upon, thus rendering the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds have not been established.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the retention wedge plate” in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, it is interpreted as the first retention plate.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holmes (US8256698B2), hereinafter “Holmes”.
Regarding Claim 1, Holmes discloses a jaw assembly (see annotated Fig. 1 of Holmes reproduced below) of a jaw crusher (Fig. 1, Element 10), the jaw assembly comprising: a jaw liner (Fig. 1, Elements 16 and 18) having a front working face (Fig. 1, Element 22), a rear face (Fig. 2, Element 24), a top (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced below), and a bottom (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced below); a frame (Fig. 1, Elements 12 and 14) forming part of a jaw (see annotated Fig. 1 of Holmes reproduced below), the frame having a support face (Fig. 2, Element 26) that in use abuts the rear face (Fig. 2) of the jaw liner; a first retention plate (Fig. 1A, Element 36) arranged to clamp (Column 7, Lines 40-43) the top of the jaw liner to the support face (Fig. 1), the first retention plate having a base (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced below) that in use abuts the top of the jaw liner; and a retainer assembly (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced below) arranged to limit lateral movement (Abstract) of the jaw liner relative to the frame, wherein the retainer assembly comprises: a first recess (Fig. 3, Element 46) located in an upper part (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced below) of the rear face of the jaw liner; a second recess (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced below; Examiner Note: the Examiner is interpreting the tapered wall of the projections protruding from Element 36 as a recess) disposed in the base (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced below) of the first retention plate; and a removable retainer insert (Fig. 2, Element 34) that extends through the top (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced below) of the jaw liner and includes a head part (Fig. 3, Element 42) that is accommodated within the second recess (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced below) and an anchor part (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced below) that is accommodated within the first recess (see 2nd annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
553
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes
PNG
media_image2.png
597
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Holmes
PNG
media_image3.png
697
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes
PNG
media_image4.png
458
428
media_image4.png
Greyscale
2nd annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes
Regarding Claim 7, Holmes anticipates the jaw assembly as claimed in claim 1 as explained above.
Holmes further discloses wherein the first recess (Fig. 3, Element 46) extends across the rear face (Fig. 2, Element 24) of the jaw liner to define an inwardly projecting flange (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced above) in the top (see 1st annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced above) of the jaw liner.
Regarding Claim 8, Holmes anticipates the jaw assembly as claimed in claim 1 as explained above.
Holmes further discloses wherein each second recess (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced above) is formed from a recess (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced above) in the base (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced above) and a rear (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced above) of the retention wedge plate.
Regarding Claim 10, Holmes anticipates the jaw assembly as claimed in claim 1 as explained above.
Holmes further discloses wherein the first retention plate (Fig. 1A, Element 36) is a retention wedge plate (-Figs. 2-3, Element 36).
Regarding Claim 11, Holmes anticipates the jaw assembly as claimed in claim 1 as explained above.
Holmes further discloses wherein the second recess (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced above) is disposed in the base (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced above) and a rear (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced above) of the retention wedge plate.
Regarding Claim 12, Holmes discloses a jaw (see annotated Fig. 1 of Holmes reproduced above) of a jaw crusher (Fig. 1, Element 10) including a jaw assembly (see annotated Fig. 1 of Holmes reproduced above) according to claim 1 (as explained above).
Regarding Claim 13, Holmes discloses a jaw crusher (Fig. 1, Element 10) comprising a stationary jaw ( Column 6, Lines 66-67) and a moving jaw (Column 6, Lines 66-67), wherein one of the stationary jaw and the moving jaw includes a jaw assembly (see annotated Fig. 1 of Holmes reproduced above) according to claim 1 (as explained above).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes in view of Chen (CN205462396U), hereinafter “Chen”, and Narsted (US2767597A), hereinafter “Narsted”. For text citation of Chen refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 2, Holmes anticipates the jaw assembly as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Holmes fails to disclose wherein the head part of the retainer insert includes a lifting eye.
Nonetheless, Chen discloses wherein the head part (Fig. 7, Element 4) of the retainer insert (see annotated Fig. 7 of Chen reproduced below) includes a lifting eye (Fig. 7, Element 4).
Holmes and Chen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of jaw crushers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen wherein the head part of the retainer insert includes a lifting eye into the jaw assembly disclosed by Holmes for lifting purposes (Fig. 9); although Chen doesn’t explicit said it but shows it (Fig. 9 of Chen), it is well known that eyebolts are used for lifting and handling purposes (Narsted - Column 3, Lines 5-8).
PNG
media_image5.png
360
385
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of Chen
Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes in view of Huhdankoski (DE3636172A1), hereinafter Huhdankoski. For text citation of Huhdankoski refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 3, Holmes anticipates the jaw assembly as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Holmes fails to disclose wherein the retainer insert is frangible.
Nonetheless, Huhdankoski teaches wherein the retainer insert (Fig. 4, Element 5) is frangible (Claim 3).
Holmes and Huhdankoski are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of crushers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Huhdankoski of using a frangible retainer insert into the jaw assembly disclosed by Holmes to provide a retainer insert with good fatigue strength and low stiffness (¶0023, Lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art combination of Holmes and Huhdankoski renders the jaw assembly as claimed in Claim 3 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Holmes and Huhdankoski further teaches wherein the retainer insert (Holmes - Element 34; Huhdankoski - Fig. 4, Element 5) includes a bolt (Holmes -Column 7, Line 32; Huhdankoski - ¶0023, Lines 1-3) having a first end (Holmes - Fig. 3, Element 42; see annotated Fig. 4 of Huhdankoski reproduced below) including the head part (Holmes - Fig. 3, Element 42; see annotated Fig. 4 of Huhdankoski reproduced below) and a second part (Holmes - elongated body of Element 34, Fig. 3 of Holmes; see annotated Fig. 4 of Huhdankoski reproduced below that is threaded (Holmes -Fig. 2; see annotated Fig. 4 of Huhdankoski reproduced below), and a corresponding threaded nut (Holmes - Fig. 2, Element 52; Holmes - Column 7 - Lines 44-60; see annotated Fig. 4 of Huhdankoski reproduced below).
PNG
media_image6.png
338
337
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Huhdankoski
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes in view of Lindberg et al. (US20200023370A1) hereinafter “Lindberg”.
Regarding Claim 5, Holmes anticipates the jaw assembly as claimed in claim 1 as explained above.
Holmes further discloses further comprising at least one first retainer assembly (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced above) disposed towards each side of the jaw liner (Fig. 3, Element 16).
Holmes fails to disclose at least one second retainer disposed towards a center of the jaw liner, in which a tolerance defined between the second recess and head part of the second retainer is larger than a tolerance defined between second recess and head part of the first retainer.
Nonetheless, Lindberg teaches at least one second retainer (Figs. 5-6, Element 18; see annotated Fig. 4 of Lindberg reproduced below; Examiner Note: there are two retainer assemblies disposed comprising two Elements 51 and two Elements 31) disposed towards a center (Fig. 4, Element 78) of the jaw liner (Fig. 2, Element 29).
Holmes and Lindberg are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of jaw crushers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Lindberg of using at least one second retainer disposed towards a center of the jaw liner into the jaw assembly disclosed by Holmes to provide a reliable and convenient retaining mechanism (¶0004).
While Lindberg also teaches the head part and the second recess (¶0008) being dimensioned so that the height of the recess is greater than a width of the head part to provide a free volume region (¶0008), Lindberg or the prior art combination of Holmes and Lindberg fails to teach in which a tolerance defined between the second recess and head part of the second retainer is larger than a tolerance defined between second recess and head part of the first retainer.
However, no criticality for having different tolerances have been given in the specification and it only involves designing recesses with different width. It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modified the prior art combination of Holmes and Lindberg such that the width of the recess of the second retainer is larger than the width of the recess of the first retainer such that a tolerance defined between the second recess and head part of the second retainer is larger than a tolerance defined between second recess and head part of the first retainer the tolerance defined between second recess and head part of the first retainer, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (i.e., the principal operation of each would be the same), the claimed device does not patentably distinguish over the prior art device (MPEP § 2144.04, subsection IV.A).
PNG
media_image7.png
740
466
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Lindberg
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art combination of Holmes and Lindberg renders the jaw assembly as claimed in claim 6 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Holmes and Lindberg further teaches wherein the at least one first retainer assembly (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced above) comprises two first retainer assemblies (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced above, disposed at each side) and the at least one second retainer assembly (Figs. 5-6, Element 18; see annotated Fig. 4 of Lindberg reproduced above; Examiner Note: there are two retainer assemblies disposed comprising two Elements 51 and two Elements 31) comprises two second retainer assemblies (Figs. 5-6, Element 18; see annotated Fig. 4 of Lindberg reproduced above; Examiner Note: there are two retainer assemblies disposed comprising two Elements 51 and two Elements 31) disposed at a top ( see annotated Fig. 4 of Lindberg reproduced above) of the jaw assembly (Lindberg - Fig. 2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes.
Regarding Claim 9, Holmes anticipates the jaw assembly as claimed in Claim 1 as explained above.
Holmes further discloses further comprising a second retention plate (Fig. 1, Element 38) arranged to clamp (Column 7, Lines 31-43) the bottom (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced above) of the liner to the support face (Fig. 2, Element 26), the second retention plate having a top (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced above) that in use abuts the bottom of the jaw liner (Fig. 1); a first recess (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced above) in a lower part the rear face (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced above) of the jaw liner.
Holmes discloses wherein the second retention plate can bolted riveted (Column 7, Lines 35-40) but it is silent in wherein a removable retainer insert that extends through the bottom of the jaw liner and includes an anchor part that is accommodated within the first recess and a head part that couples with a side of the second retention plate.
Nonetheless, Holmes teaches a removable retainer insert (Fig. 2, Element 34) that extends through the top (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced above) of the jaw liner and includes an anchor part (see annotated Fig. 3 of Holmes reproduced above) that is accommodated within the first recess (see 2nd annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced above) and a head part (Fig. 3, Element 42) that couple with a side (see 1st annotated Fig. 2 of Holmes reproduced below, specifically second recess) of a retention plate (Fig. 2, Element 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Holmes of using a removable retainer insert in the top clamping mechanism into the bottom clamping mechanism so that a removable retainer insert that extends through the bottom of the jaw liner and includes an anchor part that is accommodated within the first recess and a head part that couples with a side of the second retention plate to provide the bottom of the jaw assembly with a fastening device and a clamped configuration wherein the fastening device provides a clamping force along the fastening axis and a released configuration where the fastening device doesn’t prevent the liner from being separated from the frame (Abstract; Column 7, Lines 31-35).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN214514787U, CN215694228U, EP2674218A1 & FR2530491A1- Retention Plate
CN112403565A & DE102016106177A1- Jaw Crusher
The Ratchet Shop (2021) - Lifting Eye
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM 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 Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/A.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
