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 § 112(b)
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 33 is 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 33 recites the limitation “approximately 0 cm and approximately 5 cm.” The term “approximately” is a relative term that fails to provide definitive boundaries on the claimed numerical range. That is, approximately 0cm to approximately 5cm could include the range of 0.1cm to 5.1cm, 3 cm to 8cm, 5cm to 10cm, etc.
For the purposes of examination, the range “approximately 0 cm and approximately 5 cm” is interpreted to comprise any range with bounds in numerical proximity to 0cm and 5cm as would be reasonably understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly claim 33 is rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 5-12, 32-33, 39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Serrurier (US 20170356165 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Serrurier discloses (in at least figures 1-9, the description, and the claims) a wear indicator supported on a wear surface of a machine component (fig.’s 1-3, fig. 6, and par.’s 18-19: wear member systems 15 each including wear member 16 with one or more wear indicators 118), the wear indicator comprising:
a first material thickness indicator having a first thickness (fig. 7 and par. 44: each wear indicator with portions 118a, 118b, 118c, and 118d of different thicknesses. 118a has first thickness);
a second material thickness indicator positioned adjacent the first material thickness indicator and having a second thickness that is less than the first thickness (fig. 7 and par. 44: each wear indicator with portions 118a, 118b, 118c, and 118d of different thicknesses. 118b has thickness less than 118a); and
a third material thickness indicator positioned adjacent the first material thickness indicator and the second material thickness indicator and having a third thickness that is less than the second thickness (fig. 7 and par. 44: each wear indicator with portions 118a, 118b, 118c, and 118d of different thicknesses. 118c has thickness less than 118b),
wherein the wear indicator is configured to visually indicate a material thickness of the wear surface via the first, second, and third material thickness indicators (fig.’s 1-3, fig. 6, and par. 19: “One or more wear indicators 118 (shown in FIG. 6) may be incorporated into one or more surfaces of wear member 16 in order to provide a perceptible indication of the amount of wear at those surfaces of wear member 16 . A “perceptible” indication of the amount of wear refers to a difference in one or more characteristics of portions of the wear indicator that become exposed as a result of wear at a surface of the wear member and that may be detected by either a human observer or by some type of automated sensory device.” See also par. 44 and par. 49.).
Regarding Claim 2: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator of claim 1, wherein the first material thickness indicator is disposed within an indicator housing, the second material thickness indicator is disposed within the indicator housing, and the third material thickness indicator is disposed within the indicator housing (fig.’s 1-3, fig.’s 6-7, and par. 41: wear member 16 houses indicators 118. See par. 41: “Wear member 16 may also define one or more wear indicators 118 located in one or more wear surfaces of wear member 16 .”).
Regarding Claim 5: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator of claim 1, wherein the first, second, and third material thickness indicators are positioned such that the first thickness, the second thickness, and the third thickness are measured parallel to a direction of wear of the wear surface (fig. 7 and par. 43: “The plug member may be oriented with a central axis of the plug member extending in a direction substantially parallel to a direction of wear of the wear member.” See also par. 49.).
Regarding Claim 6: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator of claim 1, wherein the first thickness corresponds to 75% of a thickness of the wear indicator, such that the first material thickness indicator is configured to visually indicate 25% wear of the wear surface (fig.’s 7-9 and par. 46: “ A first one of the axial cross sections [118a] corresponds to an approximately 25% worn level for wear member 16 […] A second one of the axial cross sections [118b] of wear indicator 118 corresponds to an approximately 50% worn level for wear member 16 […] A third one of the axial cross sections [118c] corresponds to an approximately 75% worn level for wear member 16 .”).
Regarding Claim 7: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator of claim 6, wherein the second thickness corresponds to 50% of the thickness of the wear indicator, such that the second material thickness indicator is configured to visually indicate 50% wear of the wear surface (fig.’s 7-9 and par. 46: “ A first one of the axial cross sections [118a] corresponds to an approximately 25% worn level for wear member 16 […] A second one of the axial cross sections [118b] of wear indicator 118 corresponds to an approximately 50% worn level for wear member 16 […] A third one of the axial cross sections [118c] corresponds to an approximately 75% worn level for wear member 16 .”).
Regarding Claim 8: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator of claim 7, wherein the third thickness corresponds to 25% of the thickness of the wear indicator, such that the third material thickness indicator is configured to visually indicate 75% wear of the wear surface (fig.’s 7-9 and par. 46: “ A first one of the axial cross sections [118a] corresponds to an approximately 25% worn level for wear member 16 […] A second one of the axial cross sections [118b] of wear indicator 118 corresponds to an approximately 50% worn level for wear member 16 […] A third one of the axial cross sections [118c] corresponds to an approximately 75% worn level for wear member 16 .”).
Regarding Claim 9: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator of claim 1, wherein the first, second, and third material thickness indicators are formed from a material with a different color than that of the wear surface (par 19: “A “perceptible” indication of the amount of wear refers to a difference in one or more characteristics of portions of the wear indicator that become exposed as a result of wear at a surface of the wear member and that may be detected by either a human observer or by some type of automated sensory device. Some examples of characteristics of the wear indicator associated with a worn area of a surface that may be detected by one or both of a human observer and an automated sensory device may include portions of the wear indicator that have at least one of different shape, different color […]” and par. 49: “The plurality of perceptibly different and distinct axial cross sections of the wear indicator may be discernable from each other as a result of at least one of different shapes, different colors […]”).
Regarding Claim 10: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator of claim 1, wherein the first material thickness indicator has a first cross-sectional area as viewed along a wear direction, the second material thickness indicator has a second cross-sectional area as viewed along the wear direction, and the third material thickness indicator has a third cross-sectional area as viewed along the wear direction, and wherein the first cross-sectional area is less than the second cross-sectional area and the third cross-sectional area (fig. 7 and par. 44: each wear indicator with portions 118a, 118b, 118c, and 118d of different cross-sectional areas. See par. 43: “Wear indicator 118 may include a plurality of perceptibly different and distinct axial cross sections taken perpendicular to the central axis of the plug member in axially spaced planes along the central axis”).
Regarding Claim 11: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator of claim 10, wherein the second cross-sectional area is less than the third cross-sectional area (fig. 7 and par. 44: each wear indicator with portions 118a, 118b, 118c, and 118d of different cross-sectional areas. See par. 43: “Wear indicator 118 may include a plurality of perceptibly different and distinct axial cross sections taken perpendicular to the central axis of the plug member in axially spaced planes along the central axis.” As shown in fig. 7, the cross sectional area of 118b is less than that of 118c).
Regarding Claim 12: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator of claim 11, wherein the first, second, and third material thickness indicators are cylindrical (fig. 7: layers of wear indicator 118 shown as cylindrical sections).
Furthermore, it has been held that changes in the shape of a device involves only routine skill in the art unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The cylindrical indicators as disclosed in the application do not provide a new or unexpected result regarding the function housing over the device disclosed by Serrurier. See MPEP 2144(IV)(B). Changing the shape of the indicators does not negatively affect the prior art, nor does the cylindrical profile appear to be critical to the current invention.
Regarding Claim 32: Serrurier discloses (in at least figures 1-9, the description, and the claims) a wear indicator system supported on a machine component (fig.’s 1-3, fig. 6, and par.’s 18-19: wear member systems 15 each including wear member 16 with one or more wear indicators 118), the wear indicator system comprising:
a plurality of wear indicators positioned within proximity to each other on a machine component (fig.’s 1-2, fig.’s 6-7 and par. 41: “Wear member 16 may also define one or more wear indicators 118 located in one or more wear surfaces of wear member 16 . ”), the wear indicators secured within bores of the machine component formed on a surface opposite a wear surface of the machine component (fig.’s 1-3, fig.’s 6-7, and par. 41: wear member 16 houses indicators 118. See par. 41: “Wear member 16 may also define one or more wear indicators 118 located in one or more wear surfaces of wear member 16 .” See also par. 51: “Wear members may include tools such as the bucket 12 [..] or any other tool or component that is subject to wear during use of the machine. The wear indicator according to various implementations of this disclosure may be produced as a separate component and installed into a recess in a surface of a wear member, pressed into a through hole bored through a wear member, or machined or formed directly into the surface of the wear member. In addition, multiple surface wear indicators may be provided on different regions of different surfaces of a wear member of the machine, thereby enabling accurate monitoring of an overall life expectancy for the wear member and facilitating planning of required maintenance intervals.”), the plurality of wear indicators including,
a first wear indicator being spaced apart from the wear surface by a first distance, visible exposure of the first wear indicator indicating that the wear surface has completed a first stage of wear (fig.’s 7-9 and par. 46: “ A first one of the axial cross sections [118a] corresponds to an approximately 25% worn level for wear member 16 […] A second one of the axial cross sections [118b] of wear indicator 118 corresponds to an approximately 50% worn level for wear member 16 […] A third one of the axial cross sections [118c] corresponds to an approximately 75% worn level for wear member 16 .” See also fig.’s 1-2, par.’s 19-20, and par. 41.),
a second wear indicator being spaced apart from the wear surface by a second distance greater than the first distance, visible exposure of the second wear indicator indicating that the wear surface has completed a second stage of wear (fig.’s 7-9 and par. 46: “ A first one of the axial cross sections [118a] corresponds to an approximately 25% worn level for wear member 16 […] A second one of the axial cross sections [118b] of wear indicator 118 corresponds to an approximately 50% worn level for wear member 16 […] A third one of the axial cross sections [118c] corresponds to an approximately 75% worn level for wear member 16 .” See also fig.’s 1-2, par.’s 19-20, and par. 41.), and
a third wear indicator being spaced apart from the wear surface by a third distance greater than the second distance, visible exposure of the third wear indicator indicating that the wear surface has completed a third stage of wear (fig.’s 7-9 and par. 46: “ A first one of the axial cross sections [118a] corresponds to an approximately 25% worn level for wear member 16 […] A second one of the axial cross sections [118b] of wear indicator 118 corresponds to an approximately 50% worn level for wear member 16 […] A third one of the axial cross sections [118c] corresponds to an approximately 75% worn level for wear member 16 .” See also fig.’s 1-2, par.’s 19-20, and par. 41.).
Regarding Claim 33: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator system of claim 32, wherein the first wear indicator, the second wear indicator, and the third wear indicator are spaced apart from one another by between approximately 0 cm and approximately 5 cm (fig. 7: wear indicator with portions 118a, 118b, 118c, and 118d spaced directly adjacent, that is, 0cm apart.).
Regarding Claim 39: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator system of claim 32, wherein the wear indicators are secured to the component via an interference fit (par. 51: “The wear indicator according to various implementations of this disclosure may be produced as a separate component and installed into a recess in a surface of a wear member, pressed into a through hole bored through a wear member, or machined or formed directly into the surface of the wear member. In addition, multiple surface wear indicators may be provided on different regions of different surfaces of a wear member of the machine, thereby enabling accurate monitoring of an overall life expectancy for the wear member and facilitating planning of required maintenance intervals.”).
Regarding Claim 41: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator system of claim 32, wherein each of the wear indicators has the same cross-sectional dimension as the others (fig.’s 6-7 and par. 41: one or more wear members in system have same shape/dimension as representative wear member 118 as shown.).
Claims 15, 17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pratt (US 20180087246 A1).
Regarding Claim 15: Pratt discloses (in at least figures 13-14, the description, and the claims) a mining machine (fig.’s 13-14 and par.’s 117-119: dump body 510 of dump truck fitted with dumb body liner 524 provided with wear indicators 514. See par. 3: wear indicator for machines including “mining and construction machines, such as tractors, bulldozers, backhoes, excavators, motor graders, and mining trucks or equipment commonly employ earth-working or material handling buckets and/or blades to dig, cut, scrap, pick up, move and/or level earth or materials being excavated or loaded.”) comprising:
a chassis (fig.’s 13-14 and par.’s 117-119: dump body 510 of dump truck fitted with dumb body liner 524 provided with wear indicators 514. See par. 9: Dump truck is a rigid dump truck (RDT) “As the name implies, RDTs have a stiff chassis similar to most commercial vehicles. All the components necessary to make the equipment operate is built around this one component that includes the engine, operator's cab, bed, axles, and steering components.”);
a wear deck supported by the chassis, the wear deck configured to support a material being mined (fig.’s 13-14 and par.’s 117-119: dump body 510 of dump truck fitted with dumb body liner 524 provided with wear indicators 514.);
a mechanism for moving the material across the wear deck (fig.’s 13-14 and par.’s 117-119: dump body 510 of dump truck fitted with dumb body liner 524 provided with wear indicators 514. See par. 9: Dump truck is a rigid dump truck (RDT) “As the name implies, RDTs have a stiff chassis similar to most commercial vehicles. All the components necessary to make the equipment operate is built around this one component that includes the engine, operator's cab, bed, axles, and steering components.”); and
a plurality of wear indicators supported adjacent a surface of the wear deck, the plurality of wear indicators configured to provide a visual indication of a thickness of the wear deck (fig.’s 13-14 and par.’s 117-119: dump body 510 of dump truck fitted with dumb body liner 524 provided with wear indicators 514. See par. 119: “wear indicators 514 are brass wear pins or blocks installed in holes or opening provided in a rear surface of the dump body liner 524.” ).
Regarding Claim 17: Pratt discloses the mining machine of claim 15, wherein the plurality of material thickness indicators are formed of a material having a different color than a material of the wear deck (fig.’s 13-14 and par.’s 117-119: dump body 510 of dump truck fitted with dumb body liner 524 provided with wear indicators 514. See par. 119: “wear indicators 514 are brass wear pins or blocks installed in holes or opening provided in a rear surface of the dump body liner 524.” See par. 19: “visual wear indicator can be an insert inserted or embedded into an opening or hole, and having an end surface located below the original surface level of the wear surface […] the visual wear indicator can be colored to color differentiate the visual wear indicator from the steel color surrounding the hole or opening into the steel surface.”).
Regarding Claim 20: Pratt discloses the mining machine of claim 15, wherein the wear indicators are disposed on the wear deck (fig.’s 13-14 and par.’s 117-119: dump body 510 of dump truck fitted with dumb body liner 524 provided with wear indicators 514. See par. 119: “wear indicators 514 are brass wear pins or blocks installed in holes or opening provided in a rear surface of the dump body liner 524.” ).
Regarding Claim 21: Pratt discloses the mining machine of claim 15, wherein the wear indicators are disposed under the surface of the wear deck (fig.’s 13-14 and par.’s 117-119: dump body 510 of dump truck fitted with dumb body liner 524 provided with wear indicators 514. See par. 119: “wear indicators 514 are brass wear pins or blocks installed in holes or opening provided in a rear surface of the dump body liner 524.” See also par. 19: “ visual wear indicator can be an insert inserted or embedded into an opening or hole, and having an end surface located below the original surface level of the wear surface.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrurier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sidles (US 20160178483 A1).
Regarding Claim 3: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator of claim 2, wherein the indicator housing includes an upper surface (fig.’s 6-7: upper surface of indicators 118 in wear member 16)
Serrurier does not disclose wherein said upper surface is positioned flush with the wear surface, and wherein, prior to experiencing wear, the first material thickness indicator is covered by the upper surface.
Sidles discloses an analogous art (fig. 3 and par.’s 37-39: wear sensor 66 including at least one wear member 47) wherein the indicator housing includes an upper surface configured to be positioned flush with the wear surface, and wherein, prior to experiencing wear, the first material thickness indicator is covered by the upper surface (fig. 3 and par.’s 32-39 : wear sensor comprising first wear member 74 within housing 54 that includes surface 56 continuous with surface 52. See par. 32: “housing 54 may include a surface 56 that is continuous with the surface 52, such that the surfaces 52 and 56 wear together. In this way, the sensing device 42 may measure a wear parameter of the housing 54, which may be representative of an amount of wear experienced by the track link 26.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the upper surface of Serrurier to, as taught by Sidles, be flush with the wear surface and to be cover the first material thickness prior to wear thereby protecting the wear indicator layers during preliminary production and assembly procedures (Sidles par. 3 and par. 32).
Regarding Claim 13: Serrurier in view of Sidles discloses the wear indicator of claim 2, and Sidles discloses wherein the indicator housing is circular in profile when viewed parallel to a wear direction of the wear indicator (Sidles fig.’s 2-4 and par. 32: housing 54 shown as circular).
Furthermore, it has been held that changes in the shape of a device involves only routine skill in the art unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The circular profile disclosed in the application does not provide a new or unexpected result regarding the function housing over the device disclosed by Serrurier in view of Sidles. See MPEP 2144(IV)(B). Changing the shape of the housing does not negatively affect the prior art, nor does the circular profile appear to be critical to the current invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the housing Serrurier to, as taught by Sidles, to allow for better compatibility with track-type mobile machinery thereby expanding the utility of the device (Sidles par.’s 2-9).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrurier and Sidles as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Pratt.
Regarding Claim 4: Serrurier and Sidles disclose the wear indicator of claim 3, and Serrurier further discloses wherein the indicator housing includes a bottom surface opposite the upper surface (fig.’s 1-3, fig.’s 6-7, and par. 41: wear member 16 houses indicators 118. See par. 41: “Wear member 16 may also define one or more wear indicators 118 located in one or more wear surfaces of wear member 16 .” See also par. 51: “The wear indicator according to various implementations of this disclosure may be produced as a separate component and installed into a recess in a surface of a wear member, pressed into a through hole bored through a wear member, or machined or formed directly into the surface of the wear member. In addition, multiple surface wear indicators may be provided on different regions of different surfaces of a wear member of the machine, thereby enabling accurate monitoring of an overall life expectancy for the wear member and facilitating planning of required maintenance intervals.”),
Serrurier and Sidles do not explicitly disclose the bottom surface including a plurality of blind bores configured to receive the first, second, and third material thickness indicators therein.
Pratt discloses an analogous art (fig. 1, fig.’s 15-29 and par.’s 84-89: bucket 10 comprising wear indicators 14) wherein the indicator housing includes a bottom surface opposite the upper surface, the bottom surface including a plurality of blind bores configured to receive the first, second, and third material thickness indicators therein (fig.’s 15-29 and par.’s 122-137: wear indicator installed as multiple variations 14A-14U in blind holes within main body 12. See par. 85: “main body 12 defined by a pair of sides 12A connected to a shell 12B and upper support 12BA. The shell 12B is a curved load bearing plate that defines the floor and back interior surface of the bucket cavity.” ).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the bottom surface of Serrurier in view of Sidles to, as taught by Pratt, include a plurality of blind bores that allow for the secure engagement of the wear indicators with the body regardless indicator shapes or configurations (Pratt par. 85-87 and par.’s 122-137).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrurier as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hunter (WO 2021217229 A1)1.
Regarding Claim 14: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the indicator housing includes an upper surface configured to be positioned flush with the wear surface, and wherein the upper surface and the wear surface are curved.
Hunter discloses an analogous art (fig. 2B and par. 37: support structure 16 with wear layer 18.) wherein the indicator housing includes an upper surface configured to be positioned flush with the wear surface, and wherein the upper surface and the wear surface are curved (fig. 2B and par. 37: support structure 16 of the segment 12 defines a curved flume geometry where the middle portion 22 forms an arc from which sides 24 and 26 curve upwards. The wear layer 18 is also arced, complementary to the arc of middle portion 22.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the flush, curved geometry of Hunter’s wear indicator and housing to be integrated in the device of Serrurier to produce form that compliments a desired geometry and that indicates wear without impeding the normal functionality of the structure (Hunter par.’s 3-4 and par. 37)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Serrurier.
Regarding Claim 16: Pratt discloses the mining machine of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of wear indicators includes a plurality of material thickness indicators configured to visually indicate 25%, 50%, and 75% wear.
Serrurier discloses an analogous art (fig.’s 1-3, fig. 6, and par.’s 18-19: wear member systems 15 each including wear member 16 with one or more wear indicators 118) wherein each of a plurality of wear indicators includes a plurality of material thickness indicators configured to visually indicate 25%, 50%, and 75% wear (fig.’s 7-9 and par. 46: “ A first one of the axial cross sections [118a] corresponds to an approximately 25% worn level for wear member 16 […] A second one of the axial cross sections [118b] of wear indicator 118 corresponds to an approximately 50% worn level for wear member 16 […] A third one of the axial cross sections [118c] corresponds to an approximately 75% worn level for wear member 16 .”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the material thickness indicator arrangement, as taught by Serrurier, to be included in the device of Pratt thereby providing definitive benchmarks for wear stages that give a clear visual indication of wear status (Serrurier par. 46).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sidles.
Regarding Claim 18: Pratt discloses the mining machine of claim 15, wherein each of the plurality of material thickness indicators is disposed within an indicator housing (fig.’s 13-14 and par.’s 117-119: dump body 510 of dump truck fitted with dumb body liner 524 provided with wear indicators 514. See par. 119: “wear indicators 514 are brass wear pins or blocks installed in holes or opening provided in a rear surface of the dump body liner 524.” ),
Pratt does not explicitly disclose wherein the indicator housing and the wear deck are formed of the same material.
Sidles discloses an analogous art (fig. 3 and par.’s 37-39: wear sensor 66 including at least one wear member 47) wherein each of the plurality of material thickness indicators is disposed within an indicator housing and wherein the indicator housing and the wear deck are formed of the same material (fig.’s 1-3 and par.’s 32-33: “the sensing device 42 may measure a wear parameter of the housing 54, which may be representative of an amount of wear experienced by the track link 26. In some embodiments, the housing 54 may include a first section 58 and a second section 60. The first section 58 may include the surface 56, while the second section 60 may be positioned at an opposite end from the surface 56. In an exemplary embodiment, the first section 58 may be formed from a material that wears at substantially the same rate as the track link 26 (e.g., the same material), so that the surfaces 52 and 56 wear at the same rate […] the first section 58 may be made from the same metal material from which link body 50 is made.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Pratt’s indicators to, as taught by Sidles, be formed of the same material as the wear deck such that they wear at the same rate, and are representative of the amount of wear experienced by, as the wear deck thereby enhancing the accuracy of the wear determination (Sidles par.’s 32-33).
Regarding Claim 19: Pratt discloses the mining machine of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein an upper surface of the indicator housing is configured to be flush with the surface of the wear deck such that the indicator housing and the wear deck wear at the same rate.
Sidles discloses an analogous art (fig. 3 and par.’s 37-39: wear sensor 66 including at least one wear member 47) wherein an upper surface of the indicator housing is configured to be flush with the surface of the wear deck such that the indicator housing and the wear deck wear at the same rate (fig. 3 and par.’s 32-33: “The housing 54 may include a surface 56 that is continuous with the surface 52, such that the surfaces 52 and 56 wear together. In this way, the sensing device 42 may measure a wear parameter of the housing 54, which may be representative of an amount of wear experienced by the track link 26 […] ”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the upper surface of Pratt’s indicators to, as taught by Sidles, be flush with the surface of the wear deck such that they wear at the same rate, and are representative of the amount of wear experienced by, as the wear deck thereby enhancing the accuracy of the wear determination (Sidles par.’s 32-33).
Claims 34-35, 40, and 42-43 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrurier as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Pratt.
Regarding Claim 34: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator system of claim 32, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wear indicators are grouped within an indication area having a width of approximately 20 cm.
Pratt discloses an analogous art (fig. 1, fig.’s 15-29 and par.’s 84-89: bucket 10 comprising wear indicators 14) wherein wear indicators are grouped within an indication area having a width of approximately 20 cm (fig. 10 and par. 113-115: bulldozer blade 310 provided with wear indicators 314. See par. 9: Dump truck is a rigid dump truck (RDT) “As the name implies, RDTs have a stiff chassis similar to most commercial vehicles. All the components necessary to make the equipment operate is built around this one component that includes the engine, operator's cab, bed, axles, and steering components.” That is, the wear indicators 314 as shown in fig. 10 on a standard bulldozer blade are grouped within a width of 20cm.).
Further, it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPRQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to for the grouping size of the indicators as taught by Serrurier in view of Pratt to have a width of 20cm in order to provide sufficient coverage of the machine component. Pratt teaches the placement of wear components to indicate wear across the full machine component (Pratt fig. 10). Modification of the grouping size to 20cm in diameter as claimed would not adversely affect the prior art.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the indicator grouping, as taught by Pratt, to be applied in the device of Serrurier thereby ensuring the coverage across the wear surface and allowing for indication of wear throughout the entire machine component (Pratt par.’s 111-115 and par.’s 3-7.).
Regarding Claim 35: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator system of claim 32, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bores include a plurality of blind holes.
Pratt discloses an analogous art (fig. 1, fig.’s 15-29 and par.’s 84-89: bucket 10 comprising wear indicators 14) wherein the bores include a plurality of blind holes, wherein each of the wear indicators is positioned within an associated one of a plurality of blind holes (fig.’s 15-29 and par.’s 122-137: wear indicator installed as multiple variations 14A-14U in blind holes within main body 12. See par. 85: “main body 12 defined by a pair of sides 12A connected to a shell 12B and upper support 12BA. The shell 12B is a curved load bearing plate that defines the floor and back interior surface of the bucket cavity.” ), each blind hole having a different depth that corresponds to a height of the respective wear indicator positioned within the blind hole (par. 16: “visual wear indicator can be configured or constructed to reveal different colors at different depths into the wear surface compared to the original surface level (e.g. blue colored for 0 mm to 0.5 mm of depth into wear surface being inspected or monitored, yellow colored for 0.5 to 1.0 mm of depth into wear surface, orange colored for 1.0 mm to 1.5 mm of depth into wear surface, and red colored of depth into wear surface).” See also par. 89: “wear indicators 14 in length can be from 33% to 75% of the thickness of the steel plate used to make the main body 12.” That is, the wear indicators as shown in fig.’s 15-29 have portions installed in blind holes at different depths corresponding to wear level).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the blind hole configuration, as taught by Pratt, to be utilized in the device of Serrurier to provide more defined indications of wear depth across the machine component (Pratt par.’s 3-7 and par.’s 84-89.)
Regarding Claim 40: Serrurier discloses the wear indicator system of claim 32, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the wear indicators are secured to the component via an adhesive.
Pratt discloses an analogous art (fig. 1, fig.’s 15-29 and par.’s 84-89: bucket 10 comprising wear indicators 14) wherein the wear indicators are secured to the component via an adhesive (par. 91: “Loctite adhesive (e.g. Loctite Red 262 Threadlocker) can be applied to the threads of the pins prior to installation, so that the threaded pins remain thoroughly installed in the shell 12 when installed throughout the life of the bucket 10.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the adhesive, as taught by Pratt, to be utilized in the device of Serrurier to strengthen of the wear indicator’s installation and increase the durability of the assembly in a high impact environment (Pratt par.’s 3-7 and par. 91)
Regarding Claim 42: Serrurier discloses wear indicator system of claim 32, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the system further comprises a plurality of groups of wear indicators, each group positioned the machine component as different locations and configured to detect wear at different locations on the machine component.
Pratt discloses an analogous art (fig. 1, fig.’s 15-29 and par.’s 84-89: bucket 10 comprising wear indicators 14) wherein the system further comprises a plurality of groups of wear indicators, each group positioned the machine component as different locations and configured to detect wear at different locations on the machine component (fig. 10 and par. 113-115: bulldozer blade 310 provided with wear indicators 314. See par. 113: “The wear indicators 314 are located in the vicinity of wear surfaces on the main body 312.” ).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the indicator grouping, as taught by Pratt, to be applied in the device of Serrurier thereby ensuring the coverage across the wear surface and allowing for indication of wear throughout the entire machine component (Pratt par.’s 111-115 and par.’s 3-7.).
Regarding Claim 43: Serrurier in view of Pratt discloses the wear indicator system of claim 42, and Serrurier further discloses wherein visible exposure of one indicator of one of the groups indicates 25% wear at that location, visible exposure of two indicators of the one group indicates 50% wear at that location, and visible exposure of three indicators of the one group indicates 75% wear at that location (fig.’s 7-9 and par. 46: “ A first one of the axial cross sections [118a] corresponds to an approximately 25% worn level for wear member 16 […] A second one of the axial cross sections [118b] of wear indicator 118 corresponds to an approximately 50% worn level for wear member 16 […] A third one of the axial cross sections [118c] corresponds to an approximately 75% worn level for wear member 16 .”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Larsson (US 20160336149 A1) discloses the indicator and machine according to certain limitations of at least claims 1-2, 5-12, 32-33, 39, and 41.
Brammer (US 20170190386 A1) discloses the indicator and machine according to certain limitations of at least claims 1-2, 5-12, 32-33, 39, and 41.
Bognar (US 20190084111 A1) discloses the indicator and machine according to certain limitations of at least claims 1-2, 5-12, 32-33, 39, and 41.
Adam (US 20220063919 A1) discloses the indicator and machine according to certain limitations of at least claims 1-2, 5-12, 32-33, 39, and 41.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN MANCINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, KRISTINA DEHERRERA can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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 MANCINI/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 10/1/26
1 Citations made to attached copy.
Prosecution Insights