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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "20" and "26" both point to the detachable retention plate in Figure 8 (“20” should point to the fixed cast part next to the plate according to the specification). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, “the lower second seat sidewall diverge” should read “the lower second seat sidewall diverges”
In claim 10, “the retention plate” should read “the detachable retention plate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 202155203 U).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a swing jaw of a jaw crusher comprising a cast swing jaw frame 5 and a retention seat 8 for a toggle seat 7, the retention seat 8 including a first retention seat part 8, wherein the retention seat 8 includes a detachable retention plate 1 configured to couple to the first retention seat part so as to clamp the toggle seat 7 therebetween in a wedged clamping arrangement (all illustrated in Figure 1 shown below).
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1, Zhang discloses that the first retention seat part 8 is integrally cast with the cast swing jaw frame 5 (see Figure 1 below).
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 1, Zhang discloses that the retention seat 8 upon assembly includes opposed sidewalls, wherein a lower sidewall of the opposed sidewalls diverges towards a rear wall of the retention seat 8 (walls pointed to in Figure 1 below) to wedge the toggle seat 7 in position in the assembled retention seat 8.
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on claim 1, Zhang discloses that the retention seat 8 upon assembly includes opposed sidewalls that diverge towards a rear wall of the retention seat (walls pointed to in Figure 1 below) to wedge the toggle seat 7 in position in the assembled retention seat 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
680
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on claim 1, Zhang discloses that the first retention seat part includes a first sidewall and a rear wall of the retention seat 8, and wherein the detachable retention plate 1 includes a second sidewall of the retention seat 8 (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on claim 1, Zhang discloses that the cast swing jaw frame 5 includes a recess for the detachable retention plate 1, and wherein the detachable retention plate 1 includes a first part dimensioned to be accommodated in the recess and a second part that extends proud of the recess and includes the second sidewall of the retention seat 8 (Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on claim 1, Zhang discloses that the toggle seat 7 includes a rear seat wall, a front seat wall having an elongated plate-receiving groove, an upper first seat sidewall and a lower second seat sidewall, wherein the lower second seat sidewall diverges towards the rear seat wall (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on claim 1, Zhang discloses that the toggle seat 7 includes a rear seat wall, a front seat wall having an elongated plate-receiving groove, a first seat sidewall and a second seat sidewall, wherein the first seat sidewall and second seat sidewall diverge towards the rear seat wall (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on claim 1, Zhang discloses that the retention plate 1 is configured to be bolted 2 to the cast swing jaw frame 5 (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on claim 1, Zhang discloses that the retention seat 8 includes two or more detachable retention plates 1/9 (in Figures 1 and 4 respectively).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses a jaw crusher comprising a fixed jaw and a swing jaw according to claim 1 (Figure 6 below; see the rejection of claim 1 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
546
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Xu (CN 111482223 A).
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on claim 1, Zhang discloses a rear wall in the retention seat but is silent on a support recess extending into the retention seat beyond the rear wall and configured to receive a support flange of the toggle seat for supporting the toggle seat in a suspended position. However, Xu teaches that the retention seat 181 includes a rear wall and a support recess extending into the retention seat 181 beyond its rear wall and configured to receive a support flange 183 (which is a fixing bolt in this case) of the toggle seat 182 for supporting the toggle seat 182 in a suspended position by way of bolting onto the retention seat 181 (Figure 2 below, 4th paragraph of Specific Implementation Examples in translation). Therefore, 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 support recess for Zhang’s retention seat to contain and support a bolted toggle seat.
PNG
media_image3.png
359
489
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORLANDO J RIOS whose telephone number is (571)270-0828. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-4pm.
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.
/ORLANDO J RIOS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
