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
Claim 10, 18, 20 is 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.
Regarding claim 10, while Hurley, Kunz, and Wells (prior art of record) all present different designs of wear members for buckets, none of these references, nor any other reference, teach the specific structure of the lead-in cutout having linear edges at a specific angle along with a curvilinear junction. In view of the prior art of record, any obvious combination to include a lead-in cutout with this structure as currently claimed would require improper hindsight reasoning and render the prior art unsatisfactory for it intended purpose. For this reason, the claim is allowable.
Regarding claim 18, the bucket lip lower surface, coupler lower surface, and shroud lower surface are claimed as being arranged in a “common plane”. Examiner interprets this to mean the noted surfaces are coplanar. No prior art reference alone or in combination teaches all the claimed features of material channels and lead-in cutouts of the independent claim, and the bottom surfaces of the lip, coupler, and shroud being co-planar in claim 18. Any obvious combination to include material channels, lead-in cutouts, and the bottom surfaces of the lip, coupler, and shroud being co-planar would require improper hindsight reasoning and render the prior art unsatisfactory for it intended purpose For this reason, the claim is allowable.
Regarding claim 20, Wells specifically does not define a similar pocket-nose dimension as claimed. While there are other prior art that disclose a similar pocket-nose dimension to the claimed invention, there is no single reference that discloses the specific pocket-nose dimension along with the claimed features of material channels and lead-in cutouts of the independent claim. In this case, the wear member of Wells is a top cover wear member which is structurally different from the other prior art. Any obvious combination to include the pocket-nose dimension as claimed on the device of Wells would require too substantial of a redesign. No prior art of record, nor any other reference, teaches all the claimed material channels, lead-in cutouts, and specific pocket-nose dimension. Any obvious combination to include these features would require hindsight reasoning and render any prior art device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
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, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hurley et al. (US 20130180137).
Regarding claim 1, Hurley discloses a bucket lip shroud comprising:
a shroud body including a leading edge, a shroud lower surface, a shroud upper surface, and a shroud back surface forming a mounting pocket (Fig 13; shroud 62 with leading edge and surfaces and mounting pocket between 66 and 67);
the shroud body further including a first sidewall and a second sidewall, and the shroud upper surface extending between the first sidewall and the second sidewall and being contoured so as to form a first material channel adjacent to the first sidewall, a second material channel adjacent to the second sidewall, and a central wedge portion (first and second sidewalls 72 and 73; first and second material channels 74; Fig 13; the surface between channels 74 is the central wedge portion); and
the central wedge portion extending laterally between the first material channel and the second material channel, and rearwardly and upwardly from the leading edge at a wedge angle relative to the shroud lower surface (Fig 13; the central wedge portion extends between the channels 74 rearwardly and upwardly from the leading edge; the wedge angle is between surface 70 and 71).
Regarding claim 6, Hurley discloses the shroud wherein a wedge thickness dimension is defined between the shroud back surface and the central wedge portion, and a sidewall protrusion distance is defined between the wedge portion and each respective one of the first sidewall and the second sidewall (see Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
407
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Claim(s) 11, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kunz (US 20150033596).
Regarding claim 11, Kunz discloses bucket lip shroud comprising:
a shroud body including a forward nose portion including a leading edge, an upper leg and a lower leg each extending from the forward nose portion, and a mounting pocket extending rearward of the forward nose portion and vertically between the upper leg and the lower leg (Fig 6; shroud 100 with leading edge of portion 110; pocket 114 and upper and lower legs depicted in Fig 7); and
the shroud body further including a shroud upper surface contoured so as to form a central wedge portion, and each of a first material channel and a second material channel flanking the central wedge portion, originating at the leading edge, and extending upwardly and rearwardly upon the forward nose portion and the upper leg (see Annotated Figure 2; the claim language regarding the leading edge is broad; the material channels are considered to originate at the leading edge).
PNG
media_image2.png
389
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 13, Kunz discloses the shroud wherein the shroud body further includes a first sidewall and a second sidewall disposed laterally outward, respectively, of the first material channel and the second material channel (first and second sidewall 113 and 115 are outward of the first and second material channels).
Regarding claim 14, Kunz discloses the shroud wherein a sidewall protrusion distance, in an upward and forward direction, is defined between the central wedge portion and each of the first sidewall and the second sidewall (see Annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
292
709
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 15, Kunz discloses 15. The shroud of claim 14 wherein each of the first sidewall and the second sidewall forms, in elevation, a rearwardly swept-in profile, and the central wedge portion forms, in elevation, a rearwardly swept-out profile (claim language is broad; see Annotated Figure 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
292
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Regarding claim 16, Kunz discloses the shroud wherein the central wedge portion originates at the leading edge and forms a planar face between the first material channel and the second material channel (see Annotated Figure 2; the central wedge portion is considered to originate at the leading edge and form a planar face).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wells et al. (US 20220372735).
Regarding claim 1, Wells discloses a bucket lip shroud comprising:
a shroud body including a leading edge, a shroud lower surface, a shroud upper surface, and a shroud back surface forming a mounting pocket (shroud 300; Figs 2-3 with leading edge 414; mounting pocket is space created by 314 and 302 in Fig 3; shroud lower surface 302);
the shroud body further including a first sidewall and a second sidewall, and the shroud upper surface extending between the first sidewall and the second sidewall and being contoured so as to form a first material channel adjacent to the first sidewall, a second material channel adjacent to the second sidewall, and a central wedge portion (first and second sidewalls 326/328; central wedge portion 318/346; first and second material channels 322 and 352); and
the central wedge portion extending laterally between the first material channel and the second material channel, and rearwardly and upwardly from the leading edge at a wedge angle relative to the shroud lower surface (central wedge portion 318/346 extends between the material channels and rearwardly and upwardly from the leading edge at an angle relative to the lower surface 302).
Regarding claim 6, Wells discloses the shroud wherein a wedge thickness dimension is defined between the shroud back surface and the central wedge portion, and a sidewall protrusion distance is defined between the wedge portion and each respective one of the first sidewall and the second sidewall (see Annotated Figure 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
445
518
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Regarding claim 9, Wells discloses the shroud wherein the leading edge forms a first lead-in cutout in communication with the first material channel, and a second lead-in cutout in communication with the second material channel (claim language is broad; first and second cutouts 356 and 358 are considered to be in communication with the material channels as they are both on the top surface; the embodiment depicted in the other figures also depict the cutouts in communication with the channels).
Regarding claim 17, Wells discloses a bucket lip assembly comprising:
an elongate bucket lip including a forward lip edge having a plurality of coupler stations in an alternating arrangement with a plurality of shroud stations (Fig 1; shroud stations where shrouds 300 are located);
a shroud mounted upon one of the plurality of shroud stations, and including a leading edge, a shroud lower surface, a shroud upper surface, and a shroud back surface (shroud 300; Figs 2-3 with leading edge 414);
the shroud further including a first sidewall, a second sidewall, a central wedge portion, a first material channel formed between the central wedge portion and the first sidewall, and a second material channel formed between the central wedge portion and the second sidewall (first and second sidewalls 326/328; central wedge portion 318/346; first and second material channels 322 and 352); and
the leading edge forming a first lead-in cutout in communication with the first material channel, and a second lead-in cutout in communication with the second material channel (claim language is broad; first and second cutouts 356 and 358 are considered to be in communication with the material channels as they are both on the top surface; the embodiment depicted in the other figures also depict the cutouts in communication with the channels).
Regarding claim 19, Wells discloses the bucket lip assembly wherein the plurality of coupler stations includes a coupler station having a vertically oriented casted surface, and the first sidewall at least partially obscures the vertically oriented casted surface (claim language is broad; there would have to be some kind of a vertically oriented surface of the coupler stations in Fig 1 and the shroud sidewall would at least partially obscure the vertical surface).
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) 2-5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley as applied to claims 1 and 6 above.
Regarding claim 2, Hurley fails to specifically disclose the wedge angle being between 30 and 60 degrees; however, Hurley does disclose that the surfaces 70/71 converge toward the first end or leading edge of the shroud (para [0094], lines 12-17). Therefore, the angle between the surface 70/71 can be adjusted in order to adjust the length of the entire shroud. As a result of the angle controlling the length of the overall shroud, the wedge angle is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the angle may be adjusted in order to adjust the length of the overall shroud. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the wedge angle to be between 30 and 60 degrees, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding claim 3, Hurley discloses the shroud wherein the central wedge portion has a linear profile in a vertical plane (Fig 13; the surface 70 of the central wedge portion is considered to have a linear profile in a vertical plane).
Regarding claim 4, Hurley discloses the shroud wherein the shroud body includes a nose surface extending between the leading edge and the shroud lower surface, and the nose surface defines a nose angle relative to the shroud lower surface (Hurley is considered to disclose a nose angle similar to the claimed invention; see Annotated Figure 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
205
500
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6
Regarding claim 5, Hurley appears to disclose the shroud wherein the nose angle is from 25⁰ to 50⁰ (see Annotated Figure 6).
For the sake of argument, Hurley does disclose that the surfaces 70/71 converge toward the first end or leading edge of the shroud (para [0094], lines 12-17). The surface 71 controls the nose angle. Therefore, the nose angle of surface 71 and the wedge angle between the surface 70/71 can be adjusted in order to adjust the length of the entire shroud. As a result of the wedge angle and nose angle controlling the length of the overall shroud, the nose angle is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the nose angle may be adjusted in order to adjust the length of the overall shroud. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the nose angle to be between 25 and 50 degrees, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding claim 7, Hurley discloses the shroud wherein the sidewall protrusion distance is from 25% to 100% of the wedge thickness dimension (claim language is broad and the claimed range is large; see Annotated Figure 1; the sidewall protrusion distance is considered to be within the claimed range of the wedge thickness dimension).
For the sake of argument that Hurley does not expressly disclose that the sidewall protrusion distance is between 25% to 100% of the wedge thickness dimension, it does disclose that the side surfaces could be adjusted in order for the shroud to be in close fitment with the side of adjacent tooth members (para [0095], lines 6-10). As a result of the sidewall surfaces controlling both the sidewall protrusion distances and the close fitment with adjacent tooth members, sidewall protrusion distance is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the distance may be adjusted in order for the shroud to have close fitment with adjacent tooth members. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the sidewall protrusion distance to be 25% to 100% of the wedge thickness dimension, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding claim 8, Hurley discloses the shroud wherein:
the first sidewall forms a first shroud body lateral surface and the second sidewall forms a second shroud body lateral surface;
a shroud width dimension is defined between the first shroud body lateral surface and the second shroud body lateral surface; and
the central wedge portion defines a wedge width dimension that is from 30% to 60% of the shroud width dimension (see Annotated Figure 7; the wedge width dimension appears to be within the claimed range of the shroud width dimension).
PNG
media_image7.png
312
709
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7
For the sake of argument that Hurley does not expressly disclose that the wedge width dimension is between 30% to 60% of the shroud width dimension, it does disclose that the shroud body lateral surfaces could be adjusted in order for the shroud to be in close fitment with the side of adjacent tooth members (para [0095], lines 6-10). As a result of the shroud body lateral surfaces controlling both the shroud width dimension and the close fitment with adjacent tooth members, shroud width dimension is considered to be a results effective variable in so far as the width may be adjusted in order for the shroud to have close fitment with adjacent tooth members. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the wedge width to be 30% to 60% of the shroud width dimension, as it has been held that the optimization of a results effective variable would have been obvious so as to achieve an optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunz as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wells et al. (US 20220372735).
Regarding claim 12, Kunz fails to specifically discloses the shroud wherein the leading edge forms a first lead-in cutout in communication with the first material channel, and a second lead-in cutout in communication with the second material channel.
However, Wells discloses a similar shroud with first and second material channels (Fig 2; first and second material channels 322 and 352) and teaches the shroud having first and second lead-in cutouts in communication with the material channels (358 and 356; claim language is broad; the cutouts are considered to be in communication because they are on the same face as the channels).
Kunz and Wells and considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of bucket wear members. 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 Kunz to incorporate the teachings of Wells and combined the use of first and second lead-in cutouts on the wear shroud. One would have made this modification for the purpose of weight reduction of the shroud (Wells; para [0035]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Attwood et al. (US 20160362875) discloses a similar lip and shroud assembly with structure that is similar to the claimed invention.
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