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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 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 1 recites the limitation "the lip" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-12 are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the lip" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 14-19 are rejected for depending upon a rejected claim.
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 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 1-6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16-23, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gagnon (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0017313).
Regarding Claim 1, Gagnon discloses a tooth assembly for a digging attachment, the tooth assembly comprising:
An insert (Gagnon: 44) configured to engage the lip (Gagnon: 12, 16),
The insert (Gagnon: 44) including an insert opening (Gagnon: Figure 18: hole in 44, 45) configured to be aligned with a cavity of the lip (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10);
A shroud (Gagnon: 64) configured to engage with at least one of the lip (Gagnon: 12, 16) and the insert (Gagnon: 44) , the shroud (Gagnon: 64) including a shroud opening (Gagnon: holes in 64) aligned with the insert opening (Gagnon: Figure 18: hole in 44, 45); and
A tooth (Gagnon: 48) configured to be positioned at least partially within the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10), the tooth (Gagnon: 48) extendable through the shroud opening (Gagnon: holes in 64) and the insert opening (Gagnon: Figure 18: hole in 44, 45) while a portion of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) having a working length (Gagnon: exposed portion of 48) protrudes beyond the shroud (Gagnon: 64), the tooth (Gagnon: 48) moveable in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10) relative to the shroud (Gagnon: 64) and the insert (Gagnon: 44) to adjust the working length (Gagnon: exposed portion of 48).
Regarding Claim 2, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 1, wherein the shroud (Gagnon: 64) is removably connectable to at least one of the lip (Gagnon: 12, 16) and the insert (Gagnon: 44) (Gagnon: Paragraph [0062]) .
Regarding Claim 3, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 1, further comprising a tooth control mechanism (Gagnon: 60) configured to engage the tooth (Gagnon: 48) to control movement of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10).
Regarding Claim 4, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 3, wherein the tooth control mechanism (Gagnon: 60) is a locking mechanism configured to engage the tooth (Gagnon: 48) to limit movement of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10).
Regarding Claim 5, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 1, wherein:
The shroud (Gagnon: 64) includes a shroud head (Gagnon: end of 64 furthest from 10) that protrudes beyond a leading edge of the lip (Gagnon: Figure 7: Front portion of 12), the shroud opening (Gagnon: holes in 64) being defined in the shroud head (Gagnon: end of 64 furthest from 10), the insert (Gagnon: 44) includes an insert head (Gagnon: front portion of 44) positionable between the shroud head (Gagnon: end of 64 furthest from 10) and the leading edge (Gagnon: Figure 7: Front portion of 12), the insert opening (Gagnon: Figure 18: hole in 44, 45) being defined in the insert head (Gagnon: front portion of 44), and the shroud head (Gagnon: end of 64 furthest from 10) has an inner surface (Gagnon: back end of 64) configured to engage an outer surface (seat of 44 designed to abut 64) of the insert head (Gagnon: front portion of 44).
Regarding Claim 6, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 5, wherein the insert head (Gagnon: front portion of 44) has a stop surface configured to engage the leading edge of the lip (Gagnon: Figure 7: Front portion of 12).
Regarding Claim 8, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 1, wherein the insert (Gagnon: 44) is configured to be at least partially insertable in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10).
Regarding Claim 9, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 1, further comprising an actuator (Gagnon: 26) operable to move the tooth (Gagnon: 48) in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10).
Regarding Claim 13, Gagnon discloses a tooth assembly for a digging attachment, the tooth assembly comprising:
A shroud (Gagnon: 64) configured to engage with the lip (Gagnon: 12, 16), the shroud (Gagnon: 64) including a shroud opening (Gagnon: holes in 64) configured to be aligned with a cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10) of the lip (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10); and
A tooth (Gagnon: 48) configured to be positioned at least partially in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10), the tooth (Gagnon: 48) extendable through the shroud opening (Gagnon: holes in 64) while a portion of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) having a working length (Gagnon: exposed portion of 48) protrudes beyond the shroud (Gagnon: 64), the tooth (Gagnon: 48) moveable in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10) relative to the shroud (Gagnon: 64) to adjust the working length (Gagnon: exposed portion of 48).
Regarding Claim 14, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 13, wherein the shroud (Gagnon: 64) is joined to an insert (Gagnon: 44) positionable between the shroud (Gagnon: 64) and a leading edge of the lip (Gagnon: Figure 7: Front portion of 12).
Regarding Claim 16, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 14, wherein the shroud (Gagnon: 64) engages the insert (Gagnon: 44) .
Regarding Claim 17, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 13, further comprising a locking mechanism (Gagnon: 60) configured to engage the tooth (Gagnon: 48) to limit movement of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10).
Regarding Claim 18, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 13, wherein:
The tooth (Gagnon: 48) has a total length longer than the working length (Gagnon: exposed portion of 48) of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) such that a portion of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) is in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10) when the tooth (Gagnon: 48) extends the working length (Gagnon: exposed portion of 48) beyond the shroud (Gagnon: 64), and the tooth (Gagnon: 48) has engagement features positioned on an outer surface of the tooth (Gagnon: 48), the engagement features (outer radial surface of 48) being configured for engagement with a tooth control mechanism (Gagnon: 60) for controlled movement of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10), the engagement features being positioned on the portion of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10) when the tooth (Gagnon: 48) extends the working length (Gagnon: exposed portion of 48) beyond the shroud (Gagnon: 64).
Regarding Claim 19, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 13, wherein the tooth (Gagnon: 48) is insertable into the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10) via the shroud opening (Gagnon: holes in 64) and removable from the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10) via the shroud opening (Gagnon: holes in 64) without removing the shroud (Gagnon: 64) from the lip (Gagnon: 12, 16)(Gagnon; removing pin 60 allows 48 to be removed).
Regarding Claim 20, Gagnon discloses a tooth (Gagnon: 48) for a digging attachment tooling system having a shroud (Gagnon: 64), the tooth (Gagnon: 48) comprising:
A tooth (Gagnon: 48) body made of a wear resistant material (; and
Engagement features positioned on an outer surface of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) body, each of the engagement features defining a front load surface (Gagnon: Figure 2: first end of cut out in 48 for engaging 60) and a rear load surface (Gagnon: Figure 2: second end of cut out in 48 for engaging 60), the front load surface and the rear load surface being configured to engage a tooth control mechanism (Gagnon: 60) to allow movement of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) in a first direction relative to the shroud (Gagnon: 64) and limit movement of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) in a second direction opposite the first direction relative to the shroud (Gagnon: 64).
Regarding Claim 21, Gagnon discloses the tooth (Gagnon: 48) of claim 20, wherein the front load surface includes a stop surface and the rear load surface includes a ramp surface (Gagnon: Figure 2: first and second ends of sloped cut out in 48 for engaging 60 function both as stops and ramps).
Regarding Claim 22, Gagnon discloses the tooth (Gagnon: 48) of claim 20, wherein each of the engagement features (Gagnon: Figure 2: first and second ends of sloped cut out in 48 for engaging 60) includes a groove positioned in the outer surface of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) body and having a depth that is shallower than a dimension of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) body measured in a direction of the depth.
Regarding Claim 23, Gagnon discloses the tooth (Gagnon: 48) of claim 20, wherein the tooth (Gagnon: 48) body has a substantially prismatic geometry (wedge end of tooth) with a substantially constant cross-sectional shape (cylindrical shape) along a length of the tooth (Gagnon: 48).
Regarding Claim 26, Gagnon discloses the tooth (Gagnon: 48) of claim 20, wherein the engagement features (Gagnon: Figure 2: first and second ends of sloped cut out in 48 for engaging 60) are positioned at discrete locations on the outer surface of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) body delineating incremental lengths of the tooth (Gagnon: 48).
Regarding Claim 27, Gagnon discloses the tooth (Gagnon: 48) of claim 20, wherein a portion of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) body defines a usable length of the tooth (Gagnon: 48), and wherein at least one of the engagement features (Gagnon: Figure 2: first and second ends of sloped cut out in 48 for engaging 60) is positioned on the portion of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) body defining the usable length.
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 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Holder (U.S. Patent No. 3,550,960).
Regarding Claim 7, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the insert (Gagnon: 44) includes a seal positioned in the insert opening (Gagnon: Figure 18: hole in 44, 45) to limit ingress of material into the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10).
Holder discloses a seal positioned in an insert opening to limit ingress of material into the cavity (Holder: 42 positioned within hole in 49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the seal of Holder in the invention of Gagnon in order to provide the predictable and well known function of forming a fluid seal around a moving component in order to protect interior components from excavation debris or other fluids), as the invention of Gagnon is intended to be functional in underwater use (Gagnon: Paragraph [0049]), the use of a fluid seal would be particularly obvious.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Cashman (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0193587).
Regarding Claim 10, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein a controller electrically connected to the actuator (Gagnon: 26) operates the actuator (Gagnon: 26) to control movement of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10).
Cashman discloses a controller connected to an actuator to electrically operate said actuator (as an alternative to hydraulic control) and control movement of a tooth on an excavator bucket (Cashman: Paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the electronic control of Cashman as a well-known practical alternative to the hydraulic control of the invention of Gagnon in order to facilitate the function of the extending and retracting of variable-length teeth assemblies of an excavator bucket as disclosed by Cashman (Cashman: Paragraph [0035]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Cashman, further in view of Ireland (U.S. Patent No. 6,574,891).
Regarding Claim 11, Gagnon and Cashman render obvious the tooth assembly of claim 10, but do not disclose further comprising at least one sensor that senses at least one characteristic of the tooth (Gagnon: 48), the controller receiving data from the at least one sensor and operating the actuator (Gagnon: 26) to control movement of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10) in response to the data received from the at least one sensor.
Ireland disclose a sensor that senses at least one characteristic of the tooth to be provided to a controller for controlling movement of the tooth in response to data received from the at least one sensor (Ireland: Column 9: lines 30-43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the sensor of Ireland within the invention rendered obvious by Gagnon and Cashman with the well-known and predictable effect of providing information regarding to the disposition of a movable tooth of an excavator bucket to an operator or operating system to selectively energize the movement of said tooth as disclosed by Ireland (Ireland: Column 9: lines 30-43).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Ireland.
Regarding Claim 12, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising at least one sensor electrically connected to a controller, the at least one sensor sensing at least one characteristic of the tooth (Gagnon: 48), the controller receiving data from the at least one sensor and, in response to the data received from the at least one sensor, at least one of: controlling movement of the tooth (Gagnon: 48) in the cavity (Gagnon: interior space of shovel 10); and causing display, on a user display, of an indicator related to a state of the tooth (Gagnon: 48).
Ireland disclose a sensor that senses at least one characteristic of the tooth to be provided to a controller for controlling movement of the tooth in response to data received from the at least one sensor (Ireland: Column 9: lines 30-43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the sensor of Ireland within the invention of Gagnon with the well-known and predictable effect of providing information regarding to the disposition of a movable tooth of an excavator bucket to an operator or operating system to selectively energize the movement of said tooth as disclosed by Ireland (Ireland: Column 9: lines 30-43).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Bewley (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0149049).
Regarding Claim 15, Gagnon discloses the tooth assembly of claim 14, but does not disclose further comprising a shroud lock configured to removably connect the shroud (Gagnon: 64) with at least one of the lip (Gagnon: 12, 16) and the insert (Gagnon: 44) as the invention of Gagnon does not disclose the manner in which the shroud is connected, removably, to the lip or insert.
Bewley discloses a shroud (Bewley: 13) for a tip of a tooth for an excavator bucket held removably in place by a shroud lock (Bewley: 21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized a locking element like the one disclosed in the invention of Bewley within the invention of Gagnon with the well-known and predictable result of removably coupling the shroud to the insert as required, but not described in detail, in the invention of Gagnon.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagnon in view of Swick (U.S. Patent No. 5,224,282).
Regarding Claim 24, Gagnon discloses the tooth (Gagnon: 48) of claim 20, but does not disclose wherein the tooth body is made of a first wear resistant material, and wherein the tooth (Gagnon: 48) further includes a tooth core positioned in the outer tooth body and extending at least a portion of the length of the tooth (Gagnon: 48), wherein the tooth core is made of a second wear resistant material that is dissimilar to the first wear resistant material.
Swick discloses a tooth body made of a first wear resistant material core (Swick: 33: is more ductile than surface portion) and wherein the tooth further includes a tooth core (Swick: exterior surfaces 57, 59 are of high hardness) positioned within the outer tooth body wherein the tooth core is made of a second wear resistant material that is dissimilar to the first wear resistant material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s filing to have utilized the tooth construction of Swick within the tooth of Gagnon in order to predictably solve the old well known problem of balancing the competing and opposed needs of having a tooth that is sufficiently hard to withstand abrasive wear during digging while also meeting the needs of a tooth that is ductile enough to avoid fracture due to repeated impacts as disclosed (and addressed) by Swick (Swick: Column 2: lines 3-22)
Regarding Claim 25, Gagnon and Swick render obvious the tooth (Gagnon: 48) of claim 24, wherein the first wear resistant material (Swick: 33 is more ductile than 57, 59) has a higher ductility and a lower hardness than the second wear resistant material (Swick: 57, 59 has a higher hardness than 33).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11492776 (extendable teeth do not have shroud portion), US 20220275607 (contains sensors but lacks extendable teeth), US 3659645 (has extendable teeth but lacks sensors and intermediate insert portion), US 3512284 (lacks shroud portion and sensors), US 2228445 (lacks shroud portion).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS S WOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:30 AM - 7:00 PM EST.
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, Nicole A Coy can be reached at (571) - 272 - 5405. 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.
DOUGLAS S. WOOD
Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/DOUGLAS S WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
/Giovanna Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights