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 1, 14, 18 are allowed over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 18, Martin (prior art of record) presents a wear cap design with cleat-type structures to fit the wear cap onto a base edge adapter. The wear cap of Martin includes many structures that are claimed in claims 1, 14, and 18; however, neither Martin, nor any other reference, teaches all claimed features together. Claims 1, 14, and 18 specifically claims the converging surfaces and non-aligned axial extensions of the cleats. In view of the prior art of record, any obvious combination to include these claimed features would require improper hindsight reasoning. For this reason, the claim is allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 6: the surfaces noted in Annotated Figure 2 do converge. The “outside” surface noted in Annotated Figure 2 generally moves toward the other side of the wear cap while the other noted surface doesn’t appear to move towards the other side of the wear cap. Examiner considers these two surfaces to be “converging surfaces converging in a lateral direction” because there would have to be a lateral component to this convergence. Examiner maintains the claim language is broad and Martin meets the claim limitation. In other words, the arrows depicted in Annotated Figure 2 show the direction of convergence including a component that is towards the cleat on the other side.
Regarding claim 8: the front wall 114 is depicted in Martin’s Figure 5. Applicant argues the front wall of Martin is not concave curved measured between outer and inner surfaces as claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees with such a characterization. The front wall 114 is clearly depicted as generally concave curved in Martin’s Fig 2 and while this concave curve be in a “side-to-side” direction about the vertical axis, the vertical depth of this concave curve is measured between the outer and inner surfaces as claimed. The current claim language does not require the concave curve have a constant radius and the front wall need only curve “at least partially” between the surfaces. Examiner maintains the claim language is broad and Martin meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 11: Examiner maintains the claim language is broad and Martin meets the claim. Applicant appears to be reading limitations into the broad claim language. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments, but the term of “axially non-aligned” is not well-defined and appears to conflict with the specification. Applicant’s specification para [0039] states “rear grooves are…axially spaced rearward from the forward grooves”, but Applicant is also arguing the “rear grooves…have an axial extension that is axially non-aligned with the axial extension of either of the forward grooves” (Applicant’s Remarks, pg 2, dated 1/30/2026). It is unclear how these grooves are axially rearward and axially non-aligned. This requires two different interpretations of the term “axial”. For this reason, claim 11 is now considered indefinite (outlined below). Examiner suggests further amending the claim to better define what the “axial” direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11-12 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 11 recites each rearward groove has an “axial extension that is axially non-aligned with an axial extension of either of the forward grooves” in lines 6-7. While this limitation appears to be supported by the specification, it is unclear to the examiner to what element this is referring in Applicant’s own invention. It does not appear these elements are depicted in the Figures. Even in view of the specification, these limitations can be interpreted in different ways. For example, “axial” is described in the specification to mean a forward/rearward direction (para [0039]; “axially spaced rearward from”), but the plain language of the claim could be interpreted as the center axis of the groove along the same “axial” direction. Therefore, the claim language stating the rearward grooves having an “axial extension that is axially non-aligned with an axial extension of either of the forward grooves” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 12 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6-12, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin (US 4716667).
Regarding claim 6, Martin discloses a wear cap for mounting to a base for earth working equipment, the wear cap comprising a forward end, a rearward end, laterally spaced rearward cleats at the rearward end and laterally spaced forward cleats at the forward end, wherein each of the forward and rearward cleats includes converging surfaces converging in a lateral direction toward the other forward or rearward cleat (claim language is broad: “converging surfaces converging toward the other cleat” is being interpreted reasonably broad to include the converging direction to be a general direction and not exact; see Annotated Figure 2; the converging direction is considered to have a component that is toward the other cleat; wear cap 24; forward end 112 and rearward end 116; see Annotated Figure 1 for the cleats; Annotated Figure 2 depicts the converging surfaces of each cleat converging in a lateral direction toward the other forward or rear cleat).
PNG
media_image1.png
343
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
457
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 7, Martin discloses the wear cap wherein the rearward cleats are offset in a vertical direction relative to the forward cleats (Annotated Figure 3 depicts the base that the wear cap fit onto with the rear cleats being offset vertically from the forward cleats when assembled on the base).
PNG
media_image3.png
349
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 8, Martin discloses a wear cap for mounting to a base for earth working equipment, the wear cap comprising an outer wear surface, an inner surface to face the base, a concave curved front wall curving at least partially between the outer and inner surfaces, a forward end, a rearward end, laterally spaced forward cleats adjacent the forward end, and laterally spaced rearward cleats adjacent the rearward end (wear cap 24; inner surface of wall 110 faces base 18 and outer wear surface of wall 110; Fig 4 depicts 114 being a generally concave curved portion of the front wall; see Annotated Figure 1 for cleats; forward end 112; rearward end 116).
Regarding claim 9, Martin discloses the wear cap wherein the rearward cleats are offset in a vertical direction relative to the forward cleats with the rearward cleats (Annotated Figure 3 depicts the base that the wear cap fit onto with the rear cleats being offset vertically from the forward cleats when assembled on the base).
Regarding claim 10, Martin discloses the wear cap wherein each of the forward and rearward cleats includes converging surfaces converging in a lateral direction toward the other forward or rearward cleat (claim language is broad: “converging surfaces converging…toward” another cleat is being interpreted reasonably broad to include the converging direction to be a general direction and not exact; see Annotated Figure 2; the converging direction is considered to have a component that is toward the other cleat; Annotated Figure 2 depicts the converging surfaces of each cleat converging in a lateral direction toward the other forward or rear cleat).
Regarding claim 11, Martin discloses a base for earth working equipment, the base member comprising a forwardly projecting nose for supporting a wear member and a plurality of forward and rearward grooves rearward of the nose, each of the forward and rearward grooves having a forward to rearward extension for receiving mounting portions of a wear cap, wherein the rearward grooves are spaced rearward of the forward grooves and each have an axial extension that is axially non-aligned with an axial extension of either of the forward grooves (base 18; forward nose 22 supports wear member 28; forward and rearward grooves 80/82 and 72/74 appear to be depicted as not being axially aligned; the lengths of each groove 80/82 and 72/74 are considered the groove extensions that receive mounting portions 134/136 of wear cap 24; see Annotated Figure 3; Martin’s Fig 1 clearly depicts an axial direction of assembly and the grooves are axially non-aligned).
Regarding claim 12, Martin discloses the base including a pair of legs spaced apart to define a slot for receiving a digging edge (adapter 18 with pocket 38 having a longitudinal axis to receive digging edge 12).
Regarding claim 20, Martin discloses a wear assembly for earth working equipment comprising a base, a wear cap and a wear member, the wear cap and the wear member each being mounted on the base, the wear cap having a front wall and the wear member having a rear surface opposed to the front wall, wherein the front wall and the rear surface have complementary curvatures, wherein the front wall includes a concave curve generally about a transverse axis (base 18; wear cap 24; wear member 28; Fig 1; wear cap front wall 114 and wear member rear surface 102 are considered to have complementary curvatures along a transverse axis as depicted in Fig 1; in this case, the transverse axis is considered to be vertical).
Regarding claim 21, Martin discloses a wear cap for attachment to a base comprising:
an outer wear surface,
an inner surface opposite the outer wear surface (inner surface of wall 110 faces base 18 and outer wear surface of wall 110),
a rear end (rearward end 116), and
a front wall opposite the rear end in a longitudinal direction, the front wall having concave curve generally about a transverse axis to the longitudinal direction (Fig 4 depicts 114 being a generally concave curved portion of the front wall; in this case, the transverse axis is considered to be vertical).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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