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
All of the drawings are objected to because all of the drawings are illegible. For instance, the reference numbers in figures 1, 2a, 2b, 5a, 5b, 6a, 7, 8a, 8b, 8c (which even cuts off some of the reference numbers) and 9 are unreadable. Further other figures such as 3b, 4b, 6b and 10 seem to have text but that text is also unreadable. Applicant has amended the specification to disclose what some of the reference numbers are. However as a large number of reference numbers are illegible it is unclear if all of these refence number are in the specification. Finally due to the quality of the drawings it is unclear if other figures not mentioned are also supposed to include either text or reference numbers.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1” has been used to designate both front lifter part and steel. It also appears that reference character “2” may be used to designate both rear lifter part and steel, that reference character “3” may be used to designate both front support plate and internal steel or steels and layers and reference character “4” may be used to designate both rear support plate and internal steel or steels and layers.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The amendment filed 23 December 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: As discussed above, the drawings are illegible and thus it is unclear if newly added ¶¶28-38, 53, 63 and 68 introduce new matter with respect to what the reference numbers are disclosing. For example applicant has added that straight lines as reference to determine wear and it is unclear if any of the figures actually show this as it is not disclosed in the original disclosure0. Additionally these paragraphs are also objected to as they all introduce new matter. For a non-exhaustive list of examples there was no support for “the front lifter part, which extends from a first side of the liner member with a defined height to facilitate the lifting and tumbling of material within the grinding mill drum” tumbling has not been previously disclosed, “the rear lifter part, which extends to the rear side and conforms to the pyramid shape of the liner member, ensuring uniform wear distribution and structural integrity” the original disclosure only discloses the backing plate may conform to the curvature of the mill shell and is silent with respect to ensuring uniform wear distribution and structural integrity, “the front support plate positioned beneath the front lifter part to provide robust support and anchorage for fastening items” the original disclosure only discloses the anchorage and fastening with respect to the back plate.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. If applicant is to amend the specification additionally (besides just removing the new matter) to, for example, include the reference numbers not present applicant is advised to
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 1-7 and 9-25 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.
For claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for “the liner member”. Further, the phrase “in order to support the lifter a robust and solid lining member” is indefinite as it is unclear if applicant is claiming a lining member, if it is merely intended use or something else. For the purpose of examination it is assumed applicant is not positively claiming a lining member”.
For claim 2, there is no antecedent basis for “the base surface”.
For claim 3, the phrase “in a configuration layout that allows to obtain a high-performance protection element and in turn its steel-alternate configuration allows to determine the level of wear upon visual inspection” is indefinite as it is unclear what applicant means by “its steel-alternate configuration”. Is this a different material from what is claimed referring to the “steels embedded into a rubber matrix”, the matrix applicant is claiming or something else.
For claim 18, there is no antecedent basis for “the backing plate”.
For claim 19, it is unclear if applicant is actually positively claiming elastomer material as applicant has provided no limitations regarding it’s placement within the insert.
For claim 20, there is no antecedent basis for “said liner”.
For claim 21, the claim is indefinite as it is unclear what structure “thickness” is referring to and there is no antecedent basis for “the minimum polymer separation”.
For claim 22, there is no antecedent basis for “its low stiffness polymeric material” or “the steel plates”.
For claim 23, there is no antecedent basis for “the slurry”.
For claim 25, there is no antecedent basis for “the said steel portion” and “the polymers used”. Further the phrase “and the like” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what actual material applicant is attempting to positively claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-19 and 24 is/are rejected, as best understood due to the 112(b) rejections above, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,964,283 to Moreno et al (Moreno).
Concerning claim 1, Moreno discloses a pyramid lining insert for mill drum of a grinding mill, comprising:
a structural and positional formation of pyramid inserts (510) configured with a front lifter part (572a) that extends a first side of the liner member with a defined height and a rear lifter part (572b) that extends to the rear side conforming shape of pyramid of the said liner member (see figure 18 for example);
wherein both the front and rear lifter part (572a and 572b) having an height; and
wherein the said front and rear lifter part (572a and 572b) are adjacent to each other along the side of the said pyramid shaped lining member and have a front and rear support plate (406, see also the embodiment with 220a, 220b, 240a and 240b) beneath the said front and rear lifter part (572a and 572b) in order to support the lifter plate and also to provide a robust and solid lining member.
Concerning claim 2, Moreno discloses wherein each insert/element is formed as a multi-layered plate of steel material with a thickness T, which defines an impact edge that is oriented in a direction away from the base surface.
Concerning claim 3, Moreno discloses the said front and rear support plate (406) said pyramidal lining insert is structured and compounded by a combination of wear resistant high-strength steels embedded into a rubber matrix (560), in a configuration layout that allows to obtain a high-performance protection element and in turn its steel-alternate configuration allows to determine the level of wear upon visual inspection.
Concerning claim 4, Moreno discloses the said liner element (510) has a length L extending between a first end and a second end, and a longitudinal axis parallel to the axis of rotation of a grinding mill shell or drum and sized to extend over the entire length of the grinding mill drum or shell (i.e., measured in the direction of rotational axis of the grinding mill shell).
Concerning claim 5, Moreno discloses wherein the said liner element length L is less than the length of the grinding mill shell (as it is capable of being placed in such a grinding mill shell as the claim is only directed to the insert).
Concerning claim 6, Moreno discloses said liner element (510) is having a width W and a base surface (516) with a curvilinear contour made of steel or aluminum (steel), and its dimension depends on the internal diameter of the mill; and wherein the said base surface extends substantially the width of the mill liner element and is oriented for positioning along the inner wall of a grinding mill shell.
Concerning claim 7, Moreno discloses said base surface includes backing plate member (516) formed or extends along the base surface of the pyramid shaped liner member; wherein the backing plate member may be a single, continuous length that extends substantially the length L of the mill liner element.
Concerning claim 9, Moreno discloses a plurality of said pyramid shaped liner member inserts (510) are embedded on the grinding mill shell in a spaced apart array with polymeric rubber material positioned between adjacent inserts; and wherein the said plurality of inserts are preferably positioned along the length L of the mill liner element (as they are capable of being used in such a grinding mill shell).
Concerning claim 10, Moreno discloses the said inserts (510) are oriented in a direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the mill liner element (as they are capable of being used in such a device).
Concerning claim 11, Moreno discloses the pyramid shaped element/insert are spaced apart from each other in series along the length of the lining and the said inserts are spaced with width from each other (as they are capable of being used in such a device).
Concerning claim 12, Moreno discloses the thickness T of the inserts is preferably from about 25 mm to about 150 mm (as the size is being treated as an optional limitation but Moreno teaches that the dimensions may be selected to suit any particular grinding mill in column 5, lines 57-60 and column 7, lines 45-48).
Concerning claim 13, Moreno discloses the said steel layout in the wear protection element allows reducing the transverse rubber area exposed to abrasion, and achieving a more uniform wear, and gives anchorage space beneath the anti-abrasive plates to allocate fastening items.
Concerning claim 14, Moreno discloses the said pyramid shaped inserts are configured with opposing, spaced apart surfaces which define the thickness T of the insert.
Concerning claim 15, Moreno discloses wherein each said inserts (510) also has a defined height H, where the height H of the insert is greater than the thickness T of the insert; and wherein the inserts are formed in plurality of configurations.
Concerning claim 16, Moreno discloses said liner element further includes means (380 or 412) for attaching the mill liner insert to said grinding mill shell, through which fastening means (column 7, lines 11-18) are positioned; and wherein the said fastening means extend through the backing plate, which provides an anchoring device for the fastening apparatus, and into the shell.
Concerning claim 17, Moreno discloses the said fastening apparatus may be any suitable device (column 7, lines 11-18), such as bolts, having associated washers and nuts.
Concerning claim 18, Moreno discloses the positioning of a plurality of mill liner elements is along the inner circumferential wall of the mill shell (as it is capable of being placed as such); wherein the said mill elements are positioned adjacent to each other about the entire inner wall of the grinding mill shell with the longitudinal axis of each mill liner element being oriented parallel to the rotational axis of the grinding mill shell; and wherein the backing plate of each mill liner element, is curved to conform to the curvature of the mill shell (as it is capable of being used in such a device).
Concerning claim 19, Moreno discloses the elastomer material (360) of the mill liner elements also reduces the noise level during operation of the grinding mill.
Concerning claim 24, Moreno discloses its apparatus is capable of being used with a mill configured for visualization of external wear and tear by a view of one, two or three straight lines during mill operation by giving a reference of the stage of wear.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Moreno does not disclose a unitary pyramid. However, applicant has not claimed a unitary pyramid. Applicant claims that Moreno does not disclose the rear lifter part extending to the rear side conforming to a pyramid shape due to Moreno having no rear lifter on the same plate. However, applicant has not actually claimed that the rear lifter needs to be on the same plate. Merely that it extends from a rear side and conforms to a pyramid shape which Moreno does disclose. Finally applicant argues that Moreno does not disclose its reinforcements are adjacent to one member as they are spaced longitudinally and enclosed. It is first noted that applicant appears to be referring to the limitation of “the said front and rear lifter part are adjacent to each other” (there is no reference to reinforcements). Further, the front and rear lifter part can be adjacent while also being spaced and thus applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Thus Moreno does read on the claimed invention and applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Matthew Katcoff whose telephone number is (571)270-1415. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4, Fri: Flex.
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.
/Matthew Katcoff/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 04/17/2026
Prosecution Insights