Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/426,646

LINER ASSEMBLY FOR WORK IMPLEMENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 30, 2024
Examiner
MAYO, TARA LEIGH
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Caterpillar Global Mining LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
960 granted / 1284 resolved
+22.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1328
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.0%
-1.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1284 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nielsen (US 5,803,531 A). Nielsen ‘531 (“Nielsen”) discloses a liner assembly for a work implement (12), the liner assembly adapted to be coupled to a body of the work implement, the liner assembly comprising: CLAIM 1 a plurality of liners (32a-32c, 34a-34d, 36a, 36b) coupled to the body of the work implement (12, cl. 1)1, wherein each of the plurality of liners comprises a base plate defining: a first surface (Fig. 5, top surface) adapted to contact material present in the work implement; a second surface (Fig. 5, bottom surface) adapted to contact the body of the work implement; and a plurality of grooves (66) extending between the first surface and the second surface, wherein each of the plurality of grooves defines a first maximum length between two ends thereof (corner-to-corner), and wherein each of the plurality of grooves is adapted to receive welding material (70) to couple a corresponding liner with the body of the work implement; CLAIM 5 wherein the plurality of grooves comprises: a set of first grooves disposed at a first end of each liner, each groove of the set of first grooves extends along a first axis; a set of second grooves disposed at a second end of each liner, each groove of the set of second grooves extends along a second axis; and a set of third grooves disposed between the set of first grooves and the set of second grooves, each groove of the set of third grooves extends along a third axis; and CLAIM 6 wherein each of the first axis, the second axis, and the third axis are parallel to each other (see annotated Fig. 3 below). NIELSEN FIG. 3 [AltContent: textbox (second axis)][AltContent: textbox (first axis)][AltContent: textbox (third axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow] PNG media_image1.png 545 517 media_image1.png Greyscale CLAIM 8 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by Nielsen, as applied above to CLAIM 1. Additionally, the work implement (12) of Nielsen comprises a body defining an inner surface and a material receiving space. CLAIM 12 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by Nielsen, as applied above to CLAIM 5. CLAIM 13 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by Nielsen, as applied above to CLAIM 6. CLAIM 15 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by Nielsen, as applied above to CLAIMS 1 and 8. Additionally, Nielsen teaches a work machine (20) comprising a frame (inherently), wherein the work implement (12) is coupled to the frame. CLAIM 18 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by Nielsen, as applied above to CLAIM 5. CLAIM 19 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by Nielsen, as applied above to CLAIM 6. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen (US 5,803,531 A) in view of Kostecki (US 2005/0126056 A1). CLAIM 2 Nielsen further teaches each liner of the plurality of liners (32a-32c, 34a-34d, 36a, 36b) is adapted to engage with an adjacent liner of the plurality of liners along at least one of a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis that is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2). Nielsen fails to teach expressly a gap between adjacent liners. Kostecki ‘056 (“Kostecki”) shows a liner assembly for a work implement and teaches a gap between adjacent liners, which gap is adapted to receive welding material ([0070]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the prior art liner assembly (Nielsen) such that each liner of the plurality of liners (Nielsen) would have been spaced apart from an adjacent liner of the plurality of liners by a gap (Kostecki, [0070]) along a lateral axis that is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis, as suggested by Kostecki. The motivation for making the modification would have been to have provided ease of replacement of a liner section (Kostecki, [0070]), and to have done so with a reasonable expectation of success. CLAIM 9 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Nielsen and Kostecki, as applied above to CLAIM 2. CLAIM 16 All of the limitations recited therein are taught by the combination of Nielsen and Kostecki, as applied above to CLAIM 2. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17 and 20 are 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. D’Amico (US 6,129,409 A) discloses a liner assembly for a work machine. Davies (US 2012/0088055 A1) shows a liner assembly for a work machine, the assembly including a plurality of grooves. Chewning et al. (US 10,232,801 B2) shows a liner assembly for a work machine, the assembly including a plurality of grooves. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA MAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-6992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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. /TARA MAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 /tm/ 19 March 2026 1 On line 2 of claim 1, Nielsen recites “a containment structure adapted to be secured to a surface of the compartment for hauling material.”
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599051
GARDEN IMPLEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601160
RETENTION MECHANISM FOR GROUND ENGAGING TOOLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575470
SYSTEM FOR ELIMINATING DELAYED HITCH RESPONSE DUE TO AIR INGRESS WITHIN AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568875
SEED FLOW REGULATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564119
AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING OPERATING CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DISKS OF AN AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+11.9%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1284 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month