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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/17/2026 has been entered.
The amendment filed 7/17/2026 has been entered. Claim 13 has been canceled. New claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 1-12 and 14-22 are pending in the application. 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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “mm3and” on line 2 should read “mm3 and” with the “3” as a superscript and a space before “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each…comprise a major dimension of 100 mm to 600 mm” should read “each…has a major dimension between 100 mm and 600 mm” or similar wording to provide proper noun/verb agreement and to be consistent with the wording of claims 14-18, particularly given that an article possesses or “has” a major dimension versus “comprises” a major dimension. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein adjacent wear-resistant steel plates of the plurality of wear-resistant steel plates comprise a gap of 2 mm to 5 mm” should read “wherein adjacent wear-resistant steel plates of the plurality of wear-resistant steel plates are laid to leave a gap in the range of 2 mm to 5 mm between adjacent plates” (consistent with the wording in Paragraph 0031 of the specification as filed) or “wherein a gap in the range of 2 mm to 5 mm is present between adjacent wear-resistant steel plates of the plurality of wear-resistant steel plates” or similar wording to clearly indicate that the “gap” is between adjacent wear-resistant steel plates. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite, “a plurality of wear-resistant steel plates, wherein a first surface of each of the plurality of wear-resistant steel plates comprises a substantially planar surface and is configured to be in contact with abrasive materials and wherein each of the plurality of wear-resistant steel plates has a thickness of about 2 mm to about 4 mm” (emphasis added) on lines 3-6, however, the original disclosure fails to provide sufficient support for the claimed “substantially planar” surface and the added “about” limitations with respect to the thickness range. Further, it is noted that claim 3 has been amended to recite, “wherein the adhesive comprises a one-component silane-modified polymer adhesive” on lines 1-2, however, given that a “one-component silane-modified polymer adhesive” is different from a mono-component adhesive “based on polymers of modified silane” or “based on modified silane polymers” as recited in the original disclosure, see Paragraphs 0013 and 0049, the original disclosure does not provide sufficient support for the claimed “one-component silane-modified polymer adhesive” as recited in claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-12 and 14-22 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. The term “substantially planar” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially planar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Hence, it is unclear as to how planar or how non-planar the surface of the steel plates needs to be or may be in order to be considered “substantially planar” as claimed, especially given that Figs. 2-4E, which allegedly provide support for the claim amendment(s), fail to provide sufficient detail to determine how “substantially” planar or non-planar the surfaces are. Further, with respect to the claimed thickness of “about 2 mm to about 4 mm” as now recited in instant claim 1, given that the term “about” is a relative term that is not defined by the claim nor the specification, and that the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, the claimed thickness range of “about 2 mm to about 4 mm” renders the claim indefinite given that it is unclear as to how close or how far the thickness may be from the claimed 2 mm and 4 mm points in order to fall within the claimed “about 2 mm to about 4 mm” thickness range.
The dependent claims do not remedy the above and hence are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Zyl (WO2022/152666A1) in view of Klemm (USPN 6,467,812) and in further view of Suzuki (WO2023/176800A1, previously cited, also printed as US2025/0257246A1, please refer to the US document for the below cited sections). Van Zyl teaches a truck haul body (1) comprising a wear-resistant lining (2) constituted by a plurality of wear liner elements (3,3’) arranged in a row or array along the truck haul body surface and attached thereto by an epoxy adhesive (not shown), glue, cement, or other fixation means other than the conventionally used welding, bolting or the like, wherein to disengage or facilitate removal of worn linear liner element(s) (3,’3) from the truck haul body (1), such as for replacement, “[a]t least one row or array of the wear liner elements may be arranged so that several or even all wear liner elements in the row are provided with an ejector unit” (50), specifically an expandable ejection unit (50) (Entire document, particularly Abstract; Figs. 1 and 4-5; page 3, last paragraph through page 4; page 7 through page 8, line 5; pages 11-12). Van Zyl teaches that depending on the number of wear liner elements which need to be replaced, only individual wear liner elements could be removed and replaced by activating the corresponding ejector unit(s), and that not all of the wear liner elements would have to be equipped with corresponding ejector units wherein only one or a few wear liner elements could be removed by activating corresponding ejector units while other wear liner elements are removed in a different way (page 7, fourth paragraph). Van Zyl teaches that the wear liner elements (3) covering the bottom or base surface of the truck haul body (1) are flat with no angled portions as with transition liner elements (3’) intended for an edge portion (5) at a transition between the bottom and front surface of the truck haul body (1) as shown in Fig. 2 (page 12), and thus the wear liner elements (3) have essentially the shape of a plate (page 12, last paragraph), and both types of wear liner elements (3,3’) have an inwardly directed surface (6) “over which material in the form of pieces or particles, such as crushed ore and crushed rock material, moves, and an outwardly directed surface 7 facing the truck haul body surface” (page 13, first paragraph; reading upon the claimed “comprises a substantially planar surface and is configured to be in contact with abrasive materials” as in instant claim 1; and hence, the epoxy or glue is “configured to: (a) maintain a plurality of wear-resistant [elements] in their position withstanding impact forces and friction caused by said contact with abrasive materials” as in instant claim 1). Van Zyl teaches that the wear liner element may comprise an elastomeric material such as rubber or polyurethane and may further comprise a structural element such as a steel backing plate for reinforcement wherein “[i]f the wear liner element comprises an elastomeric material, the structural element may be a steel backing plate completely or partly embedded in the elastomeric material of the wear liner element” (page 6, fourth and fifth paragraphs), thereby teaching and/or suggesting that the elastomeric material is an optional material for the wear liner elements, and given that Van Zyl also teaches that known liner materials may be formed from steel plates and/or given that the claimed steel plates do not exclude a surface layer/coating of elastomeric material, the only differences between the teachings of Van Zyl and the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 1 are that Van Zyl does not specifically teach that each of the steel plates has a thickness of about 2 mm to about 4 mm as instantly claimed and that the epoxy adhesive or glue utilized as the fixation means for affixing the wear liner elements (3) to the surface of the truck haul body (1) as the claimed “substrate” is “configured to:…(b) facilitate separation of the wear-resistant steel plates from the substrate when the adhesive is at a temperature above 350°C” as instantly claimed. However, it is again noted that Van Zyl clearly teaches that that not all of the wear liner elements would have to be equipped with corresponding ejector units and that other wear liner elements may be removed in a different way (page 7, fourth paragraph), and given that it is known in the art that replaceable wear resistant liners can be adhered to a substrate via an epoxy or adhesive that is responsive to heat for release of the liner while also providing sufficient bonding to hold the liner in place while be contacted with an abrasive material as evidenced by Klemm (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Col. 3, lines 32-53; Col. 5, line 46-Col. 6, line 16; Col. 7, line 55-Col. 8, line 8), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a heat responsive epoxy or glue/adhesive for the epoxy, glue or fixation means in the invention taught by Van Zyl such that removal of the wear liner elements that are not provided with an ejector unit can be facilitated by heat as in the instantly claimed invention.
In addition, as discussed in the prior office action, Suzuki teaches an easily dismantling adhesive sheet, a joined body utilizing the adhesive sheet, and a method for dismantling the joined body at a desired time (Abstract, Paragraph 0013), particularly for use in a boat, an aircraft, an automatic vehicle, and the like (Paragraph 0156, e.g., as in Van Zyl), wherein before curing, the adhesive sheet has excellent pressure-sensitive adhesive strength such that positioning and temporary fixing are facilitated (Paragraph 0148); after curing, provides a joined body having excellent adhesive strength including holding force and adhesive strength at shearing, such as between two steel plates as evidenced by the examples (Paragraphs 0010-0026, Examples; as in instant claim 19); and when the joined body is to be dismantled such as for repair and replacement of members (e.g., as in Van Zyl), the adhesive sheet allows the joined body to be easily dismantled at a desired time by application of a given stimulus (Paragraphs 0004-0005, 0025, 0048, and 0156), preferably heating (Paragraphs 0049-0050), wherein the heating temperature is preferably 130°C or higher, still more preferably 180°C or higher, and from the viewpoint of dismantling without deforming or altering the adherend, preferably 400°C or lower (Paragraph 0051), thereby reading upon and/or rendering obvious the claimed “wherein the adhesive is configured to: (a) maintain the wear-resistant steel plates in their position withstanding impact forces and friction caused by said contact with abrasive materials, and (b) facilitate separation of the wear-resistant steel plates from the substrate when the adhesive is at a temperature above 350°C” as in instant claim 1. Suzuki also teaches that the adhesive composition comprises at least one resin, preferably two or more resins, wherein a first resin has crosslinkable groups as functional groups of which at least a part is crosslinked, and a second resin has a reactive functional group, wherein specific examples of such a functional group include an alkoxysilyl group (e.g., “silane-modified polymer” as in instant claim 3), with example resins recited in Paragraphs 0075- 0113, including epoxy-based polymers (as in Van Zyl) or any of the polymers and combinations thereof with suitable crosslinking agent(s), curing agent(s) and/or additives as taught in Paragraphs 0061-0136, selected depending upon the application of the easily dismantling adhesive sheet (Paragraphs 0061-0136), with working examples utilizing a steel plate having a thickness of 2 mm as one or both adherends wherein the example adhesives provide sufficient bond strength to the steel plate(s) and allow easy dismantling of the joined body upon heating (Paragraphs 0146, 0193, 0198-0201, 0204-0207; Examples).
Hence, given that Suzuki teaches an easily dismantling adhesive sheet for removably attaching adherends (as in Van Zyl and Klemm), particularly with respect to debonding adherends utilizing heat (as in Klemm), with Suzuki also teaching metal members as the adherends such as steel as in Van Zyl and/or Klemm (as in instant claims 1 and 19) and aluminum (as in instant claim 20, an obvious truck/vehicle substrate material in the art; Paragraph 0170) for use in transportation vehicle applications (e.g., as in Van Zyl), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the adhesive taught by Suzuki, which can provide excellent adhesive strength at shear and holding force while also facilitating easy debonding upon heating, particularly at temperatures as recited in instant claims 1-2, for the adhesive or removable fixation means for affixing the steel liner elements to the truck haul body in the invention taught by Van Zyl in view of Klemm, utilizing thicknesses similar to those taught by Suzuki as able to be adhered by the easily dismantling adhesive or any thickness to provide the desired wear properties for a particular end use of the invention taught by Van Zyl in view of Klemm and in further view of Suzuki given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or prima facie obviousness to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, thereby rendering instant claims 1-2 and 19-20 obvious over the teachings of Van Zyl in view of Klemm and in further view of Suzuki.
With respect to instant claims 3-5, given that Suzuki teaches that the adhesive is provided in the form of a sheet that after proper positioning of the adherends is subjected to curing (Abstract, Paragraph 0140, Examples), Suzuki clearly teaches and/or suggests a “one-component” polymer adhesive that as discussed above may comprise a “silane-modified” polymer as in instant claim 3, and although Suzuki does not specifically teach the elongation at break and tensile properties as instantly claimed, given the MPa values for the adhesive strength at shearing of the examples taught by Suzuki and that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimum adhesive to provide the desired properties for a particular end use application as taught by Suzuki, wherein similar polymer properties as instantly claimed are typical in the art, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 3-5 would have been obvious over the teachings of Van Zyl in view of Klemm and in further view of Suzuki given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, and/or prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to instant claims 14-18 and 21, although Van Zyl teaches that the wear liner elements (3) have essentially the shape of a plate and may be provided in the form of rows or arrays as discussed above, Van Zyl does not limit the size, outline shape, and/or dimensions of the wear liner or steel plate(s) as instantly claimed. However, given that it is well established that shape and size are a matter of choice of a skilled artisan (see MPEP § 2144.04 IV), the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 14-18 and 21 would have been obvious over the teachings of Van Zyl in view of Klemm and in further view of Suzuki.
With respect to instant claim 22, although Van Zyl provides a clear teaching that a plurality of wear liner elements are placed adjacent to one another as shown in Fig. 1, and that a potential gap may be present between the wear liner elements (page 7, fifth paragraph), Van Zyl does not teach the size of said gap as instantly claimed. However, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to determine the optimum spacing or gap size between the wear liner elements in the invention taught by Van Zyl in view of Klemm and in further view of Suzuki to allow for easy removal and/or replacement of individual wear liner elements and given that the claimed range of 2 mm to 5 mm would allow for common prying tools and/or one’s fingers to remove and replace worn liner elements, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 22 would have been obvious over the teachings of Van Zyl in view of Klemm and in further view of Suzuki.
Claims 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Zyl in view of Klemm and in further view of Suzuki, as applied above to claim 1, and in further view of Kiser (US2022/0195550A1) or Laird, Jr. (USPN 4,098,624) or de Oliveira (Weldability and the Effect on Heat-Affected Zone Microstructure of a High Hardenability Boron Steel Compared to SAE 1045 After Shielded Metal Arc Welding) or Sierra Restrepo (Wear Resistance vs. Impact Resistance of Steel AISI 15B30, Quenched and Tempered, see attached machine translation for the below cited sections) or Triani (Production and Characterization of Boride and Carbide Layers on AISI 15B30 Steel). The teachings of Van Zyl in view of Klemm and in further view of Suzuki are discussed in detail above, and incorporated herein by reference, and although Van Zyl provides a clear teaching and/or suggestion that the wear liner elements can be steel plates, Van Zyl does not teach that the plates comprise SAE 15B30 steel as recited in instant claim 6, and particularly having a composition and properties as recited in instant claims 7-12. However, given that SAE 15B30 steel (aka AISI 15B30 steel) is particularly known to be used for applications requiring high hardness and wear resistance as evidenced by Kiser (e.g., construction vehicles, Background, Paragraphs 0033, and 0049) or Laird, Jr. (e.g., bulldozers, Example I) or de Oliveira (e.g., automotive, construction and civil industry, Abstract) or Sierra Restrepo (e.g., agricultural applications that have wear and tear requirements, Abstract, Introduction) or Triani (e.g., ground engaging tools and components for high wear applications such as in mining and agriculture, Abstract and Introduction), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize any known commercially-available hardened and/or wear resistant steel typically utilized in the art, such as the claimed SAE 15B30 steel – a known hardened steel having wear resistance as evidenced by Kiser or Laird, Jr. or de Oliveira or Sierra Restrepo or Triani, in the invention taught by Van Zyl in view of Klemm and in further view of Suzuki given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Hence, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 6 would have been obvious over the teachings of Van Zyl in view of Klemm and Suzuki, and in further view of Kiser or Laird, Jr. or de Oliveira or Sierra Restrepo or Triani, and further, given that SAE 15B30 is known to have a chemical composition as recited in instant claim 7 (as evidenced by e.g., Table 1 of each of Triani or Sierra Restrepo or de Oliveira) and that one skilled in the art would reasonably expect the SAE 15B30 steel, particularly when tempered or heat-treated as is typical in the art, to have properties as recited in instant claims 8-12, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed cladding system as recited in instant claims 6-12 would have been obvious over the teachings of Van Zyl in view of Klemm and Suzuki, and in further view of Kiser or Laird, Jr. or de Oliveira or Sierra Restrepo or Triani.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/17/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Any objection or rejection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments filed 7/17/2026.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights