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 .
The amendment filed 3/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 recites, “The cladding system of claim 8, wherein the hardness is above 35 HRC Rockwell C” (emphasis added), however, given that claim 8 recites that “the SAE 15B30 steel has…a hardness above 45 HRC Rockwell C” (emphasis added), claim 9 does not further limit claim 8. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moutrey (USPN 5,851,043) in view of Suzuki (WO2023/176800A1, previously cited, also printed as US2025/0257246A1, please refer to the US document for the below cited sections). Moutrey teaches a liner (38) for a body (10) of work machine such as of an off-highway truck (14) that protects the body (10), particularly a bed (24) thereof, from wear, wherein the liner (38) consists of at least one plate or a plurality of plates (e.g., 40, 52) with openings (50) therein arranged in a preselected pattern that cause material to tumble when being removed from the truck, instead of slide, such that the tumbling action and the thickness of the plate(s) (40,52) reduce wear on the body during material dumping (Abstract; Figs. 2-4; Col. 2, lines 14-65). Moutrey teaches that the plates (40,52) can be attached to the bed (24) of the off-highway truck (14) in a variety of ways and preferably removably fastened to the body (10) to allow for removal of a plate when worn (Abstract; Col. 3, lines 31-33); wherein the size of the plate, i.e., the shape and dimensions as well as any contour of the body if present, is such to fit a particular portion of the body (Abstract; Col. 1, lines 51-54; Col. 2, line 56-Col. 3, line 3). Moutrey teaches that in a preferred approach, the plates are welded to the bed, wherein “[w]elding resists vibration and is durable, and the plates are removable through breaking of the welds for replacement purposes” (Col. 3, lines 32-37). Moutrey also teaches that the “severe applications in which off-highway trucks are used require that extremely durable materials be used to provide a liner 38 of useful life” and that “[i]n the example described above for removably fastening the liner 38 by welding, steel plates of 16 to 20 millimeters thickness are contemplated with a Brinell hardness of approximately 400” (Col. 3, line – Col. 4, line 4). Moutrey further teaches that durability of the liner can be increased by utilizing a steel material of 500 Brinell but that steel of such hardness does not lend itself to welding and thus an alternative fastening system can be used, and although Moutrey teaches that said alternative fastening system can be by “utilizing bolts or rivets, for example” (Col. 4, lines 4-19), Moutrey does not specifically limit the attachment means for removably fastening the liner or steel plates to the body or bed of the truck.
Hence, with respect to the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 1, Moutrey teaches and/or suggests a cladding system for use against abrasive wear comprising: a plurality of wear-resistant steel plates, wherein a first surface of each of the plurality of wear-resistant steel plates is configured to be in contact with abrasive materials, and a second surface of each of the plurality of wear-resistant steel plates are removably attached to a substrate (e.g., truck bed), wherein the attachment means is configured to maintain the plurality of wear-resistant steel plates in their position withstanding impact forces and friction caused by contact with abrasive materials, and facilitate separation of the wear-resistant steel plates from the substrate (e.g., for replacement when worn or damaged), and although Moutrey does not specifically limit the attachment means for removably attaching the steel plates to the substrate/bed, Moutrey does not teach that the wear-resistant steel plates are attached via an adhesive that “is applied to a second surface of each of the plurality of wear-resistant steel plates” and that “is configured to” not only maintain the plates in their position but also “(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, the Examiner first notes that it is well established in the art that an adhesive means is an obvious alternative removable attachment means in the art to welding, bolts, and/or rivets (as evidenced by McKinney, US2019/0248424A1, Paragraph 0076; or Speckert, USPN 6,309,762, Col. 1, lines 26-30; Col. 4, line 64-Col. 5, line 3; or Miles, USPN 6,303,241, Col. 2, lines 38-46), and hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize an adhesive as an alternative removable attachment means in the invention taught by Moutrey to removably fasten the plates (40,52) to the body (10) or bed (24) thereof given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It is also noted that 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 Moutrey), 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 Moutrey), 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 amended claim 1. Further, given that Suzuki 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., “silyl-modified polymer” as in instant claim 3), with example resins recited in Paragraphs 0075- 0113, 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). Hence, given that Suzuki teaches an easily dismantling adhesive sheet for removably attaching adherends (as in Moutrey), particularly with respect to debonding adherends utilizing heat, with Suzuki also teaching metal members as the adherends such as steel as in Moutrey (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 Moutrey), 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 removable attachment means in the invention taught by Moutrey 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 Moutrey in 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 as in instant claim 3, that as discussed above may comprise a “silyl-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 composition 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 Moutrey in view of Suzuki given again 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 13-18, as discussed above, Moutrey teaches that the size including the shape and dimensions of the steel plate(s) can be selected to fit a particular portion of the body or bed to be lined, and given that Moutrey exemplifies rectangular, triangular, and polygonal shapes in the drawings as well as a thickness of 16-20 mm in one non-limiting embodiment with respect to steel having a Brinell hardness of approximately 400 as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum shape and dimensions including thickness of the plate(s) for a particular structure to be lined and end use such that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results with respect to the claimed shapes and dimensions, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 13-18 would have been obvious over the teachings of Moutrey in view of Suzuki, especially given that it is well established that shape and size are a matter of choice of a skilled artisan and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2144.04 IV).
Claims 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moutrey in 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 Moutrey in view of Suzuki are discussed in detail above, and incorporated herein by reference, and although Moutrey provides a clear teaching and/or suggestion that the plate(s) can be steel plates having a Brinell hardness of approximately 400 (e.g., about 43 HRC, as in instant claims 8-9), or for increased durability, a steel material of 500 Brinell (e.g., about 52 HRC, as in instant claims 8-9), Moutrey 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 known to have a Brinell hardness in the approximate range of 400-500 as in Moutrey, and is known to be utilized for similar end uses as in Moutrey, particularly 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 Moutrey in 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 Moutrey in view of 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 Moutrey in view of 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 3/17/2026 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 amendments and arguments filed 3/17/2026.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Larsson (US2020/0180522A1) teaches a liner for a haul truck body comprising a plurality of lining elements including one or more load-breaking lining elements, one or more load-releasing lining elements, one or more impact lining elements, and one or more wear lining elements, fastened to the haul truck body by means of through bolts, stud welded bolts or any other type of fixing with a down holding force, that facilitates service of the haul truck body by allowing damaged or worn-out lining elements to be exchanged directly on site without having to remove large parts of the surrounding lining. Hook (USPN 6,174,014) teaches a liner for a work machine body, such as a dump truck body, formed by separating a unitary plate of wear material, such as steel, into separate plate sections so that confronting plate sections have portions that interfit with each other, and the plurality of plates are removably attached to the body, particularly a bed of the dump truck, to allow the plates to be removed for replacement purposes, such as by attachment via welding, or other fastening means such as bolts and other suitable mechanical and/or interlocking attachment mechanisms.
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 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