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 .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 1/5/26 (hereinafter Response) has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 14, 16 have been amended, claims 4, 12, 13, 18, and 20 have been cancelled, and claims 21-25 are new. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14-17, 19, and 21-25 remain pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”), e.g., claim 5 – “means for adjusting …” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
Regarding claim 21, the new claim limitation “the elliptical, continuous loop further comprises a plurality of chain connectors” requiring that the continuous loop also be made up of the claimed loop with slits not extending through the inner surface as claimed in independent claim 1 which 21 depends from is not disclosed in the originally filed Specification. Although chain connectors are disclosed in the original specification, e.g., see Figs. 6n & 7b and [0057], this embodiment of the loop requires there be connecting segments 12 which are separate segments joined by a pin 95. This embodiment includes slits that extend through the inner surface and thus the claimed subject matter of claim 21 is considered to be new matter.
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 21 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.
Regarding claim 21, “the elliptical, continuous loop further comprises a plurality of chain connectors” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the claimed elliptical loop can be both continuous without slits in the inner surface and joined via a plurality of chain connectors as claimed/disclosed in [0057] and Figs. 6n & 7B.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 14-16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,679,824 B1 to Willis in view of US 7,334,850 B2 to Spector et al (hereinafter Spector).
Regarding claim 1, Willis discloses an articulated wheel (Figs. 3-5) comprising:
an elliptical, continuous loop (36) having an inner surface (A) and an outer surface (B) (Figs. 22-30, Annotated Fig. 27), wherein:
said loop (36) comprises a plurality of slits (C) each extending from proximate to said inner surface (A) through said outer surface (B) (Figs. 22-30, Annotated Fig. 27);
at least first (30) and second (32) hubs comprising first and second hub centers (82) (Figs. 3-5 and 15-16 & col 10 ln 63 – col 11 ln 26 and col 15 lns 47-60), respectively, wherein said at least first (30) and second (32) hubs are disposed within said inner surface of said loop (36) (Figs. 22-30, Annotated Fig. 27); and
PNG
media_image1.png
516
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one wheel rail (34) connecting said first (30) and second (32) hub centers such that said first (30) and second (32) hubs are held in place within said inner surface (A) (Figs. 3-5 col 15 lns 47-67).
PNG
media_image2.png
310
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Willis does not appear to specifically disclose that the loop comprises a plurality of slits each extending from proximate to said inner surface through said outer surface.
Spector teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a loop (240) to include a plurality of slits (A) each extending from proximate to said inner surface (T) through said outer surface (U) (Spector Annotated Fig. 7 & col 6 lns 1-23 disclose and depicts a single continuous loop with a plurality of slits generally indicated by “A” and defied by gaps between members 244 and 250 which extends from the dotted line U indicating the outer surface to the inner surface defined by dotted line T. Dotted line T is interpreted as being the inner surface because while protrusions 246 extend below the inner surface T these protrusions are for engagement with the wheels that hold the track in place and similar to the protrusions 18 of Applicant’s track, e.g., see Fig. 5C & p. 11 lns 8-15 of Applicant’s originally filed Specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the track disclosed by Willis to incorporate for the loop to comprise a plurality of slits each extending from proximate to said inner surface through said outer surface as taught by Spector in order to have a stretchable closed loop and integrally formed belt with protrusions aiding in preventing the belt from falling off, e.g., see Spector Annotated Fig. 7 & col 2 lns 22-44, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 14, depending on claim 1, Willis further discloses wherein the elliptical continuous loop comprises a rigid insert (108) comprising a higher durometer than a remainder of the elliptical, continuous loop (col 16 Ins 35-61 discloses the link body is comprised of a much stronger material, e.g., metal, than the tread member which is a softer more resilient material, e.g., rubber.).
It would have been obvious to have modified Willis in view of the teachings of Spector for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Willis/Spector further discloses wherein said outer surface (Willis – B/Spector - U) of said loop comprises a cross-sectional curvature (Willis - Figs. 22-30, Annotated Fig. 27/Spector – Annotated Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to have modified Willis in view of the teachings of Spector for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 16, Willis discloses a mobility vehicle comprising four articulated wheels (10) (Fig. 1 and col 21 lns 7-32 discloses the wheelchair may include four tracks instead of prior art wheels), wherein each of said articulated wheels (10) comprises:
an elliptical, continuous loop (36) having an inner surface (A) and an outer surface (B) (Figs. 22-30, Annotated Fig. 27), wherein:
said loop (36) comprises a plurality of slits (C) each extending from proximate to said inner surface (A) through said outer surface (B) (Figs. 22-30, Annotated Fig. 27);
at least first (30) and second (32) hubs comprising first and second hub centers (82) (Figs. 3-5 and 15-16 & col 10 ln 63 – col 11 ln 26 and col 15 lns 47-60), respectively, wherein said at least first (30) and second (32) hubs are disposed within said inner surface of said loop (36) (Figs. 22-30, Annotated Fig. 27); and
at least one wheel rail (34) connecting said first (30) and second (32) hub centers such that said first (30) and second (32) hubs are held in place within said inner surface (A) (Figs. 3-5 col 15 lns 47-67).
Willis does not appear to specifically disclose that the loop comprises a plurality of slits each extending from proximate to said inner surface through said outer surface.
Spector teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a loop (240) to include a plurality of slits (A) each extending from proximate to said inner surface (T) through said outer surface (U) (Spector Annotated Fig. 7 & col 6 lns 1-23 disclose and depicts a single continuous loop with a plurality of slits generally indicated by “A” and defied by gaps between members 244 and 250 which extends from the dotted line U indicating the outer surface to the inner surface defined by dotted line T. Dotted line T is interpreted as being the inner surface because while protrusions 246 extend below the inner surface T these protrusions are for engagement with the wheels that hold the track in place and similar to the protrusions 18 of Applicant’s track, e.g., see Fig. 5C & p. 11 lns 8-15 of Applicant’s originally filed Specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the track disclosed by Willis to incorporate for the loop to comprise a plurality of slits each extending from proximate to said inner surface through said outer surface as taught by Spector in order to have a stretchable closed loop and integrally formed belt with protrusions aiding in preventing the belt from falling off, e.g., see Spector Annotated Fig. 7 & col 2 lns 22-44, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 22, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Willis/Spector further discloses a plurality of protrusions (Spector - 246) provided to said inner surface of said elliptical, continuous loop (Spector - 240) (Spector Annotated Fig. 7)
Claims 2, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis in view of Spector and further in view of FR 3034743 A3 to Guigan.
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Willis does not appear to explicitly disclose at least a third hub with a third hub center, wherein:
said at least third hub is disposed between said first and second hubs; and
said at least one wheel rail connects said third hub center to said first and second hub centers.
Guigan teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a tracked vehicle to include at least a third hub (1) with a third hub center (Fig. 1), wherein:
said at least third hub (1) is disposed between said first (3) and second hubs (2) (Guigan Annotated Fig. 1); and
said at least one wheel rail (7) connects said third hub center (E) to said first (F) and second (D) hub centers (Guigan Annotated Fig. 1 and p. 2 lns 8-24 discloses the centers of the three hubs are connected by the arm 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tracked vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Willis/Spector to incorporate for the track assembly to further include at least a third hub with a third hub center, wherein: said at least third hub is disposed between said first and second hubs; and said at least one wheel rail connects said third hub center to said first and second hub centers as taught by Guigan in order to reduce the amount of friction, e.g., see Guigan p. 1 last ¶ and p. 3 ¶ 4, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Willis does not appear to further disclose wherein:
said at least one wheel rail is first and second wheel rails, wherein said first wheel rail connects said first and second hub centers on a first side and said second wheel rail connects said first and second hub centers on a second side; and
said articulated wheel further comprises a fork, comprising:
a first arm connected to said first wheel rail;
a second arm connected to said second wheel rail; and
a bridge connecting said first and second arms outside of said loop.
Guigan teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, said at least one wheel rail (7) is first (G) and second (H) wheel rails, wherein said first wheel rail (G) connects said first (F) and second (D) hub centers on a first side and said second wheel rail (H) connects said first (F) and second (D) hub centers on a second side (Annotated Fig. 1); and
said articulated wheel further comprises a fork (5) (Guigan Annotated Fig. 1), comprising:
a first arm (I) connected to said first wheel rail (G) (Guigan Annotated Fig. 1);
a second arm (H) connected to said second wheel rail (J) (Guigan Annotated Fig. 1); and
a bridge (K) connecting said first (I) and second (J) arms outside of said loop (8) (Guigan Annotated Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tracked vehicle disclosed by the modifed combination of Willis/Spector to incorporate the wheel rails and fork as taught by Guigan in order to incorporate the third hub as discussed above in claim 2 to effectuate lower friction, e.g., see Guigan p. 1 last ¶ and p. 3 ¶ 4, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis in view of Spector and further in view of Guigan and further in view of US 2018/0229784 A1 to Marchildon et al (hereinafter Marchildon).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 3, the modified combination of Willis/Spector/Guigan does not appear to further disclose means for adjusting tension between said first and second wheel rails.
Marchildon teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include means (194) for adjusting tension between said first (124) and second (126) wheel rails (Figs. 1-3 and [0066]-[0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the track system disclosed by the modified combination of Willis/Spector/Guigan to incorporate the means for adjusting tension between said first and second wheel rails as taught by Marchildon in order to adjust tension on the tack, e.g., see [0066]-[0068], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis in view of Spector and further in view of CN 105559984 A to Yin et al (hereinafter Yin).
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 1, Willis does not appear to disclose wherein at least said first hub is a hub motor.
Yin teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for at least said first hub is a hub motor (Fig. 1 & p. 5 ¶2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tracked vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Willis/Spector to incorporate for the at least said first hub is a hub motor as taught by Yin in order to provide power to the tracked vehicle, e.g., see Yin p. 5 ¶2-3, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 7 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis in view of Spector and further in view of US 2012/0139197 A1 to Livingston.
Regarding claims 7&8, depending on claims 1 and 7 respectively, Willis does not appear to disclose wherein at least said second hub is a drum brake.
Livingston teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a second hub (41) to be a drum brake (58) (Figs. 1, 9, and 10 & [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tracked vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Willis/Spector to incorporate for the second hub to be a drum brake as taught by Livingston in order to provide a means to arrest the vehicle, e.g., see Livingston [0046], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis in view of Spector and further in view of US 6,250,409 B1 to Wells.
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 1, Willis does not appear to further disclose at least one bogey wheel.
Wells teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, at least one bogey wheel (99) (Fig. 30 & col 10 lns 8 - 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tracked vehicles disclosed by the modified combination of Willis/Spector to incorporate at least one bogey wheel as taught by Wells in order to provide consistent support on a smooth ground surface, e.g., see Wells col 10 lns 8 - 23, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis in view of Spector and further in view of US 2019/0291793 A1 to Johnson et al (hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 1, Willis does not appear to further disclose a rubber torsion spring mechanically engaged with said first hub.
Johnson teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a rubber torsion spring (118) mechanically engaged with said first hub (128) (Fig. 6 & [0038] teach rubber torsion bar, i.e., a spring, is mechanically connected, i.e., engaged with the hub 128 via other parts of the track system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tracked vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Willis/Spector to incorporate a rubber torsion spring mechanically engaged with said first hub as taught by Johnson in order to provide an adjustable surface area of a continuous track, e.g., see Johnson [0030], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 1, Willis does not appear to further disclose an inner actuator in mechanical communication with said first hub and said at least one wheel rail.
Johnson teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an inner actuator (129) in mechanical communication with said first hub (128) and said at least one wheel rail (120) (Figs. 6 and 8 & [0041]-[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tracked vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Willis/Spector to incorporate an inner actuator in mechanical communication with said first hub and said at least one wheel rail as taught by Johnson in order to adjust the amount of contact of the continuous track with the terrain, e.g., see Johnson [0043]-[0044], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0144054 A1 to Bliss in view of Spector.
PNG
media_image3.png
416
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Bliss discloses a mobility vehicle comprising four articulated wheels (Fig. 5), wherein each of said articulated wheels comprises:
an … continuous loop (16) having an inner surface and an outer surface (Fig. 5), wherein:
said loop comprises a plurality of slits (Z)
…
at least first (X) and second hubs (Y) comprising first and second hub centers (Bliss Annotated Fig. 5), respectively, wherein said at least first (X) and second (Y) hubs are disposed within said inner surface of said loop (16); and
at least one wheel rail (W) connecting said first and second hub centers such that said first (X) and second (Y) hubs are held in place within said inner surface (Bliss Annotated Figs. 2&5).
Bliss does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein each of said articulated wheels comprise:
an elliptical, continuous loop having an inner surface and an outer surface, wherein:
said loop comprises a plurality of slits each extending from proximate to said inner surface through said outer surface without extending through said inner surface.
Spector teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for an elliptical, continuous loop (240) having an inner surface (T) and an outer surface (U), wherein: the loop (240) comprises a plurality of slits (A) each extending from proximate to said inner surface (T) through said outer surface (U) (Spector Annotated Fig. 7 & col 6 lns 1-23 disclose and depicts a single continuous loop with a plurality of slits generally indicated by “A” and defied by gaps between members 244 and 250 which extends from the dotted line U indicating the outer surface to the inner surface defined by dotted line T. Dotted line T is interpreted as being the inner surface because while protrusions 246 extend below the inner surface T these protrusions are for engagement with the wheels that hold the track in place and similar to the protrusions 18 of Applicant’s track, e.g., see Fig. 5C & p. 11 lns 8-15 of Applicant’s originally filed Specification).
PNG
media_image4.png
309
748
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the track disclosed by Bliss to incorporate for the track to be an elliptical, continuous loop having an inner surface and an outer surface, wherein: the loop to comprise a plurality of slits each extending from proximate to said inner surface through said outer surface as taught by Spector in order to have a stretchable closed loop and integrally formed belt with protrusions aiding in preventing the belt from falling off, e.g., see Spector Annotated Fig. 7 & col 2 lns 22-44, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, depending on claim 16, Bliss further discloses:
a base (11, 12, 14, 15, 16) (Bliss Annotated Figs. 2&5 and [0030] disclose the base collectively includes four corners) comprising:
four corners, wherein one of each of said four articulated wheels extends from each of said four corners (Bliss Annotated Figs. 2&5);
a frame (11, 12, 14, and 15) connecting at least said four corners (Bliss Annotated Figs. 2&5); and
at least one housing (14, 15) that houses a steering mechanism (Bliss Annotated Figs. 2&5 and [0024] disclose the front and rear chassis are able to steer the mobility vehicle and thus are each interpreted as including a steering mechanism); and
an upper portion (10) extending up from said base (11, 12, 14, 15, 16) (Bliss Annotated Figs. 2&5), said upper portion comprising:
a seat attached to and extending up from said frame (11, 12, 14, 15) of said base (11, 12, 14, 15, 16) (Bliss Annotated Figs. 2&5 and [0028] disclose the bed of mobility vehicle includes seats which are above the base);
at least one battery ([0024]); and
at least one upper actuator (11,12), extending between said seat and said frame (11, 12, 14, 15) of said base (11, 12, 14, 15, 16), wherein said upper actuator (11,12) is extendable so as to keep said seat level (Bliss Annotated Figs. 2&5 and [0025]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 19, depending on claim 17, Bliss further discloses wherein:
said at least one housing (14, 15) that houses a steering mechanism is two housings (14, 15), each of which houses a steering mechanism (Bliss Annotated Figs. 2&5 and [0024] disclose the front and rear chassis are able to steer the mobility vehicle and thus are each interpreted as including a steering mechanism); and
each of said steering mechanisms is in mechanical communication with two of said four articulated wheels (Bliss Annotated Figs. 2&5 depict two wheels are connected to each of 14 and 15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 are allowed for the same reasons as discussed for prior claims 4, 18, and 20 in the Office Action. See pp. 17-18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response directed to the 102 rejection of claims 1 and 16 by Willis have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Willis/Spector. See Response pp. 9-11.
Applicant on p. 9 of the Response makes the argument that Willis does not disclose the slits of the loop extend to the inner surface without extending through the inner surface. This argument is persuasive, however after further consideration Spector is now relied upon for disclosing the argued deficiency. The same argument is made regarding the rejection of claim 16 under Willis.
Applicant on pp. 14-15 makes the argument that Willis does not disclose the slits of the loop extend to the inner surface without extending through the inner surface to make up for the deficiencies of Bliss. This argument is persuasive and based on the amendments included in the Response claim 16 is now rejected under Bliss in view of Spector. Because all arguments directed toward the rejection of Bliss/Willis were directed toward Willis which is no longer relied upon the arguments are moot.
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 CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611