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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the amended claims (pages 7-10) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, however new grounds of rejection have been applied.
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.
Claims 10, 12-17, 19, 21-26, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schocke (EP-2778028-A2) in view of Pattyn (US-20130049453-A1), Toews (US-3912338-A; cited in the Non-Final Rejection dated April 1, 2025), Meulemans (WO-2011112986-A2). (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, (having similar limitations but differing in that claim 10 is drawn to a tracked vehicle comprising a track and claim 19 is drawn directly to a tracked vehicle track) Schocke teaches a {tracked vehicle (claim 10 only; Snowcat 1, Fig. 1)/ tracked vehicle track (claim 19 only; Drive Chain 2 of Snowcat 1, Fig. 1)} comprising:
{a track (claim 10 only; Drive Chain 2, Fig. 1) provided with} a transverse bar (Chain Web 7, Fig. 2) configured to act against a ground during a movement of {the/ a} tracked vehicle (Chain Web 7 being disposed on the outer perimeter of the Drive Chain 2, it is understood to act against the ground during movement of the Snowcat 1), the transverse bar (7) comprising a base (“B”, Fig. 3 Annotated) configured to be coupled to a track belt (Chain Belt 4, Fig. 1), a free edge (adjacent to Groove 13, Fig. 3) and two lateral walls (“LW”, Fig. 3 Annotated); and
a spike device (Mounting Part 20, Fig. 11) configured to act against the ground during the movement of the tracked vehicle (Mounting Part 20 being disposed on the outer perimeter of the Drive Chain 2, it is understood to act against the ground during movement of the Snowcat 1), the spike device (20) comprising:
a first support (Support Portion 21, Fig. 11) comprising a {body} (the body of Support Portion 21) extending along an axis orthogonal to the track belt (the body of Support Portion 21 having at least a portion which extends in a direction orthogonal to Chain Belt 4 as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 11) and two lip portions (“LP”, Fig. 8 Annotated) configured to follow a shape of the lateral walls (LW) of the transverse bar (7) (the edges “EDG” of the lip portions “LP” following the shape of the lateral walls “LW” of the Chain Web 7 as illustrated in Fig. 8 Annotated) coupled to the transverse bar (7) at a seat (Wear Bar 8, Fig. 11) defined by the free edge (13) of the transverse bar (Support Portion 21 being coupled to with Fastening Web 17A to Chain Web 7 where Wear Bar 8 of Groove 13 forms a seat for Support Portion 21 as illustrated in Fig. 11); and
a spike (“SPK”, Fig. 11 Annotated) supportable by the first support and configured to act against the ground during the movement of the tracked vehicle (SPK being disposed on the outer perimeter of the Drive Chain 2, it is understood to act against the ground during movement of the Snowcat 1), wherein the spike (SPK) extends along the axis orthogonal to the track belt (SPK being illustrated in Figs. 2 & 11 as disposed away from Chain Belt 4 such that it can be characterized as extending about an axis orthogonal to the Chain Belt 4) and is selectively releasable (SPK being connected with screws via Fastening Web 17A, it can be characterized as selectively releasable; Fig. 11 and Para. [0029]).
PNG
media_image1.png
589
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schocke Fig. 3 Annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
654
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Schocke Fig. 8 Annotated
PNG
media_image3.png
474
847
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Schocke Fig. 11 Annotated
Schocke does not teach that the body of the first support is a cylindrical body defining a seat.
Pattyn teaches, in another traction enhancement device for a snowmobile track (Abstract), a spike (Stud 3, Fig. 2) supportable by a seat (First Boss 14, Fig. 3) defined by a cylindrical body (First Boss 14 having a substantially cylindrical body as illustrated in Fig. 3) of a first support (Stud Support 10, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the body of the first support of Schocke’s {tracked vehicle/ tracked vehicle track} cylindrical as suggested by Pattyn, since it has been held that changes in shape of an invention involve only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of matching the shape of the support to the shape of the spike/ stud to use less material that would beneficially make a lighter and cheaper to manufacture apparatus.
Schocke does not teach that the two lip portions are located on and diametrically opposite the first support (21).
Pattyn teaches two lip portions (First 24 and Second 30 Side Flanges, Fig. 3) that are diametrically opposite with respect to the cylindrical body (First 24 and Second 30 Side Flanges being disposed on opposite sides of the cylindrical body of First Boss 14, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange Schocke’s {tracked vehicle/ tracked vehicle track}, as modified, such that the two lip portions were located on and diametrically opposite the first support, as suggested by Pattyn, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of placing lip portions adjacent to a spike seat that would beneficially enhance the gripping capability of the track.
Schocke does not teach the first support (21) being non-releasably coupled to the transverse bar (7).
Toews teaches, in another track mechanism (Abstract), a support (Grouser Bar 16, Fig. 2) for a spike device (Insert 20, Fig. 2) that is non-releasably coupled to a transverse bar (Grouser Bar 16 being welded to- Welding 18, Fig. 2- Steel Plate 12 as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the separate parts: first support (21) and transverse bar (7), of Schocke’s {tracked vehicle/ tracked vehicle track}, as modified, integral- i.e. non-releasably coupled, as suggested by Toews, since it has been held that making separate parts of an invention integral involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 and MPEP 2144.04(V)(B). Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of securely and permanently attaching a spike support to a track that would beneficially enhance the durability of the track.
Schocke does not teach the spike being selectively releasable via a threaded coupling with the first support.
Meulemans teaches a spike (108) that is selectively releasable via a threaded coupling with a support (Stud 108 and Lower Flange Portion 132 both being illustrated in Fig. 15 with matching threads, they can be characterized as being selectively releasable via a threaded coupling).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schocke, Pattyn, and Meulemans in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schocke’s {tracked vehicle/ tracked vehicle track}, as modified above, to include a threaded coupling between the first support and the spike as suggested by Meulemans. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of being able to easily install or uninstall a spike that would beneficially make the track more user-friendly.
Regarding Claims 12 and 21, (having different dependencies but similar limitations) Schocke teaches that the spike comprises a spike tip (the uppermost portion of SPK in Fig. 11 Annotated forming a point, that portion can be characterized as a tip).
Schocke does not teach that the spike tip is non- releasably coupled to a second support selectively releasably coupled to the first support.
Meulemans teaches a spike tip (Side Stud 112, Fig. 16) that is non- releasably coupled to a second support (Page 7: Lines 10-13 teach that the Side Stud 112 may be welded, glued- i.e. bonded- or physically bonded- i.e. coupled via mechanical interference- to Stud Plate 500) selectively releasably coupled to a first support (Side Stud 112 is coupled to Lower Flange Portion 132 via Stud 108 and Stud Plate 500 as illustrated in Fig. 16, this connection being characterized as selectively releasable as the connection between Stud 108 and Lower Flange Portion 132 is a threaded connection).
The spike as taught by Meulemans is arranged such that the selectively releasable coupling between the second support (500) and the first support (132) comprises a threaded coupling (as illustrated on Stud 108 and Lower Flange Portion 132 in Fig. 15) and the second support comprises a tightening nut (Fastener 110 is illustrated, though not labeled, in Fig. 16 and described in the paragraph beginning at Page 6: Line 18).
The spike as taught by Meulemans is further arranged such that a support (132) comprises a sleeve (“SL”, Fig. 15 Annotated) and another support (500) defines a seat configured to receive the sleeve (SL) (Stud Plate 500 is illustrated in Fig. 16 as interfacing with Lower Flange Portion 132 such that Sleeve SL would be seated against it).
PNG
media_image4.png
343
283
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Meulemans Fig. 15 Annotated
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schocke, Pattyn, and Meulemans in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schocke’s {tracked vehicle/ tracked vehicle track} such that the spike tip is non- releasably coupled to a second support selectively releasably coupled to the first support as suggested by Meulemans. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of being able to easily install or uninstall a spike tip that would beneficially make the track more user-friendly.
Regarding Claims 13 and 22, (having different dependencies but similar limitations) Schocke as modified above by Meulemans teaches all limitations (See the combined 103 rejection of claims 12 and 21 above).
Regarding Claims 14 and 23, (having different dependencies but similar limitations) Schocke as modified above by Meulemans teaches all limitations (See the combined 103 rejection of claims 12 and 21 above).
Regarding Claims 15 and 24, (having different dependencies but similar limitations) Schocke as modified above by Meulemans teaches all limitations (See the combined 103 rejection of claims 12 and 21 above).
Regarding Claim 16 and 25, (having different dependencies but similar limitations) Schocke teaches that the transverse bar (7) comprises a single body and the free edge (13) is formed in one piece with the lateral walls (LW) (Fig. 3 illustrates the Chain Web 7 as a single body with the edge adjacent to Groove 13 being integral to the body).
Regarding Claim 17 and 26, (having different dependencies but similar limitations) Schocke teaches that the transverse bar (7) is formed as a union of two separate bodies, one of which is the free edge (Fig. 7 illustrates the Chain Web 7 as comprising a Wear Rail 8 having been installed in Groove 13 such that the free edge can be characterized as a second separate body from the Chain Web 7).
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the Wear Rail 8 is not the “free edge” as defined in claim 10, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schocke, Pattyn, and Meulemans in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schocke’s {tracked vehicle/ tracked vehicle track} such that the transverse bar (7) and the free edge (13) were two separate bodies as suggested by the inclusion of the separate Wear Rail 8 by Schocke. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a replaceable wear surface that would beneficially make a longer lasting track.
Regarding Claim 28, Schocke teaches a spike device (Mounting Part 20, Fig. 11) configured to act against the ground during the movement of a tracked vehicle (Mounting Part 20 being disposed on the outer perimeter of the Drive Chain 2, it is understood to act against the ground during movement of a Snowcat 1, Fig. 1), the spike device (20) comprising:
a first support (Support Portion 21, Fig. 11) comprising:
a {body} (the body of Support Portion 21) extending along an axis orthogonal to a track belt (the body of Support Portion 21 having at least a portion which extends in a direction orthogonal to Chain Belt 4 as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 11) and coupled to a transverse bar (Chain Web 7, Fig. 2) of a track (Drive Chain 2, Fig. 1) of the tracked vehicle (1) at a seat (Wear Bar 8 , Fig. 11) defined by the free edge (13) of the transverse bar (Support Portion 21 being coupled to Fastening Web 17A to Chain Web 7 where Wear Bar 8 of Groove 13 forms a seat for Support Portion 21 as illustrated in Fig. 11), the transverse bar (7) comprising a free edge (adjacent to Groove 13, Fig. 3), two lateral walls (“LW”, Fig. 3 Annotated), and a base (“B”, Fig. 3 Annotated) configured to be coupled to the track belt (Chain Belt 4, Fig. 1), and
two lip portions (“LP”, Fig. 8 Annotated) configured to follow a shape of the two lateral walls (LW) of the transverse bar (7) (the edges “EDG” of the lip portions “LP” following the shape of the lateral walls “LW” of the Chain Web 7 as illustrated in Fig. 8 Annotated); and
a spike (“SPK”, Fig. 11 Annotated) supportable by the first support and configured to act against the ground during the movement of the tracked vehicle (SPK being disposed on the outer perimeter of the Drive Chain 2, it is understood to act against the ground during movement of the Snowcat 1), wherein the spike (SPK) extends along the axis orthogonal to the track belt (SPK being illustrated in Figs. 2 & 11 as disposed away from Chain Belt 4 such that it can be characterized as extending about an axis orthogonal to the Chain Belt 4) and is selectively releasable (SPK being connected with screws via Fastening Web 17A, it can be characterized as selectively releasable; Fig. 11 and Para. [0029]).
Schocke does not teach that the body of the first support is a cylindrical body defining a seat or that the spike is selectively releasable via a threaded coupling with the first support but Pattyn and Meulemans teach these features (see the 103 rejection of claims 10 and 19 above for the teachings of Pattyn and Meulemans and motivation to combine them with the tracked vehicle/ tracked vehicle track/ spike device of Schocke).
Schocke does not teach the first support (21) being non-releasably coupled to the transverse bar (7) but it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make them so, as suggested by Toews (see the 103 rejection of claims 10 and 19 above for the teachings of Toews and motivation to combine them with the tracked vehicle/ tracked vehicle track/ spike device of Schocke).
Schocke does not teach that the two lip portions are located on and diametrically opposite the first support (21), but it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange them such that they were (see the 103 rejection of claims 18 and 27 above for the teachings of Schocke and motivation to modify them).
Regarding Claim 30, Schocke teaches that the spike comprises a spike tip (the uppermost portion of SPK in Fig. 11 Annotated forming a point, that portion can be characterized as a tip).
Schocke does not teach that the spike tip is non- releasably coupled to a second support selectively releasably coupled to the first support but Meulemans does (see the 103 rejection of claims 12 and 21 above for the teachings of Meulemans and motivation to combine them with the tracked vehicle/ tracked vehicle track/ spike of Schocke, as modified).
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 TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights