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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5,8-11,13,15-16,18,21,22,25,31,32, 34 and 35 under 35 USC 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Prohaska (US 20120212045) and Sauvageau (US 2018/0009490), regarding independent claims 1,34 and 35. Subsequent 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 rejections are made as recited in this office action regarding the dependent claims of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,10,11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Prohaska (US 20120212045).
Regarding claim 1, Prohaska (US 20120212045) teaches a track system for traction of a vehicle 10 (Fig 1, para 0014) the track system comprising:
- a track 14 (Fig 2C) including an endless body 40,42 and 44 (Figs 2B and 2C, “Track 14 includes flexible tension member 40, cleats 42, and guide lugs 44.” para 0014) , the endless body 40 (Figs 2B and 2C) [being elastomeric] (“Flexible tension member 40 can be a wire rope or cable that is axially rigid for track tensioning and bendably flexible in all other directions to accommodate steering…” para 0016 ) and comprising a ground-engaging outer surface 42 (Fig 2C) [configured to engage a ground] (“Cleats 42 serve to transfer tractive force from flexible tension member 40 to the ground surface” para 0016 ) and an inner surface 44 (Fig 2C) [opposite to the ground- engaging outer surface] (Fig 2C shows the guide lugs in an opposed direction from the ground engaging surface 42);
- a plurality of track-contacting wheels 16,18a-18b, 20a-20g (Fig 1, para 0017) for [driving and guiding the track around the track- contacting wheels] (“Track 14 guide lugs 44 are engaged by drive sprocket 16, idler wheels 18a-18b and bogie wheels 20a-20g.” para 0015), the track-contacting wheels including:
- a drive wheel 16 (Fig 1, “Track 14 is driven around idler wheels 18a-18b, and bogie wheels 20a-20g by drive sprocket 16” para 0017) configured to drive the track;
- a front idler wheel 18a (Fig 1) and a rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1) [spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the track system] (Annotated Prohaska Fig 1 below shows a substantial distance between the front and rear idler wheels ); and
- a plurality of roller wheels 20a-20g (Fig 1) [configured to roll on a lower run of the track] (“Suspension links 46a-46g are flexibly mounted to idler wheels 18a-18b and bogie wheels 20a-20g to allow wheels 18a-18b, 20a-20g to oscillate and allow cleats 42 to always operate parallel to the ground surface” para 0020 ) and disposed between the front idler wheel 18a (Fig 1) and the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 2) [in the longitudinal direction of the track system] (Fig 1 shows the bogie wheels operating between the front and rear idler wheels) ; and
- an alignment mechanism 12 (Figs 1 and 4a-4b) [configured to pivot the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1) [about a pivot axis having an upward component to dynamically adjust an angular orientation of the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1 and 4a-4b) relative to the longitudinal direction of the track system] (“The pivot is controlled through the steering system of the vehicle which controls hydraulic cylinders 36a-36d to pivot links 24, 26, 30, 32. The amount of pivot can be large or small depending on the turn radius desired, the velocity the vehicle is travelling, the vehicle itself, and the terrain on which the vehicle is travelling as well as other factors. Control of the pivot can be automatic as well.” para 0027 ).
Regarding claim 2, Prohaska teaches an axis of rotation of the drive wheel 16 (Fig 1) is disposed between an axis of rotation of the front idler wheel 18a (Fig 1) and an axis of rotation of the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1) in the longitudinal direction of the track system (See Annotated Prohaska Figure 1 below).
Regarding Claim 3, Prohaska teaches a tensioner 40 (Fig 2C) [configured to control a tension of the track] (“Flexible tension member 40 can be a wire rope or cable that is axially rigid for track tensioning and bendably flexible in all other directions to accommodate steering, track rotation around drive sprocket 16, idler wheels 18a-18b and bogie wheels 20a-20g and suspension movements due to ground undulations.”, para 0016 ).
Regarding Claim 10, Prohaska teaches the alignment mechanism 12 (Figs 1 and 4a-4b) comprises a pivot 38a (Figs 2A and 4A) and an alignment link 24 (Figs 2A and 4A) [pivotable about the pivot axis of the pivot] (“Links 24, 26, 30, 32 are pivotably connected to each other via pivot pins 38a-38d” para 0015 and “Links 24, 26, 30, 32 can be rotated by hydraulic cylinders 36a-36d…Coordinated steer mode is generally described above, with pivoting done through all cylinders 36a-36d so that all links (24, 26, 28, 30, 32) form an arc.” Para 0018) [to adjust the angular orientation of the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 4a) relative to the longitudinal direction of the track system] (“Coordinated steer mode is generally described above, with pivoting done through all cylinders 36a-36d so that all links (24, 26, 28, 30, 32) form an arc.” Para 0018 and see also “Steering system can cause pivoting so that all links 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 form an arc, or can pivot only some links to form an arc if desired.” para 0019-Figure 4B of Prohaska shows an exaggerated view of the orientation of the front and rear idler wheels relative to the drive wheel)
PNG
media_image1.png
467
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Prohaska teaches the pivot axis of the alignment mechanism 12 (Fig 1) is substantially parallel to a heightwise direction of the track system 10 (Fig 1). (Annotated Prohaska Figure 1 shows the pivot axis of the pivot pins remain parallel to a height of the track system).
Annotated Prohaska Figure 1 above shows the pivot axis of the pivot pins remaining parallel to the overall height of the track system.
Regarding Claim 13, Prohaska teaches track system 10 (Fig 1) comprising a tensioning link 46g (Fig 1, para 0018) mounted between the tensioner 40 (Fig 1 and 2C) and an axle of the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1) , wherein the alignment link 32 (Fig 1) [is pivotally connected to the tensioning link 46g (Fig 1) to dynamically adjust the angular orientation of the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1) relative to the longitudinal direction of the track system] (“Central link 28 of undercarriage 12 is rigidly fixed to vehicle main frame 22. Links 24, 26, 30, 32 are pivotably connected to each other via pivot pins 38a-38d and hydraulic cylinders 36a-36d. Idler wheels 18a-18b and bogie wheels 20a-20g are connected to undercarriage by suspension links 46a-46g.” para 0015).
Regarding Claim 15, Prohaska teaches [a distance between the axis of rotation of the drive wheel 16 (Fig 1) and the axis of rotation of the front idler wheel 18a (Fig 1) corresponds to a distance between the axis of rotation of the drive wheel 16 (Fig 1) and the axis of rotation of the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1)] (Annotated Prohaska Figure 1 below shows the front and rear idler wheel distances are substantially the same measured from the drive wheel axis).
PNG
media_image2.png
487
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Prohaska Figure 1 shows the longitudinal distance between the front and rear idler wheels of the track system.
Regarding claim 31, Prohaska teaches the alignment mechanism 12 (Figs 1 and 4a-4b) [is responsive to a command from a processing apparatus to adjust the angular orientation of the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 4A and 4B)] (“Links 24, 26, 30, 32 can be rotated by hydraulic cylinders 36a-36d which are controlled by a conventional vehicle power steering system…Steering system can be controlled to provide various steering modes, including coordinated steer mode and front steer mode. Coordinated steer mode is generally described above, with pivoting done through all cylinders 36a-36d so that all links (24, 26, 28, 30, 32) form an arc.” para 0018) [relative to the longitudinal direction of the track system] (Fig 4B shows the track system in a pivoted state,” FIGS. 4A and 4B show links 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 of steerable undercarriage 12 pivoted in an arc formation to turn the vehicle.” para 0027).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4-5, 8-9, 21 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prohaska in view of Sauvageau (US 2018/0009490).
Regarding Claim 4, Prohaska teaches a tensioner of a track system.
Prohaska does not teach the tensioner is disposed to exert a force closer to the front idler wheel than to the rear idler wheel or closer to the rear idler wheel than to the front idler wheel to control the tension of the track.
Sauvageau teaches a tensioner 410 (Figs 8, 10 and 14) is disposed to exert a force 501 (Figs 16 and 18) [closer to the front idler wheel 260a (Figs 1, 3A and 3B) than to the rear idler wheel (Figs 1, 3A and 3B)] (“The action of the tensioner 410 and the wheel linkage 418 bias the leading axle assembly 266a and the wheel assembly 260a toward the forward end of the track system 40 with a biasing force 501 (FIGS. 16 and 18A).” para 0114) or closer to the rear idler wheel 260b (Figs 1, 3A and 3B) than to the front idler wheel 260a (Figs 1, 3A and 3B) to control the tension of the track.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the tensioner of Sauvageau with the track system of Prohaska with a reasonable expectation of success because it would simplify the design of the tensioning system. By creating a tensioning system that only applies a force to one of the idler wheels, there is more control in how much force is applied to one location and there are less ways for the tensioner to fail.
Regarding claim 5, Prohaska and Sauvageau fully teach the tensioner Sauvageau-410 (Figs 8, 10 and 14) is disposed [closer to the front idler wheel Sauvageau-260a (Figs 1, 3A and 3B) than to the rear idler wheel Sauvageau-260b (Figs 1, 3A and 3B)] (“The action of the tensioner 410 and the wheel linkage 418 bias the leading axle assembly 266a and the leading idler wheel assembly 260a toward the forward end of the track system 40 with a biasing force 501 (FIGS. 16 and 18A).” para 0114, Fig 8 shows the tensioner directly attached to the front idler wheel 260a) or closer to the rear idler wheel Sauvageau-260b (Figs 1, 3A and 3B) than to the front idler wheel Sauvageau-260a (Figs 1, 3A and 3B) (“In some embodiments, the tensioner 410 could be included on the trailing wheel-bearing frame member 200b.” para 0113) to control the tension of the track.
Regarding Claim 8 Prohaska teaches the tensioner 40 (Fig 2C).
Prohaska does not explicitly teach the tensioner is an active tensioner.
Sauvageau teaches an equivalent tensioner 410 (Figs 8, 10 and 14) that is an active tensioner ( “the tensioner 410 is a dynamic tensioning device” para 0117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the tensioner of Sauvageau with the track system of Prohaska with a reasonable expectation of success because it would simplify the design of the tensioning system and allow active changes to the tension of the track while the vehicle is in operation. By using a dynamic tensioning system, there is more control in how much force is applied to the track in order to maintain the track tension.
Regarding Claim 9 Prohaska teaches the tensioner 40 (Fig 2C) of claim 3.
Prohaska does not explicitly teach the tensioner is a piston-cylinder unit.
Sauvageau teaches an equivalent tensioner 410 (Figs 8, 10 and 14) that is a piston-cylinder unit (The tensioner 410 is described as a dynamic tensioning device that is fully incorporated from reference WO 2016161528 (see Sauvageau para 0117). Reference WO 2016161528 anticipates a piston 208 (Figs 6 and 7 WO 2016161528 para 0066) cylinder 206 (Figs 6 and 7 WO 2016161528 para 0066) unit ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the piston-cylinder tensioner of Sauvageau with the track system of Prohaska with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for better control of the tensioning system. By using a piston-cylinder unit as a tensioner, the amount of extension and retraction of the piston has improved control due to the fluid pressure maintained within the cylinder.
Regarding claim 21, Prohaska teaches the track system 1 (Fig 1) wherein the track-contacting wheels 20a-20g (Figs 2B and 2C) [include a second rear idler wheel spaced from the first rear idler wheel in a widthwise direction of the track system] (See Fig 2C for the pairs of track wheels to contain and support the track elements), and the alignment mechanism 12 (Figs 1 and 4a-4b) [is configured to adjust an angular orientation of the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1 and 4a-4b) relative to the longitudinal direction of the track system] (“The pivot is controlled through the steering system of the vehicle which controls hydraulic cylinders 36a-36d to pivot links 24, 26, 30, 32. The amount of pivot can be large or small depending on the turn radius desired, the velocity the vehicle is travelling, the vehicle itself, and the terrain on which the vehicle is travelling as well as other factors. Control of the pivot can be automatic as well.” para 0027 ).
Prohaska does not teach the rear idler wheel is a first rear idler wheel, and the front idler wheel is a first front idler wheel, and the track-contacting wheels include a second rear idler wheel spaced from the first rear idler wheel in a widthwise direction of the track system.
Sauvageau teaches the rear idler wheel 262a (Figs 1, 3A and 3B) is a first rear idler wheel 262a1 (Figs 1-4, para 0112), and the front idler wheel 260a (Figs 1, 3A and 3B) is a first front idler wheel 262a1 (Figs 1-4, para 0112), and the track-contacting wheels include a second rear idler wheel 262b1 (Figs 1-4, para 0112) [spaced from the first rear idler wheel in a widthwise direction of the track system] (Fig 5 shows the first and second rear idler wheels 262a1 and 262a2 positioned away from each other in a widthwise direction ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first and second front idler wheels as taught by Sauvageau with the track assembly of Prohaska with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for better grip and stability of the endless track around the front and rear idler wheels while the wheels are in motion. By having the front and rear idler wheels consisting of two wheels the endless track is less likely to slip and separate from in between the two wheels while the vehicle is in motion and will prevent the track from separating from the track system as a whole.
Regarding claim 34, Prohaska teaches a track system for traction of a vehicle 10 (Fig 1, para 0014) the track system comprising:
- a track 14 (Fig 2C) including an endless body 40,42 and 44 (Figs 2B and 2C, “Track 14 includes flexible tension member 40, cleats 42, and guide lugs 44.” para 0014) , the endless body 40 (Figs 2B and 2C) [being elastomeric] (“Flexible tension member 40 can be a wire rope or cable that is axially rigid for track tensioning and bendably flexible in all other directions to accommodate steering…” para 0016 ) and comprising a ground-engaging outer surface 42 (Fig 2C) [configured to engage a ground] (“Cleats 42 serve to transfer tractive force from flexible tension member 40 to the ground surface” para 0016 ) and an inner surface 44 (Fig 2C) [opposite to the ground- engaging outer surface] (Fig 2C shows the guide lugs in an opposed direction from the ground engaging surface 42);
- a plurality of track-contacting wheels 16,18a-18b, 20a-20g (Fig 1, para 0017) for [driving and guiding the track around the track- contacting wheels] (“Track 14 guide lugs 44 are engaged by drive sprocket 16, idler wheels 18a-18b and bogie wheels 20a-20g.” para 0015), the track-contacting wheels including:
- a drive wheel 16 (Fig 1, “Track 14 is driven around idler wheels 18a-18b, and bogie wheels 20a-20g by drive sprocket 16” para 0017) configured to drive the track;
- a front idler wheel 18a (Fig 1) and a rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1) [spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the track system] (Annotated Prohaska Fig 1 below shows a substantial distance between the front and rear idler wheels ); and
- a plurality of roller wheels 20a-20g (Fig 1) [configured to roll on a lower run of the track] (“Suspension links 46a-46g are flexibly mounted to idler wheels 18a-18b and bogie wheels 20a-20g to allow wheels 18a-18b, 20a-20g to oscillate and allow cleats 42 to always operate parallel to the ground surface” para 0020 ) and disposed between the front idler wheel 18a (Fig 1) and the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 2) [in the longitudinal direction of the track system] (Fig 1 shows the bogie wheels operating between the front and rear idler wheels) ; and
- an alignment mechanism 12 (Figs 1 and 4a-4b) [configured to pivot the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1) [about a pivot axis having an upward component to dynamically adjust an angular orientation of the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1 and 4a-4b) relative to the longitudinal direction of the track system] (“The pivot is controlled through the steering system of the vehicle which controls hydraulic cylinders 36a-36d to pivot links 24, 26, 30, 32. The amount of pivot can be large or small depending on the turn radius desired, the velocity the vehicle is travelling, the vehicle itself, and the terrain on which the vehicle is travelling as well as other factors. Control of the pivot can be automatic as well.” para 0027 ).
Prohaska does not explicitly teach a tensioner configured to control a tension of the track, the tensioner being disposed to exert a force closer to the front idler wheel than to the rear idler wheel to control the tension of the track.
Sauvageau teaches a tensioner 410 (Figs 8, 10 and 14) [configured to control a tension of the track] (“…the tensioner 410 is used to reduce the variations in the perimeter of the endless track 380 due to the pivoting of the leading and trailing frame members 170a, 170b” para 0115), the tensioner 410 is disposed to exert a force 501 (Figs 16 and 18) [closer to the front idler wheel 260a (Figs 1, 3A and 3B) than to the rear idler wheel (Figs 1, 3A and 3B)] (“The action of the tensioner 410 and the wheel linkage 418 bias the leading axle assembly 266a and the wheel assembly 260a toward the forward end of the track system 40 with a biasing force 501 (FIGS. 16 and 18A).” para 0114) or closer to the rear idler wheel 260b (Figs 1, 3A and 3B) than to the front idler wheel 260a (Figs 1, 3A and 3B) to control the tension of the track.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the tensioner of Sauvageau with the track system of Prohaska with a reasonable expectation of success because it would simplify the design of the tensioning system. By creating a tensioning system that only applies a force to one of the idler wheels, there is more control in how much force is applied to one location and there are less ways for the tensioner to fail.
Regarding claim 35, Prohaska teaches a track system for traction of a vehicle 10 (Fig 1, para 0014) the track system comprising:
- a track 14 (Fig 2C) including an endless body 40,42 and 44 (Figs 2B and 2C, “Track 14 includes flexible tension member 40, cleats 42, and guide lugs 44.” para 0014) , the endless body 40 (Figs 2B and 2C) [being elastomeric] (“Flexible tension member 40 can be a wire rope or cable that is axially rigid for track tensioning and bendably flexible in all other directions to accommodate steering…” para 0016 ) and comprising a ground-engaging outer surface 42 (Fig 2C) [configured to engage a ground] (“Cleats 42 serve to transfer tractive force from flexible tension member 40 to the ground surface” para 0016 ) and an inner surface 44 (Fig 2C) [opposite to the ground- engaging outer surface] (Fig 2C shows the guide lugs in an opposed direction from the ground engaging surface 42);
- a plurality of track-contacting wheels 16,18a-18b, 20a-20g (Fig 1, para 0017) for [driving and guiding the track around the track- contacting wheels] (“Track 14 guide lugs 44 are engaged by drive sprocket 16, idler wheels 18a-18b and bogie wheels 20a-20g.” para 0015), the track-contacting wheels including:
- a drive wheel 16 (Fig 1, “Track 14 is driven around idler wheels 18a-18b, and bogie wheels 20a-20g by drive sprocket 16” para 0017) configured to drive the track;
- a front idler wheel 18a (Fig 1) and a rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1) [spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the track system] (Annotated Prohaska Fig 1 below shows a substantial distance between the front and rear idler wheels ); and
- a plurality of roller wheels 20a-20g (Fig 1) [configured to roll on a lower run of the track] (“Suspension links 46a-46g are flexibly mounted to idler wheels 18a-18b and bogie wheels 20a-20g to allow wheels 18a-18b, 20a-20g to oscillate and allow cleats 42 to always operate parallel to the ground surface” para 0020 ) and disposed between the front idler wheel 18a (Fig 1) and the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 2) [in the longitudinal direction of the track system] (Fig 1 shows the bogie wheels operating between the front and rear idler wheels);
and
- an alignment mechanism 12 (Figs 1 and 4a-4b) [configured to pivot the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1) [about a pivot axis having an upward component to dynamically adjust an angular orientation of the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1 and 4a-4b) relative to the longitudinal direction of the track system] (“The pivot is controlled through the steering system of the vehicle which controls hydraulic cylinders 36a-36d to pivot links 24, 26, 30, 32. The amount of pivot can be large or small depending on the turn radius desired, the velocity the vehicle is travelling, the vehicle itself, and the terrain on which the vehicle is travelling as well as other factors. Control of the pivot can be automatic as well.” para 0027 ).
Prohaska does not explicitly teach a tensioner configured to control a tension of the track, the tensioner being disposed to exert a force closer to the rear idler wheel than to the front idler wheel to control the tension of the track;
Sauvageau teaches a tensioner 410 (Figs 8, 10 and 14) [configured to control a tension of the track] (“…the tensioner 410 is used to reduce the variations in the perimeter of the endless track 380 due to the pivoting of the leading and trailing frame members 170a, 170b” para 0115), the tensioner 410 is disposed to exert a force 501 (Figs 16 and 18) [closer to the rear idler wheel 260b (Figs 1, 3A and 3B) than to the front idler wheel 260a (Figs 1, 3A and 3B)] (“The action of the tensioner 410 and the wheel linkage 418 bias the leading axle assembly 266a and the wheel assembly 260a toward the forward end of the track system 40 with a biasing force 501 (FIGS. 16 and 18A).” para 0114 and see also “In some embodiments, the tensioner 410 could be included on the trailing wheel-bearing frame member 200b.” para 0113) to control the tension of the track.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the tensioner of Sauvageau with the track system of Prohaska with a reasonable expectation of success because it would simplify the design of the tensioning system. By creating a tensioning system that only applies a force to one of the idler wheels, there is more control in how much force is applied to one location and there are less ways for the tensioner to fail.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prohaska.
Regarding claim 16, Prohaska discloses the claimed invention except for a distance between the axis of rotation of the drive wheel and the axis of rotation of the front idler wheel is different than a distance between the axis of rotation of the drive wheel and the axis of rotation of the rear idler wheel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to make the distances a different length since it has been held that limitations relating to the size or proportion of an invention are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prohaska in view of Van Mill et al (US 2015/0321708).
Regarding claim 18, Prohaska teaches the pivoting track assembly of claim 1 with an alignment mechanism 12 (Figs 1 and 4a-4b) [that is configured to adjust the orientation of the rear idler wheel 18b (Fig 1 and 4a-4b) relative to the longitudinal direction of the track system]. (“The pivot is controlled through the steering system of the vehicle which controls hydraulic cylinders 36a-36d to pivot links 24, 26, 30, 32. The amount of pivot can be large or small depending on the turn radius desired, the velocity the vehicle is travelling, the vehicle itself, and the terrain on which the vehicle is travelling as well as other factors. Control of the pivot can be automatic as well.” para 0027 ).
Prohaska does not teach the alignment mechanism is configured to adjust the orientation of the rear idler wheel relative to the longitudinal direction of the track system by no more than 10 degrees.
Van Mill teaches an equivalent alignment mechanism 40,44 and 74 (Fig 8 para 0040) that is configured to [adjust the orientation of the front idler wheel 46 (Fig 7 para 0034) relative to the direction of the track system by no more than 10 degrees] (“…the fourth [front] arm 40 includes a sixth pivot 74 defining a sixth pivot axis about which the sixth arm 44 may pivot, which in turn controls the angle of the front idler spindles 48 relative to the line of travel…The sixth pivot axis is perpendicular to the fourth pivot axes (i.e., generally vertical)….the amount of angular adjustment of the sixth arm about the sixth pivot axis can be up to 10 degrees (i.e., 5 degrees clockwise or counterclockwise)” para 0040 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adjustable alignment mechanism as taught by Van Mill with the rear idler wheel alignment assembly of Prohaska with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for better control of the endless track around the rear idler wheels while the wheels are angularly adjusted. By having the alignment adjustment within 10 degrees of movement , the endless track is less likely to slip and separate from the rear idler wheels while the vehicle is in motion and will prevent the track from excess angular adjustment of the rear idler wheels .
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prohaska and Sauvageau (US 2018/0009490) in further view of Thompson (WO 2017106750).
Regarding claim 22, Prohaska and Sauvageau teach the track assembly of claim 21, but are silent regarding the ratio of spacing of the first and second idler wheels.
Thompson teaches an equivalent track system 17 (Fig 7, pg 28) wherein a [ratio of a spacing of the first rear idler wheel 503 (Fig 7) and the second rear idler wheel 504 (Fig 7 ) in the widthwise direction of the track system over a width of the track is no more than 0.2] (“For instance, in some embodiments, a ratio of the width WT of the non-pneumatic tire 58 over the width WTR of the track 41 may be at least 0.2” Pg 28 line 28 – pg 29 line 1 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the wheel ratio as taught by Thompson with the track assembly of Prohaska and Sauvageau with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for better control of the endless track around the idler wheels. By having the idler wheel ratio be around 0.2 , there is an increased ground cover of the track tension system and the center of gravity of the track system can be more aligned to the main vehicle body and chassis.
Additionally, Prohaska and Sauvageau as modified by Thompson discloses the claimed invention except for the ratio of the wheel width to track width is less than 0.2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have a wheel to track width ratio of less than 0.2, since it has been held that the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed track width would not perform differently than the claimed ratio of the prior art. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc, 220 USPQ 777. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 25, Prohaska and Sauvageau teach the track assembly of claim 21, but are silent regarding the ratio of spacing of the first and second idler wheels.
Thompson teaches an equivalent track system 17 (Fig 7, pg 28) wherein a [ratio of a spacing of the first rear idler wheel 503 (Fig 7) and the second rear idler wheel 504 (Fig 7 ) in the widthwise direction of the track system over a width of the track is no more than 0.2] (“For instance, in some embodiments, a ratio of the width WT of the non-pneumatic tire 58 over the width WTR of the track 41 may be at least 0.2” Pg 28 line 28 – pg 29 line 1 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the wheel ratio as taught by Thompson with the track assembly of Prohaska and Sauvageau with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for better control of the endless track vehicle around the idler wheels. By having the idler wheel ratio be less than 1, the track has better control around the idler wheels and is less likely to separate from the wheels.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prohaska in further view of Blondeau (CA 3085012).
Regarding Claim 32, Prohaska teaches a track system of claim 31.
Prohaska does not teach the command is issued by the processing apparatus based on a side load on the track system.
Blondeau teaches an equivalent track system 16 (Figs 1-3) wherein a command (signal relating to operating vehicle, Fig 15, pg 36 para 2) is issued by the processing apparatus 88 (Fig 15, pg 36 para 2) based on a [side load of the track system] (“For example, in various embodiments, the physical aspect of each track system 16, that can be sensed by a sensor 84x may be… a force within the track system 16 such as a force applied onto the track 41, in which case the sensor 84x is a force sensor (e.g., a load cell);”, Pg 29 para 3 and pg 30 para 1 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the sensor and processing apparatus as taught by Blondeau with the track assembly of Prohaska with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for automatic adjustment of the track system based on an input signal. By automating the adjustment of the track based on a side load applied to the track , the cognitive load applied to the operator of the vehicle is decreased and the operator of the vehicle can focus on driving the vehicle while monitoring the readings of the track sensors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN KNAUF whose telephone number is (703)756-4532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 8:00 AM- 6:15PM.
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 on (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.
/M.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611