DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1, 3-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessette et al. US 20120242141 A1 in view of Tiede et al. US 20160236733 A1 and Pohjoisaho et al. US 20150083504 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Bessette et al. discloses [a track system configured to be operatively connectable to a vehicle,] (Paragraph 0042) [the track system defining a longitudinal center plane and being operable on a ground surface, and comprising:] (Fig. 18; Paragraph 0046)
[a track-engaging assembly 10 including:] (Fig. 4; Paragraph 61)
[a frame 300 having a front portion, a rear portion, and a lower portion extending vertically below at least one of the front and rear portions;] (Fig. 1A; As shown in Fig. 1A, Bessette illustrates a frame module having a front portion, a rear portion, and a lower portion extending vertically below at least one of the front and rear portions.)
[a drive wheel 200 rotationally connected to the frame;] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0059)
[a front idler wheel assembly 700;] (Fig. 9; Paragraph 0046)
[a rear idler wheel assembly 600;] (Fig. 9; Paragraph 0046)
[a bogie assembly 45 pivotably connected to a portion of the frame about a bogie assembly axis extending transversally to the longitudinal center plane,] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0053; Bessette discloses a dampener 450 that is pivotally connected at one end to a portion of the frame 300 and at the other end to the bogie assembly through the pivot pin 361. This configurations allows for pivotal movement of the bogie assembly relative to the frame.) and [having a bogie body defining a leading axis, an intermediate axis and a trailing axis, the leading, intermediate and trailing axes extending transversally to the longitudinal center plane and being longitudinally spaced from each other,] (Fig. 9; Paragraph 0062; As shown in Fig. 9, Bessette et al. illustrates a bogie body defining a leading axis, an intermediate axis and a trailing axis, the leading, intermediate and trailing axes extending transversally to the longitudinal center plane and being longitudinally spaced from each other.) [the bogie assembly being pivotably connected to the frame] (Annotated Fig. 3; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 3 below, Bessette et al. illustrates the bogie assembly being pivotably connected to the frame 300 through a damper 450, which has one end pivotally connected to the frame at pivot joint 360 and the opposite end pivotally connected to the bogie assembly at pivot joint 361.)
PNG
media_image1.png
665
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Bessette et al.
[a plurality of support wheel assemblies 500 including:] (Fig. 9; Paragraph 0045)
[a leading support wheel assembly 500 rotationally connected to the bogie body 45 for rotating about the leading axis,] (Fig. 9; As shown in Fig. 9, Bessette illustrates a leading support wheel 500 rotationally connected to the bogie body 45 for rotating about the leading axis) [the leading support wheel assembly applying a leading ground force to the ground surface;] (Fig. 16A; As shown in Fig. 16A, Bessette illustrates the leading support wheel engaging with the ground indicating that it applies a force to the ground when the track system is in operation.)
[an intermediate support wheel assembly 500 rotationally connected to the bogie body for rotating about the intermediate axis,] (Fig. 9; As shown in Fig. 9, Bessette illustrates an intermediate support wheel 500 rotationally connected to the bogie body 45 for rotating about the intermediate axis) [the intermediate support wheel assembly applying an intermediate ground force to the ground surface;] (Fig. 16A; As shown in Fig. 16A, Bessette illustrates the intermediate support wheel engaging with the ground indicating that it applies a force to the ground when the track system is in operation.) and
[a trailing support wheel assembly 500 rotationally connected to the bogie body for rotating about the trailing axis,] (Fig. 9; As shown in Fig. 9, Bessette illustrates an trailing support wheel 500 rotationally connected to the bogie body 45 for rotating about the trailing axis) [the trailing support wheel assembly apply a trailing ground force to the ground surface;] (Fig. 16A; As shown in Fig. 16A, Bessette illustrates the intermediate support wheel engaging with the ground indicating that it applies a force to the ground when the track system is in operation.)
[a sum of the leading, intermediate and trailing ground forces defining a total ground force applied to the ground surface by the track system;] (Fig. 16A; As shown in Fig. 16A, Bessette illustrates the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheels 500 making contact with the ground, indicating that each of these wheels contributes to the total ground force exerted by the track system. Since the idler wheels 600, 700 are not in contact with the ground, the total ground force is effectively distributed among the support wheels.)
[an endless track 100 disposed around the track-engaging assembly,] (Fig. 8; Paragraph 0046) [the endless track having a ground-engaging outer side for engaging the ground surface and an inner side opposite to the ground-engaging outer side,] (Fig. 8; Paragraph 0046) [the endless track being configured to be drivingly engaged by the drive wheel;] (Fig. 8; Paragraph 0046)
[the track system having an initial position wherein the total ground force is generally concentrated at the intermediate ground force in response to the track system being at rest on a generally hard and flat level ground surface;] Fig. 16A; As shown in Fig. 16A, Bessette illustrates the leading, intermediate, and trailing support wheels, as well as the idler wheels, in contact with the flat ground. While multiple wheels engage with the surface, the design suggest that the intermediate support wheel bears a majority of the load in the flat surface due to its central placement, causing the total ground surface to be primarily concentrated at the intermediate support wheel.).
[in response to the bogie assembly pivoting about the bogie assembly axis, the total ground force is distributed between the intermediate ground force and at least one of the leading and trailing ground forces in response to the track system travelling on a generally hard and uneven ground surface.] (Fig. 16A; Bessette illustrates a bogie structure 40,45 including a bogie pivot and is connected to the support wheels. This pivoting mechanism enables allows the bogie assembly to adjust dynamically as the track encounters uneven terrain. As the bogie pivots, the total ground force is distributed between either the intermediate and leading support wheels or the intermediate and trailing support wheels, depending on the surface.)
Bessette et al. does not disclose the front idler wheel assembly rotationally connected to the front portion of the frame; the rear idler wheel assembly rotationally connected to the rear portion of the frame; the bogie assembly axis is coaxial with the intermediate axis.
the rear idler wheel assembly rotationally connected to the rear portion of the frame.
Tiede et al. teaches [the front idler wheel assembly rotationally connected to the front portion of the frame;] (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0071; Tiede discloses a leading suspension arm 24 that is rotationally attached to the front portion of the frame 12. Additionally, the leading suspension arm is also rotationally attached to the leading idler wheel assembly 30. Therefore, forming an indirect and rotational connection between the front idler wheel assembly and the front portion of the frame.)
[the rear idler wheel assembly rotationally connected to the rear portion of the frame;] (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0071; Tiede discloses a trailing suspension arm 34 that is rotationally attached to the rear portion of the frame 12. Additionally, the trailing suspension arm is also rotationally attached to the rear idler wheel assembly 42. Therefore, forming an indirect and rotational connection between the rear idler wheel assembly and the rear portion of the frame.) and
[the bogie assembly axis is coaxial with the intermediate axis;] (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0075; Tiede et al. discloses that the middle bogie wheels 64 are rotatable with respect to the bogie-mount middle portion 54 around a middle bogie axis 66, and that this axis is the axis about which the bogie assembly pivots.) [wherein at least one of the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheels 56, 60, 64 assemblies include more than one wheel assembly in a direction transversal to the endless track;] (Fig. 3; As shown in Fig. 3, Tiede et al. illustrates the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheels 56, 60, 64 assemblies including more than one wheel assembly in a direction transversal to the endless track.) [wherein the leading axis 58 and the trailing axis 62 are respectively spaced from the intermediate axis 66 by a first distance and a second distance;] (Fig. 4; As shown in Fig. 4, Tiede illustrates the leading axis 58 and the trailing axis 62 being respectively spaced from the intermediate axis 66 by a first distance and a second distance.) [wherein a distance ratio of the first distance over the second distance is 1.] (Fig. 4; As shown in Fig. 4, Tiede illustrates the distance from the intermediate axis to the leading axis being equal to the distance from the intermediate axis to the trailing axis.)
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 idler wheel assembly and bogie connection of Tiede et al. with the track system of Bessette et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for enhanced stability and adaptability of the track system by ensuring that the front and rear idler wheel assemblies are rotationally connected to the frame, thus improving the system’s ability to traverse uneven terrain while maintaining consistent ground engagement.
Bessette et al., as modified does not disclose the bogie assembly pivotably being connected to the lower portion of the frame via a single pivot.
Pohjoisaho et al. teaches [the bogie assembly pivotably being connected to the lower portion of the frame via a single pivot.] (Fig. 4a; Paragraph 0046; As shown in Fig. 4a, Pohjoisaho et al. illustrates the bogie assembly 14 being connected to the lower portion of the frame 12 through a single pivot 52.)
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 single pivot configuration of Pohjoisaho et al. with the track system of Bessette et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a simpler bogie mounting interface that reduces manufacturing complexity and provides controlled pivoting movement, thus improving durability and maintainability of the track assembly while preserving functional suspension performance.
Regarding claim 3, Bessette et al., as modified above, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including [wherein a diameter of a wheel of the intermediate support wheel 500 assembly is greater than a diameter of a wheel of at least one of the leading and trailing support wheel assemblies.] (Fig. 9 & 10 of Bessette et al.; As shown in Fig. 9 & 10, Bessette illustrates the intermediate (middle) wheel being larger in diameter than both the leading and trailing support wheels.)
Regarding claim 4, Bessette et al., as modified above, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including [wherein the intermediate axis is vertically lower than at least one of the leading axis and trailing axis.] (Fig. 9 & 10 of Bessette et al.; As shown in Fig. 9 & 10, Bessette illustrates the axis of the intermediate wheel being vertically lower than at least one of the leading axis and trailing axis.)
Regarding claim 5, Bessette et al., as modified above, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheels recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Bessette et al., as modified above, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including the leading, intermediate and trailing axes arrangement recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Bessette et al., as modified above, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including the distance ratio recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Bessette et al., as modified above, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including [wherein the total ground force is distributed between the leading ground force and the trailing ground force according to a distance ratio of the first distance over the second distance, in response to the leading support wheel assembly climbing on an obstacle of the ground surface or in response to the trailing support wheel assembly descending an obstacle of the ground surface.] (Fig. 16A of Bessette et al.; As shown in Fig. 16A, Bessette illustrates a bogie assembly that pivots in response to changes in terrain. When the leading support wheel climbs an obstacle or when the trailing support wheel descends an obstacle, the bogie assembly dynamically redistributes the total ground force between the leading and trailing support wheels based on their respective distances from the intermediate wheel, ensuring continuous contact and stability.)
Regarding claim 11, Bessette et al., as modified above, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including [wherein: a magnitude of the leading ground force is greater than a magnitude of the trailing ground force in response to the vehicle accelerating;] (Fig. 16A of Bessette et al.; As shown in Fig. 16A, Bessette illustrates the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheels 500 making contact with the ground, indicating that each of these wheels contributes to the total ground force exerted by the track system. Additionally, as the vehicle accelerates, weight is transferred rearward, thus increasing the ground force on the leading support wheels while decreasing it on the trailing support wheels, consistent with how a typical track system would operation during acceleration.) and [the magnitude of the leading ground force is lower than a magnitude of the trailing ground force in response to the vehicle decelerating.] (Fig. 16A of Bessette et al.; During deceleration, weight shifts forward, thereby increasing the ground force on the trailing support wheels while decreasing it on the leading support wheels.)
Regarding claim 12, Bessette et al., as modified above, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including [wherein in the initial position, the front idler wheel assembly and the rear idler assembly are positioned vertically above the hard and flat level ground surface.] (Fig. 2 of Bessette et al.; As shown in Fig. 2, Bessette illustrates the front idler wheel assembly and the rear idler assembly being positioned vertically above the hard and flat level ground surface when in its initial position.)
Regarding claim 13, Bessette et al., as modified above, does not explicitly teach that an approach angle between the endless track and the hard and flat level ground surface in front of the leading support wheel assembly is substantially equal to a departure angle between the endless track and the hard and flat level ground surface behind the trailing support wheel assembly. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track system of Tiede et al. to configure the approach angle to be substantially equal to the departure angle, so as to achieve an optimal balance of entry and exit performance when traversing through obstacles, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 14, Bessette et al., as modified above, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including [a slide member 420 extending adjacent to the plurality of support wheel assemblies 500, the slide member being spaced from the inner side of the endless track by a gap.] (Fig. 8 of Bessette et al.; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 8 below, Bessette illustrates the left portion of the slide member 420 being spaced from the inner side of the endless track by a gap.)
PNG
media_image2.png
498
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 of Bessette et al.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessette et al. in view of Tiede et al., Pohjoisaho et al., and further in view of Kautsch US 5997109 A.
Regarding claim 8, Bessette et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein a distance ratio of the first distance over the second distance is smaller than 1.
Kautsch teaches [wherein a distance ratio of the first distance over the second distance is smaller than 1.] (Fig. 2 & 3; As shown in Fig. 2 & 3, Kautsch illustrates the distance from the intermediate wheel 70 axis to the leading wheel 72 axis being shorter than the distance from the intermediate wheel axis to the trailing wheel 44 axis.)
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 support wheel spacing configuration of Kautsch with the track system of Bessette et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for optimized weight distribution and improved maneuverability by ensuring that the intermediate wheel is positioned closer to the leading wheel than to the trailing wheel, thereby enhancing stability and performance on varied terrain.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessette et al. in view of Tiede et al., Pohjoisaho et al., and further in view of Sauvageau et al. US 20190202508 A1
Regarding claim 9, Bessette et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein a distance ratio of the first distance over the second distance is greater than 1.
Sauvageau et al. teaches [wherein a distance ratio of the first distance over the second distance is greater than 1.] (Fig. 3; As shown in Fig. 3, Sauvageau et al. illustrates the distance from the intermediate wheel 290b axis to the leading wheel 290a axis being longer than the distance from the intermediate wheel axis to the trailing wheel 290c axis.)
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 support wheel spacing configuration of Sauvageau et al. with the track system of Bessette et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for enhanced load distribution and improved traction by positioning the intermediate wheel closer to the trailing wheel than to the leading wheel, thereby optimizing performance on uneven or sloped terrain.
Regarding claim 20, Bessette et al., as modified, further teaches [a vehicle.] (Paragraph 0062 of Tiede et al.)
Bessette et al., as modified, does not disclose the vehicle comprising: a frame; an engine supported by the frame; at least two track systems operatively connected to the engine.
Sauvageau et al. teaches the vehicle comprising: [a frame 62; an engine supported by the frame; at least two track systems operatively connected to the engine.] (Fig. 2C; Paragraph 0083; Sauvageau et al. discloses that the frame supports multiple components of the vehicle including the engine. Additionally, as shown in Fig. 2C, Sauvageau et al. illustrates a frame of the vehicle and two track systems operatively connected to the engine.
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 vehicle configuration of Sauvageau et al. with the track system of Bessette et al., as modified with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a functional tracked vehicle with an engine-supported frame to ensure efficient power transmission to the track system, thus maintaining structural integrity and operational efficiency.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessette et al. in view of Tiede et al., Pohjoisaho et al., and further in view of Esch US 3948331 A.
Regarding claim 15, Bessette et al., as modified, further teaches [a slide member 420] (Fig. 8 of Bessette; Paragraph 0051 of Bessette; As shown in Fig. 8, Bessette illustrates the slide member extending longitudinally along the support wheels.)
Bessette et al. does not disclose wherein the slide member is connected to one of the frame and the bogie assembly.
Esch teaches [wherein the slide member is connected to one of the frame and the bogie assembly.] (Fig. 2; Col. 5, lines 31-36; Esch discloses and illustrates the slide members 24 being connected to the bogie assembly 30. Also, as shown in Fig. 2, the slide member is connected to the curved portion of the frame 24’.)
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 slide member configuration of Esch with the track system of Bessette et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a sliding connection between the support wheels and the frame to improve the functionality and stability of the track system, thus ensuring effective integration of the slide member in the design while maintaining the overall system’s operation on uneven surfaces.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessette et al. in view of Tiede et al., Pohjoisaho et al., and further in view of Ravat US 20230037901 A1.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Bessette et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the bogie assembly is pivotably connected to the frame via a resilient body configured for permitting pivotal motion of the bogie assembly relative to the frame upon deformation of the resilient body; wherein the pivotal motion of the bogie assembly relative to the frame is about one of a transversal axis and a longitudinal axis.
Ravat teaches [wherein the bogie assembly is pivotably connected to the frame via a resilient body 164 configured for permitting pivotal motion of the bogie assembly relative to the frame upon deformation of the resilient body;] (Fig. 15; Paragraph 0081 & 0082) [wherein the pivotal motion of the bogie assembly relative to the frame is about one of a transversal axis and a longitudinal axis.] (Fig. 15 & 16; Paragraph 0080, 0081 & 0082; Ravat discloses a movable joint 156, 158 that comprises the resilient member 164 and defines a rotational transversal 166 longitudinal 176 axis.).
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 resilient body configuration of Ravat with the track system of Bessette et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for effective pivotal motion of the bogie assembly relative to the frame in both transversal and longitudinal directions, thus enhancing the overall performance of the track system during operation.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Bessette et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein at least one of the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheel assemblies is rotationally connected to the bogie assembly via a resilient pivot structured and configured for permitting pivotal motion of at least one of the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheel assemblies relative to the bogie assembly about a longitudinal axis; wherein an angular range of the pivotal motion of the at least one of the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheel assemblies relative to the bogie assembly is at least 3 degrees.
Ravat teaches [wherein at least one of the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheel assemblies is rotationally connected to the bogie assembly via a resilient pivot 164 structured and configured for permitting pivotal motion of at least one of the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheel assemblies relative to the bogie assembly about a longitudinal axis;] (Fig. 15; Paragraph 0081 & 0082; As shown in Fig. 15, Ravat illustrates the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheel assemblies 28, being connected to the bogie assembly 85 through a resilient pivot 164 which provides pivotal motion of at least one of the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheel assemblies relative to the bogie assembly about a longitudinal axis.) [an angular range of the pivotal motion of the at least one of the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheel assemblies relative to the bogie assembly.] (Paragraph 0082; Ravat discloses a movable joint 156, 158 that comprises the resilient member 164 and defines a longitudinal 176 axis. Therefore, providing an angular range of motion of the support wheels 28.).
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 resilient pivot configuration of Ravat with the track system of Bessette et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for pivotal motion of the support wheel assemblies about the longitudinal axis with an angular range, thus enhancing the vehicle’s stability and maneuverability, particularly in varying operational conditions.
Regarding claim 19, Bessette et al., as modified above, does not explicitly teach that the angular range of the pivotal motion of the at least one of the leading, intermediate and trailing support wheel assemblies relative to the bogie assembly is at least 3 degrees with respect to a vertical line. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track system of Bessette et al., as modified, to use an angular range of at least 3 degrees, so as to achieve an optimal balance of motion and stability during operation, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Page 2, lines 4-20 of Remarks) that Pohjoisaho cannot remedy the deficiencies of Bessette because Bessette relies on multi-link suspension system, and incorporating a single pivot connection would require substantial redesign and change the principle of operation of Bessette. This argument is not persuasive. Bessette already discloses a bogie assembly pivotably connected to the frame through pivot joints associated with the damper arrangement, thus establishing the concept of a pivotable bogie-to-frame connection. Pohjoisaho is relied upon only for its teaching of a single pivot connection at a lower portion of the frame, which represents a known alternative configuration for achieving pivotable movement. The substitution of a single pivot for a multi-link arrangement constitutes a predictable design choice that simplifies the mechanical structure while maintaining the same fundamental function of permitting pivoting motion of the bogie assembly relative to the frame. Such a modification does not change the principle of operation of Bessette, but rather represents an obvious variation within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues (Page 2, lines 4-20 of Remarks) that Tiede does not disclose that the bogie assembly axis is coaxial with the intermediate axis, asserting that Tiede only describes rotation of wheels about their respective axes. This argument is not persuasive. As disclosed in paragraph [0075] of Tiede, the middle bogie wheels rotate about a middle bogie six 66, and this axis is part of the overall bogie structure that undergoes rotational movement relative to other axes (roll axes). This teaching demonstrates the presence of defined an interacting axis within the bogie assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that aligning or configuring such axes, including making them coaxial, is a known and predictable design option for controlling kinematic behavior and load distribution within a bogie system. Accordingly, Tiede at least suggest the claimed coaxial relationship, and the claimed configuration would have been an obvious design choice.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights