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) including election to Group 1 and Species I made without traverse has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 15-20 have been cancelled, and claim 21 is new but as requested is withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-15 and 21remain pending in the application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0240917 A1 to Duceppe in view of Camso Inc., Camso ATV T4S, Installation Guidelines / Directives d’installation (version L), 50000-0500075-MAN, 2016, Canada (provided in IDS filed 8/31/22) (hereinafter Camso).
Regarding claim 1, Duceppe discloses a method for mounting a track assembly (50) to a vehicle (10) (Fig 3a[Wingdings font/0xE0]3b & [0098]-[0099] discloses replacing and installing the wheels depicted in Fig. 1 with a track assembly) comprising:
pivotally connecting a frame (108,110) of the track assembly (50) to a distal end portion of an A-arm (76) of the vehicle (10) for permitting rotation of the track assembly (50) about a steering axis (230) (Figs. 3a[Wingdings font/0xE0]3b, Fig. 6, and Fig. 6c[Wingdings font/0xE0]6d & [0093], [0099], and [0103]-[0104]); and
fastening an anti-rotation device (111) of the track assembly (50) to the distal end portion of the A-arm (76) …, the anti-rotation device (111) being connected to the frame (108,110) (Fig. 6 & [0103] discloses the anti-rotation device 111 is fastened on one end, i.e., the distal end, of the lower a-arm and the second end of the anti-rotation device is connected to the link 110 which si part of the frame 108,110).
Although Duceppe disclose that the anti-rotation device is fastened to the distal end portion of the A-arm Ducppe does not appear to explicitly disclose or depict inserting a fastener through a fastener aperture defined in the distal end portion of the A-arm; and fastening an anti-rotation device … with the fastener.
Camso teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked retrofit vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, inserting a fastener (F) through a fastener aperture (G) defined in the distal end portion of the A-arm (A); and fastening an anti-rotation device (B)… with the fastener (F) (Annotated Fig. 22 and p. 16 step 8. See also Fig. 18 & p. 14 step 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked retrofit vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retrofit track apparatus/method disclosed by Duceppe to incorporate inserting a fastener through a fastener aperture defined in the distal end portion of the A-arm; and fastening an anti-rotation device … with the fastener as taught by Camso in order to fasten the anti-rotation arm to the A-arm, e.g., see Camso step 8 and Duceppe [0103], 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.
Examiner notes that Duceppe [0103] specifically states the anti-rotation “[c]onnector 111 is fastened on one end to the lower A-arm 76” and Camso is merely relied upon for teaching that anti-rotation connectors are attached by inserting a fastener through an aperture of the A-arm and an aperture of the anti-rotation connector. Assuming, arguendo, that one were to raise an argument about the aperture G being in a bracket and not being part of the A-arm itself, this argument would not be found persuasive because (A) Duceppe does not disclose the connector is attached to a bracket, and instead states it is connected to the A-arm and (B) even if a bracket was used, the MPEP states "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Duceppe/Camso further discloses wherein a longitudinal axis of the fastener (Camso - F) passes through an end portion of the anti-rotation device (Duceppe – 111 / Camso – B) (Duceppe – Fig. 6 & [0103]/Camso – Annotated Fig. 22).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duceppe in view of Camso and further in view of US 2018/0297429 A1 to Elterman and further in view of PowerModz, “Installing Polaris Tracks on the Ranger, PowerModz!,” YouTube, published June 15, 2013, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYlCPOi3ZVk (hereinafter PowerModz).
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Duceppe/Camso further discloses wherein:
the fastener aperture (Camso – G) is a first fastener aperture (Camso – G) (Camso -Annotated Fig. 22);
pivotally connecting the frame (Duceppe - 108,110) to the distal end portion of the A-arm (Duceppe - 76) comprises:
PNG
media_image2.png
1024
1474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
operatively connecting a drive sprocket (Duceppe - 112) of the track assembly (Duceppe – 50) to a knuckle (Duceppe – 66), the drive sprocket (Duceppe - 112) being rotationally connected to the frame (Duceppe – 108,110) of the track assembly (Duceppe - 50) (Figs. 3a/b,6 & [0093]), the knuckle (Duceppe - 66) being pivotally connected to the distal end portion of the A-arm (Duceppe - 76).
Although Camso disclose the knuckle is connected to the distal end portion of the A-arm with a ball joint 290, e.g., see Camso Fig. 10b & [0113], the modifed combination of Duceppe/Camso does not appear to explicitly disclose the knuckle being pivotally connected to the distal end portion of the A-arm with a knuckle fastener, the knuckle fastener being inserted in a second fastener aperture defined in the distal end portion of the A-arm and a center of the first fastener aperture is disposed laterally between a center of the second fastener aperture and a proximal end of the A-arm.
Elterman teaches that it was old and well known in the art of vehicle suspension, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the knuckle (22) being pivotally connected to the distal end portion of the A-arm (32) with a knuckle fastener (34), the knuckle fastener (34) being inserted in a second fastener aperture defined in the distal end portion of the A-arm (32) (Fig.2 & [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of suspension systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension system disclosed by the modified combination of Duceppe/Camso to incorporate for the knuckle being pivotally connected to the distal end portion of the A-arm with a knuckle fastener, the knuckle fastener being inserted in a second fastener aperture defined in the distal end portion of the A-arm as taught by Elterman in order to enable the knuckle and A-arm to be rotatably fastened, e.g., see Elterman [0024], 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.
PowerModz teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked vehicle conversions, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a center of the first fastener aperture (Z) is disposed laterally between a center of the second fastener aperture (Y) and a proximal end of the A-arm (X) (Annotated PowerModz at 3:00).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked vehicle conversions before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tracked vehicle conversion method disclosed by the modified combination of Duceppe/Camso/ PowerModz to incorporate a center of the first fastener aperture is disposed laterally between a center of the second fastener aperture and a proximal end of the A-arm as taught by PowerModz in order to make alignment of the first aperture easier/with less interference with the knuckle ball joint, e.g., see PowerModz at 3:00, 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duceppe in view of Camso and further in view of US 6257602 B1 to Joerg.
Regarding claim 15, depending on claim 1, although Duceppe discloses a steering system including a steering column connected to a steering link 64 for steering the knuckle 66 and thereby the tracks, e.g., see Figs. 2 or 9b & [0097], the modified combination of Duceppe/Camso does not appear to further disclose mounting at least one spacer to a rack of a rack and pinion assembly of a steering system of the vehicle for limiting a steering angle of the track assembly.
Joerg teaches that it was old and well known in the art of steering systems, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, at least one spacer (4) to a rack (1) of a rack (1) and pinion assembly of a steering system of the vehicle for limiting a steering angle (Figs. 1-5 & col 1 lns 51-64 and col 2 lns 53-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of steering systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steering system disclosed by the modified combination of Duceppe/Camso to incorporate mounting at least one spacer to a rack of a rack and pinion assembly of a steering system of the vehicle for limiting a steering angle of the track assembly as taught by Joerg in order to limit the steering angle in a simple cost effective manner, e.g., see col 1 lns 43-64 and col 2 lns 53-59, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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