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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/24/2025 has been entered.
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 1-4, 9-16, and 20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haringer EP 1468901 A2 in view of Piccinini US 20180281877 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Haringer discloses [an undercarriage for a work machine,] (Fig. 1; Page 1, lines 9-10) comprising:
[a center frame part 7 for receiving a superstructure of the work machine;] (Fig. 5; Page 3, lines 36-37)
[an elongate strut element 26, 27 that is attachable to the center frame part;] (Fig. 5; Page 3, lines 36-37) and
[a crawler carrier 10, 11 for carrying a crawler chain 16, 17,] (Fig. 1 & 4; Page 3, lines 29-30)
wherein
[the crawler carrier has a cutout 29 for leading through the strut element;] (Fig. 2 & 3; Page 4, lines 2-4; Haringer discloses that the cutout portion 29 is a passage for supply lines. However, as shown in Fig. 2 & 3, Haringer illustrates that the strut element 27 is led through and positioned relative to the opening 29.) and
[the strut element has a plurality of mutually spaced apart latching elements 32 along a longitudinal direction of the strut element to fix the crawler carrier at different longitudinal positions of the strut element.] (Fig. 2; Page 4, lines 6-11; As shown in Fig. 2, Haringer illustrates a plurality of mutually spaced apart latching elements 32 that are spaced along the longitudinal direction of the struct element which allows the crawler carrier to be fixed at different longitudinal positions of the strut element.)
Haringer does not disclose the latching elements comprise pin holes that extend through the strut element in a direction that is parallel to a length of the crawler carrier.
Piccinini teaches [the latching elements comprise pin holes that extend through the strut element in a direction that is parallel to a length of the crawler carrier.] (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3A; As shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3A below, Piccinini illustrates wherein the latching elements includes pin holes 51 that extend through the strut element 5 in a direction that is parallel to a length of the crawler carrier.)
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 pin hole fastening arrangement of Piccinini with the undercarriage of Haringer with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a reliable and secure positional connection of the crawler carrier along the strut element, thus improving ease of alignment and positional adjustability.
Regarding claim 2, Haringer, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the plurality of mutually spaced apart latching elements 32 are pin holes to receive a pin.] (Fig. 2 of Haringer; Page 4, lines 6-11 of Haringer; Haringer discloses bores or through-openings, which function as pin holes to receive fastening such as pins, bolt, or screws.)
Regarding claim 3, Haringer, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the crawler carrier has a latching element to fix the strut element introduced into the crawler carrier or led through the crawler carrier.] (Fig. 3 of Haringer; As shown in Fig. 3, Haringer illustrates crawler carriers with latching elements 32 on the support arms 24, 25 which are configured to fix on to the strut element 26, 27.)
Regarding claim 4, Haringer, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the crawler carrier is fixed to the strut element by means of a pin connection.] (Fig. 2 of Haringer; As shown in Fig. 2, the crawler carrier is fixed to the strut element by means of a pin connection.)
Regarding claim 9, Haringer, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the strut element 26, 27 is pushed into a lead through 29 of the crawler carrier 10, 11 and the spacing of the crawler carrier from the center frame part, that is a track width of the work machine, is variable due to the plurality of latching elements of the strut element spaced apart from one another in the longitudinal direction.] (Fig. 2 & 4 of Haringer; As shown in Fig. 2 & 4, Haringer illustrates an undercarriage including struct elements 26, 27 that are pushed through crawler carriers 10, 11, which a plurality of latching elements 32 spaced apart along the longitudinal direction of the structs to allow fixation of the crawler carriers at different positions, thus making the width adjustable.)
Regarding claim 10, Haringer, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the strut element is pushed into the crawler carrier such that a sliding out of the strut element is also not possible with an inserted pin.] (Fig. 2 of Haringer; Page 4, lines 6-11 of Haringer; Haringer discloses bores or through-openings, which function as pin holes to receive fastening such as pins, bolt, or screws, thus refraining the strut element from sliding out from the crawler carrier.)
Regarding claim 11, Haringer, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the strut element 26, 27 has at least three mutually spaced apart latching elements 32 along the longitudinal direction of the strut element to fix the crawler carrier 10, 11 at different longitudinal positions of the strut element.] (Fig. 2 & 4 of Haringer; As shown in Fig. 2 & 4, Haringer illustrates the strut element 26, 27 having at least three mutually spaced apart latching elements 32 along its longitudinal direction to fix the crawler carrier 10, 11 at different longitudinal positions of the strut element.)
Regarding claim 12, Haringer, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a plurality of strut elements, are provided that can be attached to the center front part 7, and wherein each of the plurality of strut elements cooperates with a cutout of a crawler carrier 10, 11.] (Fig. 2 & 4 of Haringer; As shown in Fig. 2 & 4, Haringer illustrates a plurality of strut elements being attached to the center front part 7 with each strut element being configured to cooperate with a cutout of the crawler carriers 10, 11.)
Regarding claim 13, Haringer, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the center frame part 7 has a substantially parallelepiped-shaped basic design and is configured at two oppositely disposed sides of the center frame to attach at least one strut elements 26, 27 in each case that cooperates/cooperate with one/a respective cutout 29 of the crawler carrier 10, 11.] (Fig. 4 of Haringer; As shown in Fig. 4, Haringer illustrates the center frame part 7 having a substantially parallelepiped-shaped basic design and is configured at two of its oppositely disposed sides to attach at least one strut elements 26, 27 in each case that cooperates/cooperate with one/a respective cutout 29 of the crawler carrier 10, 11.)
Regarding claim 14, Haringer, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [a work machine, having an undercarriage] (Fig. 1 of Haringer; Page 1, lines 9-10 of Haringer)
Regarding claim 15, Haringer, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the latching element 32 of the crawler carrier is a pin hole to receive a pin.] (Fig. 2 of Haringer; Page 4, lines 6-11 of Haringer; Haringer discloses bores or through-openings, which function as pin holes to receive fastening such as pins, bolt, or screws.)
Regarding claim 16, Haringer, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the crawler carrier 10, 11 is fixed to the strut element 26, 27 by the aligned orientation of pinning holes that correspond to one another at the strut element and at the crawler carrier and the inserting of a pin into the mutually aligned pinning holes.] (Fig. 2 of Haringer; As shown in Fig. 2, Haringer illustrates the crawler carrier 10, 11 being fixed to the strut element 26, 27 by the aligned orientation of pinning holes that correspond to one another at the strut element and at the crawler carrier and the inserting of a pin into the mutually aligned pinning holes.)
Regarding claim 20, Haringer, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein a shape of the cutout is defined by components that are generally H-shaped in cross section. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B) (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)), a change in shape is generally considered a matter of design choice absent of showing that the particular shape results in an unexpected function. In this case, defining the cutout by components that are generally H-shaped in cross section would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art is it merely reshapes the known cutout structure of Haringer without altering its function of permitting the strut element to extend through and be positioned relative to the crawler carrier The H-shaped cross section represents a predictable variation of cross-sectional geometry that would have been within the ordinary skill in the art and would not have yielded an unexpected result.
Claims 5-6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haringer in view of Piccinini and further in view of Ponikelsky et al. US 3998286 A.
Regarding claim 5, Haringer, as modified, does not disclose wherein the strut element has a positioning cam that projects outwardly from the strut element to align the crawler carrier at a fixing position.
Ponikelsky et al. teaches [wherein the strut element has a positioning cam 42, 44, 46, 48 that projects outwardly from the strut element to align the crawler carrier at a fixing position.] (Fig. 2; Col. 2, lines 25-34; As shown in Fig. 2, Ponikelsky illustrates a positioning cam that extends upwards from the struct and aligns the crawler carrier at a fixed position.)
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 positioning cam structure of Ponikelsky et al. with the strut element of Haringer with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for alignment and secure positioning of the crawler carrier relative to the strut element, thus simplifying assembly and enhancing structural stability during operation.
Regarding claim 17, Haringer, as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the positioning cams 42, 44, 46, 48 is projecting perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the strut element. (Fig. 2 of Ponikelsky; Col. 2, lines 25-34 of Ponikelsky; As shown in Fig. 2, Ponikelsky illustrates the positioning cams 42, 44, 46, 48 projecting in an upward direction, which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the struct element.)
Regarding claim 6, Haringer, as modified, does not disclose wherein the crawler carrier comprises a recess that extends in parallel with a direction of introduction or leading through of the strut element, for receiving a positioning cam projecting from the strut element to align the crawler carrier at a preferred fixing position of the strut element in a peripheral region of the cutout for leading through or introducing the strut element.
Ponikelsky et al. teaches [wherein the crawler carrier comprises a recess 60 that extends in parallel with the direction of introduction or leading through of the strut element, for receiving a positioning cam projecting from the strut element to align the crawler carrier at a preferred fixing position of the strut element in the peripheral region of the cutout for leading through or introducing the strut element.] (Fig. 2; Col. 2, lines 25-34; As shown in Fig. 2, Ponikelsky illustrates the crawler carrier comprising a recess 60 that extends parallel to the direction of the introduction of the strut element, for aligning with the position cam from the struct element 42, 44, 46, 48.)
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 recession of Ponikelsky et al. with the crawler carrier of Haringer, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for guided alignment and stable locking of the crawler carrier to the strut element, thus improving ease of assembly and positional accuracy.
However, Haringer, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the recess has a claw-like shape. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B) (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)), the configuration or shape of a component is generally considered a matter of design choice unless the particular shape yields a new or unexpected result. In this case, Ponikelsky et al. already discloses a recess that receives a positioning cam for alignment of the crawler carrier. The modification of the recess to have a claw-like shape would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, as it simply alters the form of an existing structure without introducing an unexpected benefit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the recess of Ponikelsky to be claw-like in shape to provide a mechanical interface with the positioning cam, as such a change in shape does not yield an unexpected result and merely serves the same aligning function already taught by Ponikelsky et al.
Regarding claim 18, Haringer, as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the one recess is provided at both sides of the cutout in the peripheral region.] (Fig. 2 of Ponikelsky; As shown in Fig. 2, Ponikelsky illustrates the recession being on both sides of the cut out on the crawler carrier where the strut element passes through.)
However, Haringer, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the recess has a claw-like shape. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B) (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)), the configuration or shape of a component is generally considered a matter of design choice unless the particular shape yields a new or unexpected result. In this case, Ponikelsky et al. already discloses a recess that receives a positioning cam for alignment of the crawler carrier. The modification of the recess to have a claw-like shape would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, as it simply alters the form of an existing structure without introducing an unexpected benefit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the recess of Ponikelsky to be claw-like in shape to provide a mechanical interface with the positioning cam, as such a change in shape does not yield an unexpected result and merely serves the same aligning function already taught by Ponikelsky et al.
Claim 7-8 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haringer in view of Piccinini and further in view of Willim DE 102011102110 B4.
Regarding claim 7, Haringer, as modified, does not disclose wherein the center frame part has an approximately semicircular capturing surface for receiving a transverse pin of the strut element for the attachment of the strut element.
Willim teaches [wherein the center frame part has an approximately semicircular capturing surface for receiving a transverse pin of the strut element for the attachment of the strut element.] (Annotated Fig. 2; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 2 below, Willim illustrates the center frame with claw-like capturing surfaces that receive a transverse pin of the strut element for the attachment of the strut element.)
PNG
media_image1.png
776
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Willim
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 capturing surfaces of Willim with the center frame part of Haringer, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for secure and reliable attachment of the strut element through a transverse pin, thus improving mechanical engagement and stability connection between the strut and the frame.
Regarding claim 8, Haringer, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a rigid connection of the strut element and the center frame part takes place after placing the transverse pin into the capturing surface and a corresponding pivot movement of the strut element placed into the capturing surface that serves the aligned orientation of the pin holes present at the strut side and the frame side.] (Fig. 5A-B of Piccinini; Paragraph 0027 and 0038 of Piccinini; As shown in Fig. 5A-B, Piccinini illustrates the transverse pin 7 being placed onto the capturing surface 9. Afterwards, a rigid connection between the strut 6 and the center frame 3 can be made with the pin 8 going through the pin hole 51.)
Regarding claim 19, Haringer, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the center frame part has an associated pin hole to produce a rigid connection of the strut element and the center frame part to an aligned pin hole at the strut side via a pin connection.] (Fig. 3A-B & 5A-B of Piccinini; Paragraph 0027 and 0038 of Piccinini; As shown in Fig. 3A-3B & 5A-B, Piccinini illustrates the center frame 3 having a pin hole 51 to produce a rigid connection of the strut element 6 and the center frame part to an aligned pin hole 51 at the strut side via a pin connection.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Haringer fails to disclose that “latching elements comprise pin holes that extend through the strut element in a direction that is parallel to a length of the crawler carrier,” and further asserts that modifying Haringer’s holding and releasing means would break its intended functionality. This argument is not persuasive. As acknowledged in the office action, Haringer does not explicitly disclose the pin holes extending parallel to the length of the crawler carrier. However, Piccinini teaches latching elements comprising pin holes that extend through a structural member in a longitudinal direction parallel to the associated carrier structure (Fig. 2; Fig. 3A). It would have been obvious to modify Haringer’s latching elements to employ the known through-pin configuration taught by Piccinini because both references relate to structural members that must selectively be fixed at different positions along a longitudinal axis. The proposed modification merely substitutes one known fastening orientation for another known alternative to achieve predictable results. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, reorienting the fastening direction would not render Haringer inoperable, but instead would provide an alternative securing arrangement achieving secure engagement and positional adjustability while improving alignment and ease of assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Seifert EP 3202985 B1 – comprises a pontoon drive with a base frame, on which along each of the longitudinal sides a pontoon cruise ship is arranged, which in each case has at least one pontoon body around which at least one endless track is circumferentially guided and driven.
- Eberhardt et al. US 12187586 B2 – comprises a mobile crane, that comprises a mobile undercarriage and a superstructure rotatably supported on the undercarriage and having a boom and a ballasting device. The ballasting device picks up or places down one or more counterweight elements by means of a hoisting device.
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/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611