DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each distinct part, including modified parts, should be labeled with a distinct reference character to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). Note the following informalities:
The parts referenced by reference characters 21, 90, 95 and 105 in the embodiment shown in Fig. 13 are distinct (i.e., modified) from the parts represented by these same reference characters in the embodiment shown in Figs. 2, 8, 11 and 12.
The part referenced by reference character 95 in the embodiment shown in Fig. 14 is distinct (i.e., modified) from the part represented by this same reference character in the embodiment shown in Figs. 2, 8, 11 and 12.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 29-33, 35, 36, 38-43, 45 and 47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchanan (US 2019/0071140 A1) in view of Kamlookhine (US 2,453,750).
Regarding claim 29, Buchanan discloses a track system for traction of a vehicle 20 on a ground, the track system comprising: a track 130 that is elastomeric (paragraph [0033]) and comprises a ground-engaging outer surface (Figs. 1-3) for engaging the ground and an inner surface (Figs. 1-3) opposite to the ground-engaging outer surface; a track assembly 24 comprising a frame 26 supporting a plurality of track-contacting wheels 96, 98, 106, 66 configured to drive and guide the track around the track-contacting wheels (Figs. 2 and 3), the track being configured to flex about respective ones of the track-contacting wheels (evident from Figs. 1-3); and a tensioning mechanism 140 configured to control a tension of the track and comprising: a first tensioner including a resilient element (a first resilient element 198 shown in Figs. 2 and 3) configured to exert a force on a front one 98 of the track-contacting wheels (Figs. 2 and 3); and a second tensioner including a resilient element (a second resilient element 198 shown, but not labeled, in Figs. 2 and 3) spaced from the resilient element of the first tensioner in a longitudinal direction of the track system and configured to exert a force on a rear one of the track-contacting wheels (Figs. 2 and 3; paragraphs [0028-0029]).
Buchanan fails to disclose at least one of the first and second tensioners comprises a link comprising an upper pivot connected to an upper portion of the frame, a lower pivot rotatably connected to a first end of the resilient element and a housing receiving an axle of the corresponding track-contacting wheel.
Kamlookhine, however, teaches a tensioner comprising a link 32 comprising an upper pivot 35 connected to an upper portion at 34 of the track frame 1, a lower pivot 61 rotatably connected to a first end at 59 of the resilient element (the resilient units incorporating the coil springs 70, 71 and 74 as described in at least lines 26-40 of col. 7 and shown in Fig. 2) and a housing (unlabeled central portion of 32 that surrounds 28 as best shown in Fig. 3) receiving an axle 28 of the corresponding track-contacting wheel 3.
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 tensioning mechanism of Buchanan by substituting at least one of the first and second tensioners for the claimed tensioner, such as taught by Kamlookhine, as a well-known alternative tensioner arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success in controlling the tension of the track.
Regarding claim 30, Buchanan further discloses the resilient element of the first tensioner is a spring (“coil spring” per paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 31, Buchanan further discloses the spring of the first tensioner is a coil spring (“coil spring” per paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claims 32, 33, 35 and 36, although Buchanan discloses the use of a coil spring for the first tensioner as noted above, Buchanan fails to expressly disclose a spring rate of the spring being no more than 700 lb/in and a ratio of a spring rate of the spring over a load applied on the track system by a weight of the vehicle at rest being no more than 0.4 in-1.
Nonetheless, inasmuch as the spring rate of a coil spring is well-known in the art as being a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the track system of Buchanan, as modified by Kamlookhine, so that the spring rate of the spring is no more than 700 lb/in and a ratio of a spring rate of the spring over a load applied on the track system by a weight of the vehicle at rest being no more than 0.4 in-1, based upon the dimensions and configuration of the track system components and intended use of the track system to ensure that the track tensioning mechanism maintains a desired tension on the track during use of the vehicle while also providing a suspension function such as absorbing shock from small obstacles in the path of the track system. It is further noted that Applicant has not provided any criticality for these claimed values and ratios.
Regarding claim 38, Buchanan further discloses the resilient element of the second tensioner is a spring (“coil spring” per paragraph [0028]; Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 39, Buchanan further discloses the spring of the second tensioner is a coil spring (“coil spring” per paragraph [0028]; Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 40, Buchanan further discloses the force exerted by the first tensioner on the front one of the track-contacting wheels and the force exerted on the rear one of the track- contacting wheels are applied in opposite directions (evident from Figs. 2 and 3, and paragraphs [0028-0029]).
Regarding claim 41, Buchanan further discloses the first tensioner and the second tensioner are configured to (i.e., capable of) prevent ratcheting of the track in forward and reverse directions of movement of the vehicle on the ground (evident from Figs. 2 and 3, and paragraphs [0028-0029]).
Regarding claim 42, although Buchanan further discloses that the tension on the track can be adjusted to add or decrease tension (paragraph [0028]) and “the track tensioning mechanism 140 can maintain the tension on the endless track 130 at a value of about 10% of the total vertical loading of the outdoor power equipment unit 20” (paragraph [0028]), Buchanan fails to expressly disclose a nominal value of the tension of the track is no more than 7400 N.
Nonetheless, inasmuch as the nominal value of the tension of the track is recognized in the art as a result-effective variable, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the track system of Buchanan, as modified by Kamlookhine, so that the nominal value of the tension of the track is no more than 7400 N, based upon the dimensions and configuration of the track system components and intended use of the track system to ensure that the track tensioning mechanism maintains a desired tension on the track during use of the vehicle while also providing a suspension function such as absorbing shock from small obstacles in the path of the track system. It is further noted that Applicant has not provided any criticality for the nominal value of the tension being no more than 7400 N.
Regarding claim 43, Buchanan further discloses a ratio of a nominal value of the tension of the track over a load applied on the track system by a weight of the vehicle at rest is no more than 0.40 (paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 45, Buchanan further discloses the track comprises a plurality of
drive/guide lugs 148, 150 projecting from the inner surface of the track (paragraphs [0035-0038]; Figs. 2 and 3) and a plurality of traction projections (not shown, but described in paragraph [0033]) projecting from the ground-engaging outer surface of the track.
Regarding claim 47, Buchanan further discloses at least one of the first tensioner and the second tensioner is free of hydraulics and pneumatics (Figs. 2 and 3; paragraphs [0028-0029]).
Regarding claim 48, Buchanan further discloses the tensioning mechanism is free of hydraulics and pneumatics (Figs. 2 and 3; paragraphs [0028-0029]).
Regarding claim 49, Kamlookhine further teaches a second end at 62 of the resilient element opposite to the first end is connected to a lower portion at 41 of the frame (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 50, Kamlookhine further teaches the housing is between the upper and lower pivots (Figs. 2 and 3) such that an extension of the resilient element pushes the axle of the corresponding track-contacting wheel away from the frame (evident from Fig. 2), and inversely a compression of the resilient element pulls the axle of the corresponding track-contacting wheel towards the frame (evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 51, Kamlookhine further teaches the resilient element is extendible in a longitudinal direction of the track system (evident from Figs. 1 and 2).
5. Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchanan in view of Kamlookhine, as applied to claims 29 and 45 above, and further in view of Delisle et al. (US 2014/0103705 A1; hereinafter “Delisle”).
Buchanan fails to expressly disclose a ratio of a height of the drive/guide lugs over a thickness of the track from the ground-engaging outer surface to the inner surface of the track is at least 2.
Delisle, however, teaches a track system in which a ratio of a height H of the drive/guide lugs 331-33N over a thickness Tb of the track 36 from the ground-engaging outer surface to the inner surface of the track is at least 2 (paragraph [0045]; Fig. 6A).
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 Buchanan, as modified by Kamlookhine, so that a height of the drive/guide lugs over a thickness of the track from the ground-engaging outer surface to the inner surface of the track is at least 2, such as taught by Delisle, as a well-known ratio that would facilitate interaction with the drive wheel to impart motion to the track and efficiently guide the track as it is driven around the wheels while minimizing the weight of the track.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “reference characters 21, 90, 95, 105 do not designate different parts in Figs. 13 and 14, but different versions of the same parts”, note different versions of the parts signifies the aforementioned parts in the embodiments of Figs. 13 and 14 are modified. 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(4) expressly prohibits the same reference character from being used to designate different parts (i.e., Applicant’s so-called “different versions”). Modified parts or elements are considered to be different parts per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p) as evidenced by both MPEP 608.01(g) and MPEP 608.02 (e) which respectively state in part:
The reference characters must be properly applied, no single reference character being used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part. See 37 CFR 1.84(p). (MPEP 608.01(g))
The examiner should ensure that the figures are correctly described in the brief description of the several views of the drawing section of the specification, that the reference characters are properly applied, that no single reference character is used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part, and that there are no superfluous illustrations. (MPEP 608.02(e))
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of independent claim 29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Samuel (Joe) J Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615