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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: A comma - - , - - should be inserted following the phrase “supporting surface” in line 8, for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 9-12, 14-19, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakes et al (10,946,911) in view of Westoby et al (9,719,158) and in further view of Johannsen (2018/0029653).
Per claims 1 and 10, Hakes et al shows a track pad 100, a plurality of which is connected together to form an endless loop around a sprocket and idle roller mounted on an undercarriage of a machine. The track pad 100 includes a body 105 formed of an alloy steel, including a first surface 110 for contacting the ground. An insert 115 is joined to the body 105 at a location opposite the first surface 110 to form a roller contact surface that interfaces with the sprocket and idle roller. The insert 115 is formed of a work-hardening alloy different from the alloy steel of the body 105. The body 105 may include a pocket in which the insert 115 is joined thereto (column 3, lines 33-35). It should be noted that the limitation that the insert is joined to the body “by friction welding” is a method step in product claims, and therefore receive no patentable weight (see MPEP 2113).
Per claims 4 and 17, the track pad 100 includes a drive lug positioned on the body 105 for interfacing with the sprocket. The drive lug includes a second insert 120 located at a wear surface of the drive lug. The second insert 120 is also formed of the work-hardening alloy.
Regarding claims 1, 6-7, 10, 14, 19, and 21-24, Hakes et al does not disclose the specific grade/alloy of the manganese-steel alloy. Westoby et al teaches the use of a track pad formed of an austenitic manganese-steel alloy including chromium in the range of 1.0-3.5%, and 14% of manganese (column 4, lines 59-61 and 66 through column 5, line 1). Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form at least the inserts of Hakes et al from the austenitic manganese-steel alloy of Westoby et al, dependent upon the desired chemical and physical features thereof, to prevent undue wear of the inserts during use, thus increasing the useable life of the track pads.
Further regarding claims 1, 4, 10, 17, and 19, while Hakes et al does show a drive lug having a second insert 120 of the same material as the first insert 115, but does not show two drive lugs on either side of the roller contact surface. Westoby et al teaches a track pad including a roller contact surface 42 having a wear-resistant material 52 on a wear surface 43 thereof, with a pair of drive lugs 44 including a wear-resistant material 52 on the wear surfaces 46 surfaces thereof. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the drive lug of Hakes et al as a pair of lugs on either side of a roller contact surface as taught by Westoby et al, as a substitute equivalent configuration, dependent upon the type of drive sprocket, rollers and idler wheels present on the vehicle on which the track is to be used, and to provide wear-resistant material at the wear surfaces of the track pads, thus increasing the useable life thereof.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Hakes et al does not show the roller contact surface of the insert having a curvature that corresponds to that of an idler roller. However, Westoby et al teaches exactly such a feature in Figures 2-3. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the roller contact surface of Hakes et al with an arcuate surface that corresponds to that of an idler roller, for the purpose of preventing lateral movement (i.e. side to side wandering) of the idler roller as it moves along the roller contact surface.
Regarding claims 11-12, Hakes et al as modified by Westoby et al does not disclose the dimensions (length, width, thickness) of the track pad or insert. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the track pads with a suitable length and width to provide sufficient support and traction for the vehicle on which the track formed by the track pads will be used, without adding undue weight. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to provide the inserts with a suitable thickness dependent upon the desired useful life expectancy of the track pads.
Regarding claims 3 and 15-16, Hakes et al as modified by Westoby et al does not disclose the specific grade/alloy of the alloy steel forming the body 105. Johannsen teaches the use of a track component 200’ (a functional equivalent to the track pad of Hakes et al) including a body 204’ formed of a low carbon alloy steel. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the body of Hakes et al as modified by Westoby et al from low carbon alloy steel dependent upon the desired chemical and physical features thereof.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Hakes et al as modified by Westoby et al does not disclose the insert being friction welded with the body. Johannsen teaches the use of an insert 202’ being friction welded to the body 204’ of the track component 200’. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the method of friction welding as a substitute equivalent method of securing the body and inserts of Hakes et al as modified by Westoby et al, dependent upon cost and complexity of the process.
Regarding claim 19, Hakes et al as modified by Westoby et al discloses that the body of the track pad may be cast using alloy steel. The body is shaped with a receiving area for an insert. Hakes et al as modified by Westoby et al does not disclose the insert being first cast into shape and then friction welded to the body. Johannsen teaches a method of casting a body 204’ that includes a receiving area, then casting an insert 202’ into shape, and then friction welding the insert 202’ to the receiving area of the body 204’. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the method of friction welding as a substitute equivalent method of securing the body and inserts of Hakes et al as modified by Westoby et al, dependent upon cost and complexity of the process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the pending claims would not have been obvious over the cited documents. The Applicant argues that none of the references disclose or show the body of the track pads including a pocket in which the insert is seated. However, as set forth in the rejection above, Hakes discloses that the insert “may be at least partially embedded” in the body of the track pad, which implies a pocket in which the insert is “embedded”.
The Applicant argues that none of the references show or disclose the insert having an “arcuate roller contact surface” that has a “curvature corresponding to a curvature of the idler roller”. However, Westoby et al teaches such a feature.
With respect to the request that should “any issues remain that would prevent allowance”, the Examiner “contact the undersigned representative before issuing a subsequent Action”, said request is untimely. Namely, a request for an interview should occur prior to the filing of a response to an Office action and not concurrent therewith, given the fact that the Examiner is required to answer the pending response regardless of the result of an interview.
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 JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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) 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
