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 were received on 3 June 2026. These drawings are approved.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first surface (i.e. the ground engaging surface) having a hardness of at least 50 HRC extending to a depth of at least 32mm into the unitary body, as set forth in claim 21; and the drive lugs being formed of a different material from the unitary body, as set forth in claims 27 and 30; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 27 and 30 set forth the drive lugs being formed of a different material than that of the unitary body. However, the specification fails to disclose such a feature, and the drawings do not show such a feature. Therefore, this limitation is new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 30 are indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “configured to contact” is generally narrative (see section 8 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 25 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “configured to receive” is generally narrative (see section 8 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claims 26 and 30 are indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “configured to engage” is generally narrative (see section 8 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claims 27 and 30 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the drive lugs can be formed of a different material than the rest of the unitary body of the track pad, when the drive lugs are part of (i.e. formed in one piece with) the unitary body.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 22-23, and 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones et al (11,807,318).
The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Per claims 1 and 30, Jones et al shows a track system having an undercarriage with a sprocket and roller coupled thereto. The sprocket is driven by a motor. The track includes a set of track pads 110 forming an endless loop around the undercarriage. Adjacent track pads 110 are connected by bushings. The track pads 110 include a unitary body 304 formed of alloy steel and a first surface 202 for contacting the ground, and a second surface 210 for contacting the rollers. The second surface 210 has a hardness of at least 50 HRC (see column 4, lines 8-13) extending therefrom to a depth of at least 32mm into the unitary body (see column 4, lines 34-41, where Jones et al states that the depth of the hardened region extends into the body “at least 30mm” with the allowance of a tolerance that includes +5%. This would result in a depth of at least 31.5mm (which rounds to 32mm and is considered to be a minimum depth).
Per claim 22, the second surface 210 is arcuate and has a curvature corresponding to the curvature of a roller.
Per claim 23, the hardness of the second surface 202 (at a depth of at least 32mm) is in the range of 50-60 HRC (see column 4, lines 13-15).
Per claim 25, the track pad 110 includes a pair of spaced apart links 204 having pin bores.
Per claim 26, the track pad 110 includes a pair of drive lugs 206 disposed on the unitary body 304 for engaging a sprocket.
Per claims 27 and 30, the drive lugs 206 are “formed of a material different from the alloy steel” of the unitary body 304 inasmuch as the Applicant’s invention is shown and disclosed as having.
Per claim 28, the drive lugs 206 (and the entirety of the unitary body 304 of the track pad 110) is formed of a manganese steel having at least 10% manganese by weight (see column 3, lines 56-58).
Per claim 29, the drive lugs 206 are disposed on opposite sides of the second surface 210
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) 3-5, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Jones et al does not disclose the cross-sectional thickness of the track pad or the mass thereof. 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 pad with dimensions and scale suitable to support the loads imparted thereon during use without failing. Namely, the dimensions and weight of the track pad are proportional to the size of the vehicle on which the track pads will be used and the loads said vehicle will produce and/or support during use.
Regarding claim 4, Jones et al does not disclose the depth to which the second surface 202 is hardened is “at least 10% of the cross-sectional thickness. 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 harden the roller contact surface of Jones et al to a depth sufficient to prevent undue wear thereto due to frictional forces during contact with the rollers while also allowing the track pad to be ductile enough to prevent failure of the track pad due to repeated contact with the rollers during use.
Regarding claim 21, Jones et al does not show or disclose that the first surface (i.e. the ground contacting surface) of the track pad is hardened to at least 50 HRC to a depth into the unitary body of at least 32 mm. 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 harden the ground contacting surface of the track pad in the same manner as the rolling contact surface, for the purpose of preventing undue wear on the track pads, thus increasing useable life and reducing maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 24, Jones et al does not disclose the length and width of the unitary body of the track pad. 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 pad with dimensions and scale suitable to support the loads imparted thereon during use without failing. Namely, the dimensions and weight of the track pad are proportional to the size of the vehicle on which the track pads will be used and the loads said vehicle will produce and/or support during use.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al as applied to claims 1, 3-5, and 21-30 above, and further in view of Berchem (4,561,908).
Jones et al discloses the use of an alloy steel containing 0.30-0.40% carbon, and 0.80-1.30% manganese in forming the track pads (see column 3, lines 46-53). Jones et al does not disclose any other chemical ingredient in the medium carbon alloy steel.
Berchem teaches the use of an alloy steel comprising by weight 0.30-0.40% carbon, 0.80-1.30% manganese, 1.00-1.70% nickel, 0.80-1.30% chromium, and 0.20-0.80% molybdenum. 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 track pad of Jones et al from the medium carbon steel alloy disclosed by Berchem, dependent upon availability, cost, and the desired chemical and physical characteristics (i.e. fatigue resistance, machinability, etc.) to prevent undue wear and/or failure of the track pads during use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to overcome any indefiniteness issues under 112(b). However, this is not the case, as set forth above.
The Applicant also argues that no new matter has been included in the newly added claims. However, this is not the case, as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 21-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the base 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 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
Prosecution Insights