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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the track system as set forth in claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 14 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 14 October 2025.
It should be noted that claims 6-10 are drawn to a method of heat treating and hardening the track pad body. Claims 6-10 are essentially identical to the limitations set forth in non-elected method claims 11-18. Therefore, claims 6-10 have also been withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to non-elected subject matter.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 118.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 60.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what element of the invention includes a “supporting surface” on which the first surface of the track pad body is “configured to contact”.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “configured to contact” is generally narrative and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (11,104,393).
Per claim 1, Jones et al shows a track system having an undercarriage with a sprocket and roller coupled thereto. The sprocket being driven by a motor. The track includes a set of track pads 112 forming an endless loop around the undercarriage. Adjacent track pads 112 are connected by bushings. The track pads 112 include a body formed of alloy steel and a first surface 212 for contacting the ground, and a second surface 202 for contacting the rollers. The second surface 202 has a hardness of at least 50 HRC (see column 4, lines 61-66). It should be noted that the limitation that the second surface is “produced by at least induction hardening” is a method limitation in a product claim, and therefore receives no patentable weight (MPEP 2113).
Per claim 4, the hardness of the second surface 20 2is within the range of 50-60 HRC (see column 4, lines 63-66).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Jones et al does not disclose the depth to which the second surface 202 is hardened. 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 claims 2 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al as applied to claims 1 and 3-5 above, and further in view of Berchem (4,561,908).
Jones et al does not disclose the chemical components of the allow steel forming the track pads. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show track pads having hardened wear surfaces.
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