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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant claims that Sauvageau does not disclose the following from claim 1: “the first clamping member and the intermediate clamping member being spaced to apply a first clamping force to the first resilient member and the second clamping member and the intermediate clamping member being spaced to apply a second clamping force to the second resilient member”. Applicant points to paragraph 150 of the specification of Sauvageau, specifically “As the overall external shape of the axial component 47 and the overall shape of the aperture of the casing are different, the difference between the two shapes is filled with elastomeric components 51” as evidence that there is no clamping force.
The examiner would like to point out the next line in paragraph 150, “which tightly hold the axial component in place”. If the first, intermediate, and second clamping members are tightened around the resilient members enough to tightly hold the axial component (intermediate clamping member), which is a different shape and size than the aperture created by the first and second clamping components, there must be some measure of clamping force. If the space between the first clamping member and intermediate clamping member or between the intermediate clamping member and second clamping member were too large, the axial component would not be held tightly and the resilient members would become dislodged. This would prevent the design from working as intended as it could lead to track derailment and failure due to too much movement of the wheels. It is clear that the space between each of the clamping members must be designed so as to apply a clamping force to each of the resilient members.
The applicant makes a similar argument relating to claim 19, specifically pointing to the following limitations: “the first and intermediate clamping members being configured to exert a first compressive force on the first resilient member {…]the second clamping member and the intermediate clamping member being configured to exert a second compressive force on the second resilient member [...] one or both of the first resilient member and the second resilient member are further deformed and exert a responsive force on the intermediate clamping member to counteract the movement of the shaft member".
The examiner asserts that Sauvageau discloses all limitations of claim 19. Paragraph 150 states “the lateral tandem assembly allows slight rotations and restoration of the position of a piece, namely the axis linking two wheels, with respect to a general structure”. In order for the disclosed assembly of figure 33 to allow “slight rotation and restoration” of the “axis linking two wheels” while tightly holding the axial component, the resilient members would have to deform which would cause them to exert a responsive force on the intermediate clamping member to restore it to its original position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sauvageau et al. US 20170225727 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Sauvageau discloses a pivoting assembly for connecting at least one support wheel assembly to a frame of a track system, the pivoting assembly comprising: a first clamping member 53; a first resilient member 51 (first and second resilient members are not individually labeled except in annotated figure) having a first engaging portion operationally engaged with the first clamping member 53, and a second engaging portion; an intermediate clamping member 47 having a first engaging side operationally engaged with the second engaging portion of the first resilient member 51, and a second engaging side, a shaft 52 connected to the intermediate clamping member 47 and configured to connect to at least one wheel 56, a second resilient member (see annotated figure below) having a third engaging portion and a fourth engaging portion, the third engaging portion being operationally engages with the second engaging side of the intermediate clamping member 47; a second clamping member 50 operationally engaged with the fourth engaging portion of the second resilient member and connected to the first clamping member 53, wherein the intermediate clamping member 47 is pivotable about a pivot axis (along the central longitudinal axis of the intermediate clamping member 47), the first clamping member 53 and the intermediate clamping member 47 being spaced to apply a first clamping force to the first resilient member 51, and the second clamping member 50 and the intermediate clamping member 47 being spaced to apply a second clamping force to the second resilient member. (Fig. 33)
PNG
media_image1.png
654
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 1, wherein in response to the intermediate clamping member 47 pivoting about the pivot axis, at least one of the first and second resilient members 51 are configured to bias the intermediate clamping member 47 toward a first position. (para. 150, lines 12-17)
Regarding claim 3 Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 1, wherein: in a first state, when the first and intermediate clamping members 53, 47 apply the first clamping force, and the intermediate and second clamping members 47, 50 apply the second clamping force, the first engaging side of the intermediate clamping member 47 engages the second engaging portion with a first contact area, and the second engaging side of the intermediate clamping member engages the third engaging portion with a second contact area; and in a second state: the first and intermediate clamping members 53, 47 apply a third clamping force, the third clamping force being greater than the first clamping force, the intermediate and second clamping members 47, 50 apply a fourth clamping force, the fourth clamping force being greater than the second clamping force, the first engaging side of the intermediate clamping member 47 engages the second engaging portion with a third contact area, and the second engaging side of the intermediate clamping member 47 engages the third engaging portion with a fourth contact area. (Fig. 33; when loosely connected (first state), the first and second clamping forces would be small, when tightened (second state) the third and fourth clamping forces are larger)
Regarding claim 4 Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 3, wherein the third contact area is greater than the first contact area and the fourth contact area is greater than the second contact area. (Fig. 33; as the clamping force gets higher, the resilient members will squish and expand, resulting in a greater contact area)
Regarding claim 5 as the examiner interprets it, Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 3, wherein: the first contact area is configured to increase progressively in response to gradually increasing the first clamping force; and the third contact area is configured to increase progressively in response to gradually increasing the second clamping force. (Fig. 33; as the clamping force gets higher, the elastomeric members will continuously squish and expand, resulting in a greater contact area)
Regarding claim 6 Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 1, wherein: the first clamping force pre-stresses the first resilient member; and the second clamping force pre-stresses the second resilient member. Any clamping force tight enough to hold the intermediate clamping member in place would compress the resilient members at least a little bit, resulting in some pre-stress.
Regarding claim 7 Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 1, wherein: at least one of the first, second, third and fourth engaging portions has a first inter-engageable member (outer triangular engaging portion of each resilient member); and a corresponding one of the first clamping member, the second clamping member, the first side of the intermediate clamping member and the second side of the intermediate clamping member of the at least one of the first, second, third and fourth engaging portions has a second inter-engageable member (inside corners of first and second clamping members) complementary to the first inter-engageable member, the first inter-engageable member being configured to provide a mechanical interlock. (Fig. 33)
Regarding claim 8 Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first, second, third and fourth engaging portions defines one of: a generally flat profile, a generally convex profile, and a generally concave profile. (Fig. 33 shows a generally flat profile)
Regarding claim 10 Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 1, wherein the intermediate clamping member is pivotable about the pivot axis by about 15 degrees. (Fig. 34B)
Regarding claim 11 Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 1, wherein the first resilient member is disposed vertically above the intermediate clamping member 47 and the second resilient member is disposed vertically below the intermediate clamping member 47. (Fig. 33)
Regarding claim 12 Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 1, wherein the first and second resilient members are made of a polymeric material. (para. 150, lines 12-17)
Regarding claim 15 Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 1, wherein at least one of: the first resilient member is a first leading resilient member, and the pivoting assembly further includes a first trailing resilient member longitudinally spaced from the first leading resilient member; and the second resilient member is a second leading resilient member, and the pivoting assembly further includes a second trailing resilient member longitudinally spaced from the second leading resilient member. (Fig. 33)
Regarding claim 16 Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 15, wherein the first and second leading resilient members are disposed longitudinally forward from the shaft, and the first and second trailing resilient members are disposed longitudinally rearward from the shaft. (Fig. 33)
Regarding claim 17 Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 1, wherein the second clamping member 50 is removably connected to the first clamping member 53. (Fig. 33)
Regarding claim 18 Sauvageau discloses a track system 1 comprising: a frame 18; a sprocket wheel assembly 12 operatively connected to the frame 18; at least one pivoting assembly 38 of claim 1 removably connected to the frame 18; a plurality of support wheel assemblies 34 connected to the frame by the at least one pivoting assembly 38.
Regarding claim 19, Sauvageau discloses a pivoting assembly 38 for a track system 1, the pivoting assembly 38 being configured to connect to at least one wheel 34, the pivoting assembly 38 comprising: a first resilient member 51 having a body which is resiliently compressible, a first clamping member 53 and an intermediate clamping member 47, the first and intermediate clamping members 53, 47 being configured to exert a first compressive force on the first resilient member 51; a second resilient member 51 (reference does not differentiate the multiple resilient members) having a body which is resiliently compressible; a second clamping member 50, the second clamping member 50 and the intermediate clamping member 47 being configured to exert a second compressive force on the second resilient member; a shaft member 52 having end portions which are connectable to wheel assemblies 56 of the track system and being moveable, about a pivot axis (longitudinal center line of intermediate clamping member) in response to a vertical displacement of the wheel assemblies, the shaft member 52 being connected to the intermediate clamping member 47 such that responsive to movement of the shaft member 52, one or both of the first resilient member and the second resilient member 51 are further deformed and exert a responsive force on the intermediate clamping member 47 to counteract the movement of the shaft member 52. (Figs 1A and 33; para. 150)
Regarding claim 20, Sauvageau discloses the pivoting assembly of claim 19, wherein the shaft member 52 extends generally transversely to the intermediate clamping member 47. (Fig. 33)
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 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauvageau et al. US 20170225727 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Sauvageau teaches the pivoting assembly of claim 1. Sauvageau does not teach wherein at least one of: a profile of a side extending between the first and second engaging portions of the first resilient member is generally concave; and a profile of a side extending between the third and fourth engaging portions of the second resilient member is generally concave. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use concave ends on the resilient members taught by Sauvageau as a design choice so as to reduce material used, and therefore cost with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Sauvageau teaches the pivoting assembly of claim 12. Sauvageau does not specifically teach wherein the polymeric material is rubber. However, Sauvageau does teach an elastomeric material is used and it is well known in the art that rubber is an excellent elastomeric material due to its resilience and elasticity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use rubber for the resilient members with a reasonable expectation of success. Official notice is hereby given.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauvageau et al. US 20170225727 A1 in view of Poulin et al. US 20220105998 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Sauvageau teaches the pivoting assembly of claim 1. Sauvageau does not teach wherein the first clamping member is member of a frame of the track system as it teaches a separate pivoting member attached to a frame. Poulin teaches tiltable support idler wheels with brackets as part of the frame. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tiltable idler wheel assembly taught by Sauvageau in place of the idler wheels of Poulin to provide better movement and articulation to the solid frame design with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEX R PALMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm MST.
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.
/AP/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615