DETAILED ACTION
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 02/16/2026 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 has been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “…the first and the second resilient members being asymmetrical in a horizontal plane during deformation…”, and further introduces the argument for support (See Remarks pg 9) “…. the configuration is intentionally asymmetrical in the horizontal plane, that is, it remains symmetrical "left-right," but is different "top-bottom."” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per Mollenkopf ( EP 2628972 B1) Annotated Figure 2 below, there is asymmetrical deformation between the upper right resilient member and the lower right resilient member, that is, the limitation “the first and the second resilient members being asymmetrical in a horizontal plane during deformation”, has been met. Therefore, the 103 rejection of claim 1 and subsequent dependent claim rejections of claims 2-20 remain.
PNG
media_image1.png
358
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Mollenkopf Figure 2 showing the asymmetrical deformation across the horizontal plane between the first and second resilient members.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauvageau (US 2017/0225727 A1) in view of Mollenkopf (Machine Translation and Original Patent EP 2628972 B1 provided in present OA)
Regarding Claim 1, Sauvageau teaches [a pivoting assembly for connecting at least one-wheel assembly to a frame of a track system, the pivoting assembly comprising] (“…a lateral tandem assembly (also known as “Rosta”) is illustrated” para 0150):
a first clamping member 53 (Fig 33 para 0150);
a first resilient member 51 (Fig 33, para 0150) engageable with the first clamping member (Figure 33 shows the resilient member interacting with the first clamping member, “Each casing 50 and 53 comprises an aperture (illustrated as a rounded square aperture) for receiving the axial component. 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 which tightly hold the axial component in place,” (emphasis added) para 0150);
an intermediate clamping member 47 (Fig 33, para 0150) having a first engaging side [engageable with the first resilient member] (Fig 33 shows the clamping member 47 having a side that engages with the top resilient member) , [and a second engaging side having a first engaging portion and a second engaging portion] (Fig 33 also shows the bottom surfaces of the clamping member 47 having surfaces that interact with the bottom resilient members-See Annotated Figure 33 below) , the intermediate clamping member 47 (Fig 33) [being pivotable about a pivot axis extending generally parallel to a longitudinal center plane of the pivoting assembly] (“…thus allowing a slight rotation or tilting of the axial component 47 with respect to the aperture of the casings 50 and 53.” para 0150);
one second resilient member 51 (Fig 33, para 0150) engageable with at least one of the first and the second engaging portions of the second engaging side of the intermediate clamping member 47 (Fig 33, para 0150, Annotated Figure 33 below shows how the intermediate clamping member interacts with the top and bottom resilient members 51);
a second clamping member 50 (Fig 33 para 0150) [connectable to the first clamping member and engageable with the second resilient member] (“Accordingly, the Rosta assembly uses an axial component 47 (shown as a square-shaped component) to be enclosed into casings 50 and 53 and to be inserted into an aperture of a wheel axle 52.” para 0150- Figure 33 shows the clamping members connected to one another via bolts or equivalent hardware ), the second clamping member 50 (Fig 33 para 0150) [having a receiving portion configured to at least partially receive the first resilient member, the intermediate clamping member and the second resilient member] (Figure 33 shows the casing 50 having a U shaped interior to receive the resilient members and the axial component);
PNG
media_image2.png
462
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Sauvageau Figure 33 shows the clamping members, intermediate members and the resilient members interacting with one another.
Sauvageau does not explicitly teach wherein the intermediate clamping member has a first position, and in response to the intermediate clamping member pivoting about the pivot axis, at least one of the first and second resilient members biases the intermediate clamping member towards the first position. Nor that the resilient members are removable, and is silent regarding the asymmetrical deformation of the first and second resilient members about a horizontal plane.
Mollenkopf teaches an equivalent intermediate clamping member 16 (Figs 1 and 2) [has a first position, and in response to the intermediate clamping member pivoting about the pivot axis A (Figs 1 and 2, para 0032), at least one of the first and second resilient members 18’-18”” (Figs 1 and 2, para 0034) biases the intermediate clamping member towards the first position] (“As soon as a torque is applied between the inner housing 16 and the outer housing 14, the inserted elastic rubber strands 18'-18'''' yield the pressure applied to them by the edges of the inner housing 16 by changing their shape and rolling on the inner and outer surfaces of the housings 14, 16”, para 0034 ). Additionally Mollenkopf teaches the resilient members 18’-18”” are removable (“As a result, a possibly fatigued rubber spring element can be replaced in good time before failure or damage occurs.”, para 0014), and that the first and second resilient members 18’-18”” (Figs 1 and 2, para 0034) [being asymmetrical in a horizontal plane during deformation] (See Annotated Mollenkopf Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Mollenkopf Figure 2 showing the asymmetrical deformation across the horizontal plane between the first and second resilient members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the resilient members biasing force of Mollenkopf with the pivoting assembly of Sauvageau with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for restricted movement of the pivoting assembly so as to remain within the casings as taught by Sauvageau. By restricting the movement of the axial assembly, the movement of the wheels is restricted as well and is less likely to slip or jump the elastic track assembly.
Regarding Claim 2, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf teach in response to a connection between the first Sauvageau- 53 (Fig 33 para 150) and second clamping members Sauvageau- 50 (Fig 33 para 0150) , [an overall clamping force is applied] (“Each casing 50 and 53 comprises an aperture (illustrated as a rounded square aperture) for receiving the axial component. 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 which tightly hold the axial component in place” (emphasis added) para 0150 ), the first Sauvageau-53 (Fig 33) and intermediate clamping members Sauvageau-47 (Fig 33) distribute a first part of the overall clamping force to the first resilient member 51-(“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 which tightly hold the axial component in place” (emphasis added) para 0150”) and the intermediate Sauvageau- 47 (Fig 33) and second clamping members Sauvageau-50 (Fig 33) distribute a second part of the overall clamping force to the second resilient member 51 (Lower resilient members 51 that interact with the second clamping member 50 in Fig 33) , and the [pivoting assembly is in a pre-loaded state] (“…the difference between the two shapes is filled with elastomeric components 51 which tightly hold the axial component in place” para 0150 ).
Regarding Claim 3, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf fully teach [the first resilient member 18’ and 18” (Mollenkopf Figs 1 and 2) is in continuous engagement with the first 53 (Sauvageau-Fig 33 para 0150) and intermediate clamping members Sauvageau- 47 (Fig 33 para 0150)] (“…the difference between the two shapes is filled with elastomeric components 51 which tightly hold the axial component in place” Sauvageau- para 0150- the resilient members hold the intermediate clamping member in place), and [the second resilient member 18”’ and 18”” (Mollenkopf Figs 1 and 2) is in continuous engagement with the intermediate 47 (Fig 33 para 0150) and second clamping members 50 (Fig 33 para 0150)] (“…the difference between the two shapes is filled with elastomeric components 51 which tightly hold the axial component in place” Sauvageau- para 0150- the resilient members hold the intermediate clamping member in place)).
Regarding Claim 4, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf fully teach the second resilient member Sauvageau 51 (Fig 33, para 150) is [two second resilient members removably engageable with the first and second engaging portions of the intermediate clamping member] (Sauvageau Figure 33 shows the lower resilient member comprising a left and right resilient member that interacts with the intermediate clamping member 47, see also Mollenkopf para 0014 for removable components) ; and the first resilient member 51 (Fig 33 para 0150, the top (upper resilient member 51) , and the two second resilient members 51 (Fig 33) [cooperate for guiding movement of the intermediate clamping member] (“…the difference between the two shapes is filled with elastomeric components 51 which tightly hold the axial component in place, thus allowing a slight rotation or tilting of the axial component 47…” (Emphasis added) para 0150-Sauvageau).
Regarding Claim 5, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf teach the intermediate member 47 (Fig 33, para 0150) further includes a third engaging portion and a fourth engaging portion (See annotated Figure 33 below) .
the second resilient members 51 (Fig 33) being removably (Mollenkopf teaches removeable components see para 0014 “As a result, a possibly fatigued rubber spring element can be replaced in good time before failure or damage occurs.”, para 0014) engageable with the third engaging portion (See annotated Sauvageau Fig 33 below); and removably engageable with the fourth engaging portion (See annotated Sauvageau Fig 33 below).
Sauvageau and Mollenkopf discloses the claimed invention except for the second resilient member is four members It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to duplicate the second resilient members so there are four members since it has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza 124 USPQ 378. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
PNG
media_image3.png
462
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Sauvageau Figure 33 shows the third and fourth engaging surfaces that interact with the resilient member.
Regarding Claim 6, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf fully teach when a force being applied to the intermediate clamping member Mollenkopf (16 Figs 1 and 2, paras 0034 and 0035), the pivot axis Axis A (Figs 1 and 2) and the intermediate clamping member 16 (Figs 1 and 2) [move from the first position to a second position] (Figs 1 and 2 show the rotation of the intermediate clamping member via a force F, “…wherein the inner housing 16 and the outer housing 16 of the rubber spring element 12 are deflected in relation to the arrangement shown in FIG. 1. As soon as a torque is applied between the inner housing 16 and the outer housing 14, the inserted elastic rubber strands 18'-18'''' yield the pressure applied to them by the edges of the inner housing 16 by changing their shape and rolling on the inner and outer surfaces of the housings 14, 16.”, para 0034)
Regarding Claim 7, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf fully teach when a force (Mollenkopf-F Fig 2) being applied to the intermediate clamping member (Mollenkopf 16 Figs 1 and 2 para 0033-0034), at least one of: (emphasis added)
[an area of contact between the first resilient member 18’ and 18” (Fig 2) and the first clamping member 12 (Fig 2) increases] (Mollenkopf Fig 2 shows the first resilient members and the first clamping member have an increased surface area) ,
[an area of contact between the first resilient member 18’ and 18” (Fig 2) and the first engaging side of the intermediate clamping member 16 (Fig 2) increases] (Mollenkopf Fig 2 shows the first resilient members and the intermediate clamping member having increased areas of contact between them) ,
[the first resilient member 18’ and 18” deforms ] (“…the inserted elastic rubber strands 18'-18'''' yield the pressure applied to them by the edges of the inner housing 16 by changing their shape and rolling on the inner and outer surfaces of the housings 14, 16.” (emphasis added) Para 0034 );
an area of contact between the second resilient member 18”’ and 18”” (Fig 2) and the second engaging side of the intermediate clamping member 16 (Fig 2) increases (Mollenkopf Fig 2 shows the first resilient members and the intermediate clamping member having increased areas of contact between them);
[an area of contact between the second resilient member 51 (Fig 33) and the second clamping member 50 (Fig 33) increases] (Sauvageau Fig 33 “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 which tightly hold the axial component in place, thus allowing a slight rotation or tilting of the axial component 47 with respect to the aperture of the casings 50 and 53.” para 0150) ,
[and the second resilient member deforms] (“…the inserted elastic rubber strands 18'-18'''' yield the pressure applied to them by the edges of the inner housing 16 by changing their shape and rolling on the inner and outer surfaces of the housings 14, 16.” (emphasis added) Para 0034 ).
Regarding Claim 8, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf teach the first clamping member Sauvageau-53 (Fig 33 para 0150 has a first inter-engageable feature, the first resilient member (top elements 51 Figure 33) has a second inter-engageable feature and the first clamping member Sauvageau-53 (Fig 33) and the first resilient member 51 (Fig 33) [are engageable by the first and second inter-engageable features] (“Each casing 50 and 53 comprises an aperture (illustrated as a rounded square aperture) for receiving the axial component. 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 which tightly hold the axial component in place, thus allowing a slight rotation or tilting of the axial component 47 with respect to the aperture of the casings 50 and 53.” (emphasis added) para 0150 -Sauvageau).
Regarding Claim 9, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf teach wherein the first resilient member Sauvageau-(top elements 51, Fig 33) has a third inter-engageable feature, the intermediate clamping member 47 (Fig 33) has a fourth inter-engageable
feature and the first resilient member 51 (Fig 33 para 0150) and the intermediate clamping member 47 (Fig 33 para 0150) [are engageable by the third and fourth inter-engageable features] (“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 which tightly hold the axial component in place, thus allowing a slight rotation or tilting of the axial component 47 with respect to the aperture of the casings 50 and 53.” (emphasis added) para 0150- see annotated Figure 33 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
462
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Sauvageau Fig 33 shows the surfaces of element 51 interacting with the upper surfaces of the intermediate clamping member 47.
Regarding Claim 10, Sauvageau fully teaches wherein the first clamping member 53 (Fig 33 para 0150) has [a first abutting portion and a second abutting portion] (“Each casing 50 and 53 comprises an aperture (illustrated as a rounded square aperture) for receiving the axial component.” para 0150), the first and second abutting portions being configured to abut with the first resilient member 51 (Fig 33) [for limiting longitudinal movement of the first resilient member relative to the first clamping member 47 (Fig 33, para 0150)] (“Each casing 50 and 53 comprises an aperture (illustrated as a rounded square aperture) for receiving the axial component. 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 which tightly hold the axial component in place, thus allowing a slight rotation or tilting of the axial component 47 with respect to the aperture of the casings 50 and 53.”, para 0150- the apertures prevent the resilient components from shifting inside the clamping members).
Regarding Claim 11, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf teach at least one of (Emphasis added):
-the first resilient member 18’ and 18” (Fig 2) [is configured to move relative to one of the first and intermediate clamping members 16 (Fig 2)] (“…the inserted elastic rubber strands 18'-18'''' yield the pressure applied to them by the edges of the inner housing 16 by changing their shape and rolling on the inner and outer surfaces of the housings 14, 16.” (emphasis added) Para 0034 ); and
-the second resilient member 18”’ and 18”” (Fig 2) [is configured to move relative to one of the intermediate 16 (Fig 2) and second clamping members] (“…the inserted elastic rubber strands 18'-18'''' yield the pressure applied to them by the edges of the inner housing 16 by changing their shape and rolling on the inner and outer surfaces of the housings 14, 16.” (emphasis added) Para 0034 ).
(Examiner’s Note: for clarity of the record, claim 12 is being examined and interpreted as the corrected claim limitation found in the claim objection recited above).
Regarding Claim 12, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf teach at least one of (Emphasis added):
- the movement of the first resilient member 18’ and 18” (Mollenkopf-Fig 2) relative to the one of the 16 (Mollenkopf-Fig 2) [is a rolling movement] (“the inserted elastic rubber strands 18'-18'''' yield the pressure applied to them by the edges of the inner housing 16 by changing their shape and rolling on the inner and outer surfaces of the housings 14, 16.” (Emphasis Added) para 0034 ); and
- the movement of the second resilient member 18”’ and 18”” (Fig 2) [relative to the one of the intermediate 16 (Fig 2) and second clamping members is a rolling movement] (“the inserted elastic rubber strands 18'-18'''' yield the pressure applied to them by the edges of the inner housing 16 by changing their shape and rolling on the inner and outer surfaces of the housings 14, 16.” (Emphasis Added) para 0034 ).
Regarding Claim 13, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf fully teach the second clamping member 50 (Fig 33) [is configured to limit movement of the intermediate clamping member 47 (Fig 33)] (“an axial component 47 (shown as a square-shaped component) to be enclosed into casings 50 and 53 and to be inserted into an aperture of a wheel axle 52. Each casing 50 and 53 comprises an aperture (illustrated as a rounded square aperture) for receiving the axial component. 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 which tightly hold the axial component in place, thus allowing a slight rotation or tilting of the axial component 47 with respect to the aperture of the casings 50 and 53.” (Emphasis added) Para 0150).
Regarding claim 14, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf do not explicitly teach that the resilient members have a first and second mechanical property that are different from one another. However, 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 first and second resilient members to use a first and second mechanical property that are different, so as to achieve an optimal vibration isolation while the track is moving--because the selection of materials is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability. The motivation to optimize the differing mechanical properties is found in Sauvageau para 0025 -“The use of such lateral elastomeric resilient member aims at increasing the ride comfort on uneven pavement.”. Since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable materials until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Williams, 4 USPQ 237. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific material yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 15, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf teach a cross-section of at least one of the first resilient member Sauvageau-51 (Fig 33 para 0150) and the second resilient member 51 (Fig 33 para 0150) taken across a plane generally perpendicular to the longitudinal center plane of the pivoting assembly [has a generally arcuate profile] (Fig 33 shows the resilient members 51 having arcuate shapes with rounded edges to fit into the space between the intermediate member 47, “Each casing 50 and 53 comprises an aperture (illustrated as a rounded square aperture) for receiving the axial component. 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 which tightly hold the axial component in place”, para 0150).
Regarding Claim 16, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf teach the second resilient member 18”’ and 18”” (Fig 2, para 0034) is generally cylindrical (Fig 2 of Mollenkopf shows the resilient members as elongated cylinders ), [and extends generally parallel to the longitudinal center plane of the pivoting assembly] (“Elastic rubber strands 18'-18''', the longitudinal directions of which are aligned in the axial direction of the housings 14, 16, are pressed into these intermediate spaces.” para 0033).
Regarding Claim 17, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf teach the intermediate clamping member Sauvageau-47 (Fig 33 para 0150) includes at least one shaft Sauvageau-52 (Fig 33) extending [generally perpendicular to the longitudinal center plane of the pivoting assembly, the at least one shaft being configured to connect to the at least one wheel assembly] ( The shaft 52 is perpendicular to the intermediate clamping member and is connected to a wheel assembly “ …of a wheel axle 52.”, para 0150 and “…a predetermined rotation axis 52 on the axle of a set of wheel…” para 0139).
Regarding Claim 18, Sauvageau teaches the intermediate clamping member 47 (Fig 33) [is configured to move in a vertical direction generally by at least about 1 millimeter] (The assembly of Sauvageau is for a wheel assembly that moves with the uneven terrain beneath the track assembly. When the track system is in motion, the intermediate clamping member will move within the uneven terrain in a vertical direction (See Fig 34B showing the wheel assembly with an assembly shown in Fig 33 where the wheels flex to match the terrain of the riding surface, “a vehicle using an embodiment of a Rosta assembly in the same condition as FIG. 34A is shown. Accordingly, the force shown by the arrows is more evenly distributed between the wheels. Hence, as the load is evenly transmitted to the other components of the track system 1, fatigue and ruptures of components due to overload may be prevented or limited.” para 0151).
Sauvageau does not explicitly teach that the intermediate clamping member is configured to move in a vertical direction generally by at least 1 millimeter. However, 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 clamping member so that it can move in a vertical direction by at least 1 millimeter, so as to achieve an optimal vibration isolation while the track is moving--because determining the ideal vertical distance is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability. The motivation to optimize the vertical distance is supported in Sauvageau para 0025 -“The use of such lateral elastomeric resilient member aims at increasing the ride comfort on uneven pavement.”. Since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable materials until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that the vertical distance of the intermediate clamping member yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 19, Sauvageau and Mollenkopf teach the intermediate clamping member Mollenkopf-16 (Fig 2 ,para 0033) can pivot about the pivot axis A (Fig 2) [by at least about 5 degrees in either direction] (“…this lever 20 is deflected by the force effect F at an angle of α=20° in relation to its rest position. In FIG. 2, the change in shape and position of the elastic rubber strands 18'-18'''' is also indicated. As soon as the torque is reduced, the elastic rubber strands 18'-18'''' re-adopt their original shape and position because of their elasticity.” (emphasis added) para 0035 see also “This symmetrical configuration creates a rubber spring element angle of rotation measurement system, the rubber spring element of which can be deflected identically far in both directions when an identical torque is applied (identical deflection angle).” (emphasis added) para 0017 ).
Regarding Claim 20, Sauvageau fully teaches
A track system 1 (Fig 1 para 0091) comprising:
a frame 16,18 (Fig 1, para 0097);
a plurality of wheel assemblies 34 (Fig 1) [operatively connected to the frame] (“…the plurality of front support wheels 34 are rotatively mounted to the first pivoting portion 16”, para 0100), at least one of the plurality of wheel assemblies 56 (Fig 33, para 0150) being connected [to the frame by the pivoting assembly of claim 1] elements 47-56 (Fig 33 para 0150)
and an endless track 14 (Fig 1A, para 0091) [surrounding the frame and the plurality of wheel assemblies] (“…and an endless traction band 14 disposed around the sprocket wheel 12 and the support frame 16 and 18.” Para 0091).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brazier (US 2017/0210436) teaches an improved track frame with a resiliently biased member used to prevent vertical track flexion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN M KNAUF whose telephone number is (703)756-4532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/M.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights