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 .
This communication is in response to application No. 18/195,562 Multi-Feature Track System with Enhanced Performance; filed on 05/10/2023 and amended on 12/11/20025. Claims 47, 49-66 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim 48 has been cancelled by amendment.
Response to Amendment
Claim objection with regards to claim 53 is corrected with the submitted amendment to change the limitation to read “to the two first segments”.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 with regards to claims 63 and 64 are corrected with the submitted amendments to redirect claim 63 to depend from claim 47 (rather than claim 1) and to amend claim 64 to refer to the “powertrain”.
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.
Claim(s) 47-59 and 61-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eavenson (US 2015/166133 A1) in view of Svensson (US 2006/0272880 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
423
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 47, Eavenson discloses;
A pivoting assembly for a track system, the pivoting assembly comprising:
a non-linear axle and a wheel set (wheels 84; fig. 8), the non-linear axle having two first segments (axles 43; figs. 8, 14) being separated by a second segment (central area containing pivot 44), (Eavenson, figs. 8, 12-15, discloses a non-linear axle consisting of two first segments (wheel axle 43) which are attached to a second segment (center section 46 with a lower, longitudinal pivot 44). This is a non-linear axle because the vertical force applied, by the ground, to the wheels at the axles 43 is further transferred to the vehicle chassis through the pivot 44 which is located below the line of the wheel axles. Figs. 8 and 12 best illustrate how the wheel axle 43 pivots about the lower point 44.)
a first wheel of the wheel set being rotationally connected to one of the first segments extending along a rotation axis of the first wheel, (Figs. 8 and 15 illustrate the wheels as rotationally connected to one of the first segments of the axle.)
a second wheel (Figs. 8 and 15 illustrate wheels on either side of the central section) of the wheel set being rotationally connected to the other of the first segments (axle 43) (Fig. 13 illustrates first segments 43 to either side of the central pivot.) extending along an other rotation axis of the second wheel, the two first segments disposed on opposite ends of the non-linear axle (fig. 13),
the second segment (roll pivot connection 44) configured for pivotably connecting to a frame (middle section 45; fig. 14) of the track system,
PNG
media_image3.png
255
861
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the second segment being offset from the two first segments so that the second segment is closer to an inner surface of an endless track (bottom length of track 81; fig. 12) of the track system than the two first segments.
A further example of a non-linear axle of a more recognizable form is Svensson. Fig. 11 of Svensson illustrates a non-linear axle with a first segment, which rotationally mounts the wheels, and a second section which is in a non-linear arrangement with the first segment. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Eavenson to include a non-linear axle as taught by Svensson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle axles. As disclosed by Svensson, it is well known for a vehicle to utilize a non-linear axle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eavenson to include a non-linear axle as taught by Svensson, as such a modification would simplify the manufacturing of the axle assembly.
Regarding claim 49, Eavenson disclose;
wherein the two first segments and the second segment of the non-linear axle are integrally formed, (fig. 13 illustrates the wheel axles, central section and the longitudinal pivot section to all be integrally formed into a single unit.)
Eavenson does not specifically disclose that the axle is formed from a metallic material, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the axle from a metallic material, since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 50, Eavenson discloses;
wherein the second segment is configured to pivot about a pivoting axis (roll pivot 44; fig. 8, paragraph 54) of the pivoting assembly, the pivoting axis being perpendicular to the rotation axis of the first and second wheels. (Fig. 8 illustrates the roll pivot as perpendicular to the wheel axis 43.)
Regarding claim 51, Eavenson discloses;
wherein the pivoting axis is further aligned with the frame. (Fig. 14 illustrates the alignment of pivot axis 44 as aligned with the longitudinal frame 40.)
Regarding claim 52, Eavenson discloses;
wherein the pivoting axis extends through the second segment, the pivoting axis extending longitudinally and vertically below the rotation axis so as to reduce lateral movement of the wheel relative to the inner surface of the endless track. (Figs. 8 and 14 illustrates the pivot axis 44 as located vertically below the rotational axis 43 and along the longitudinal axis of the frame. Paragraph 57 describes this arrangement as enhancing stability.)
Regarding claim 53, Eavenson discloses;
wherein the second segment extends parallel to the two first segments. (The first segments (axles 43) are separated by a central structure (46/47 in fig. 14). This central section extends along (parallel to) the rotational axis of the wheel axis.)
Regarding claim 54, Eavenson discloses;
wherein the second segment does not extend parallel to the two first segments. (Figs. 8 and 13 illustrate the second segment, around pivot axis 44, as extending along a rotation axis perpendicular to the first segment, wheel axis 43.)
Regarding claim 55, Eavenson in view of Svensson discloses;
wherein the non-linear axle is a curved axle further having curved segments connecting the two first segments and the second segment. (Svensson fig. 11, and paragraph 29, illustrate a non-linear axles with a curved segment connecting the first (end) segment with the second (central) segment.
Regarding claim 56, Eavenson in view of Svensson discloses;
wherein the curved segments have one of a S-shape, a Z-shape, and a L-shape. (Paragraph 29 of Svensson describes the axle as an S-shape. Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to form the S-shaped axle of whatever, similar form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.)
Regarding claim 57, Eavenson discloses;
wherein the pivoting assembly is a support wheel assembly. (Paragraph 44 describes the pivoting assembly as supporting the weight of the vehicle.)
Regarding claims 58 and 59, Eavenson discloses all the above limitations of the pivoting assembly for use in a tracked vehicle utilizing support (bogie 84), drive (85) and idler (83) wheels. Eavenson does not specifically disclose the wheels of the assembly as drive or idler wheels. However, It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647.
Regarding claim 61, Eavenson discloses;
wherein the second segment is offset from the two first segments in a direction that is normal to the inner surface of the endless track. (fig. 12 illustrates the lower track in a cross-sectional view with the pivot axis 44 above and perpendicular to the track.)
Regarding claim 62, Eavenson discloses;
PNG
media_image4.png
268
493
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the offset is a vertical offset. (fig. 12 illustrates the lower track in a cross-sectional view with the pivot axis 44 located vertically above the track.)
Regarding claim 63; Eavenson discloses;
A track system comprising: a frame (frame 10; fig. 3) defining a longitudinal center plane; the pivoting assembly of claim 47 being rotationally and pivotably connected to the frame; and the endless track having the inner surface and surrounding the frame and the wheel assembly. (Figs. 3, 4, and 5 illustrate the endless track system with the pivot assemblies and wheels supported along the centerline of the track in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle. Eavenson does not differentiate between the frame of the vehicle and the frame of the track system. Designating both with the number 10 in figures 3, 4, and 5. However, figures 4 and 5 illustrate a track frame which provides a mounting for the pivot assembly and a damper and which is separate from the vehicle frame.)
Regarding claim 64, Eavenson discloses;
A vehicle (tracked utility vehicle; paragraph 44), comprising: a vehicle frame (chassis 10; paragraph 44, 64);
a seat (paragraph 64) disposed on the frame;
a steering system (paragraph 64) operatively connected to the frame;
a powertrain (spark or compression ignition engine; paragraph 64); and
the track system, wherein the track system is operatively connected to the power source for driving the track system. (Paragraph 46 describes the transfer of power from the engine to the tracks.)
Regarding claim 65, Eavenson discloses;
wherein the second segment is offset from the two first segments in a direction that is normal to the inner surface of the endless track. (fig. 12 illustrates the lower track in a cross-sectional view with the pivot axis 44 above and perpendicular to the track.)
Regarding claim 66, Eavenson discloses;
wherein the offset is a vertical offset. (fig. 12 illustrates the lower track in a cross-sectional view with the pivot axis 44 located vertically above the track.)
PNG
media_image5.png
383
567
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eavenson in view of Svensson as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of Bernard (US 2016/0194038 A1).
Regarding claim 60, Eavenson in view of Svensson discloses;
a pivoting assembly for allowing pivoting movement of the pivoting assembly relative to the frame, (Fig. 8 illustrates the pivoting of the assembly about the roll-pivot 44.)
Eavenson does not disclose a resilient member as part of the pivot assembly. However, Bernard teaches;
wherein the pivoting assembly further comprises a resilient member (resilient device 84) for allowing pivoting movement of the pivoting assembly relative to the frame. (Fig. 19 and paragraphs 115-117 of Bernard describe a resilient device consisting of a housing 84 with a resilient material 88 between the housing and the axle, which allows the axle to move independently and return to its original location with the application (and release) of an outside force .)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Eavenson in view of Svensson to include a resilient member for allowing pivoting movement of the pivoting assembly relative to the frame as taught by Bernard, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to track vehicle bogie wheel axles. As disclosed by Bernard, it is well known to include a resilient member for allowing pivoting movement of the pivoting assembly relative to the frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eavenson in view of Svensson to include a resilient member for allowing pivoting movement of the pivoting assembly relative to the frame as taught by Bernard, as such a modification would allow movement of the axle of the bogie wheel relative to the frame. (paragraph 115 of Bernard).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended independent claim 47 to incorporate the claim limitations of cancelled claim 48 and to specifically state that the two first segments are separated by the second segment. Primary reference, Eavenson discloses a pivoting assembly with two first segments separated by a second segment, which pivots from the track frame along a lower axis perpendicular to the wheel axis at a point below (closer to the endless track) the axis of the two first segments, just as described in the present application. Eavenson appears to assemble this pivoting assembly from a central square-section tube, pierced by a round-section axle, with a tubular, round-section fixed below the central square-section tube as a pivot along the longitudinal axis. The round-section, wheel axles of Eavenson do appear to be a single, straight axle, which passes through the central square-section tube, however the two first segments (the wheel axles) are separated from each other by the second segment (square-section, central tube), which is defined by the lower, longitudinal pivot axis . Applicant argues that this assembly of Eavenson does not disclose a non-linear axle as described in claim 1 of the present application. However, in re Larson 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), it was held “that the use of one piece construction instead of the structure disclose in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” Further, the advantages described by the applicant, of the non-linear axle with a pivoting axis that is offset in a direction normal to an inner surface of the endless track from a respective rotation axis (page 8, final paragraph and beginning of page 9) are present in Eavenson, owing to the identical positioning and orientation of wheel axles (rotation axis) and the lower, pivot axis.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER whose telephone number is (703)756-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
February 23, 2026