DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to a track system, classified in USPC 305/165 or CPC B62D55/24.
II. Claims 13-15, drawn to a tire, classified in USPC 152/450 or CPC B60C2019/004.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are (i) not capable of use together because the invention is not directed to the vehicle per se so a track system would not include tires and a tire would not include tracks; (ii) the track system and tire are mutually exclusive because, for example the track system includes a plurality of wheels around which is the track and the tire includes reinforcement and is eventually claimed as a pneumatic tire so there are limitations disclosed for one product and not the other (see MPEP 806.04(f)); and (iii) a track system is not an obvious variant of a tire at least to the extent that there is nothing of the record indicating such and a track does not require air while a tire as claimed in claim 13 requires air. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The related products have separate classification areas as set forth above to the extent that tires are in a completely different classification area relative to tracks and there would not be overlap in search terms so different search queries related to tracks and tires separately would need to be conducted. For example, examiner would be required to search the entire field of tracks as well as at least pneumatic tires to identify relevant prior art.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Examiner additionally notes the prospect of a future election of species between a pneumatic tire and a non-pneumatic tire. Presently, the feature of a non-pneumatic tire is not expressly claimed so an election of species would be premature. Thus, for claim 12, merely the field of pneumatic tires may be searched to obtain prior art. Importantly, at the moment, there is no need to search non-pneumatic tires because such is not expressly claimed. Since it is disclosed (e.g. see Fig. 80), Examiner puts Applicant on notice that an eventual claim expressly claiming a non-pneumatic tire may warrant an election of species.
During a telephone conversation with PETERS, ETHAN on 11/03/2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute Invention I, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-15 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
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,
In claim 1, line 4, “a metal track core” is not shown 1n the figure 1 to 80.
In claim 1, line 7, “a first reinforcing cable” is not shown 1n the figure 1 to 80.
In claim 5, line 1-2, “a second reinforcing cable” is not shown 1n the figure 1 to 80. Those features 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 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.
Claim7 is 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.
In claims 1-7, the phrase “open electrical detection circuit” renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not clearly specify the structural or electrical boundaries of the circuit. Specification page 24, lines 10-12 recite a “negligible current value through the electric detection circuit”, but it remains unclear whether this current value level serves as a definable threshold for tigering circuit closure, or merely reflects incidental leakage unrelated to the functional state of the circuit. The role of this current in relation to circuit resistance or switching behavior is not sufficiently specified. It is unclear whether it refers to the entire detection system or merely the conductive path between the reinforcing cables and metal core. Additionally, the recitation “configured to detect electrical change” is functional language without recited structure or sufficient detail as to what constitutes the “electrical change” being detected, leaving the metes and bounds of the claim uncertain. Accordingly, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention, in violation of 35 U.S.C § 112(b).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4.Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard et al. (US Pub. 20180190045 A1; hereinafter, “Richard”) in view of Davies (US Pub. 20120043980 A).
Regarding claim 1, Richard discloses: a track system (161, 162; [0064]; fig.1-40) for traction of a vehicle (10, [0063]), the track system (161, 162) comprising:
a plurality of wheels (24, 26, [0069]); and
a track (22, [0069]) mounted around the wheels (24 and plurality of 26, [0069]), the track comprising elastomeric material [ para. 0071 discloses: “the track 22 is elastomeric”] and having a ground-engaging outer surface (31, [0072]) and an inner surface (32, [0072]) opposite to the ground- engaging outer surface [para. 0072 discloses: “The carcass 36 comprises an inner surface 32 and a ground-engaging outer surface 31 that are opposite one another”];
wherein said track (22) further comprises a metal track core (491 and 492, fig. 2; [0070]) at least partially embedded in the elastomeric material [para 0073 discloses: “the carcass 36 comprises a plurality of reinforcements embedded (meta track core) in its elastomeric
material 38. These reinforcements can take on various forms; thus, a metal track core and at least partially embedded in the elastomeric material] and at least a first reinforcing cable (371, fig. 5; [0074]) made of electrically conductive material (“wire of metal” [0074]) embedded in the elastomeric material [ para. 0071 discloses: “the track 22 is elastomeric”] and spaced apart (fig. 2 shows spaced apart) from the metal track core (491 and 492; fig. 5);
wherein:
the track system (161, 162) comprises a sensor (84-x, [0094]) configured to sense deterioration of the track (“physical characteristic of the track system 16”; [0094]);
Richard discloses the said sensor (84-x), said metal track core (491 and 492, fig. 5;), said first reinforcing cable (371, fig. 5) and their connection as depicted in fig. 34, but fails to explicitly teach that said sensor comprising an open electrical detection circuit that includes a power source with a terminal; electrically connected to a reinforcing cable, wherein the circuit is configured to close upon de-bonding-induced contact between the reinforcing cable and a metal track; however,
Davies in another wear sensor similar to Richard teaches that said sensor (wear sensor 12a-12f, [0052]) comprising an open electrical detection circuit (56a, 56b, figs. 8-9) closable in response to de- bonding [para. 0004 teaches that each element (open electrical detection circuit as depicted in fig. 8-9) being capable of being electrically decoupled (equivalent to de-bonding) from the circuit by action of wear on the sensor, such that when wear occurs on the sensor (note: when said first reinforcing cable comes into electrical contact with the metal track core as cited in the claim 1, line 15-16 is considered equivalent to “wear occurs on the sensor” as cited in the reference because Davies in reference to para. 0005 teaches that the wear on the sensor corresponds to the condition in which first reinforcing cable comes into electrical contact with the metal core, thereby indicating deterioration of the track) and Davies further teaches that one or more of the elements are electrically decoupled (equivalent to “de-bonding”) thereby changing the measurable electrical characteristic (equivalent to Davies’s closable circuit in response to de- bonding);
the open electrical detection circuit (56a, 56b, fig. 8-9) comprises a power source (junction box 134) having a first terminal electrically connected (via wire 32, fig. 6) to the first reinforcing cable (via track 52, fig. 8); wherein the open electrical detection circuit (56a, 56b, fig. 8-9) is configured to close when said first reinforcing cable (via 52) comes into electrical contact with the metal track core [ para. 0005 teaches: “the wear sensor may comprise a substrate which is capable of being disposed along a path subject to wear and wherein the circuit is supported by the substrate” (substrate equivalent to metal track core); also, para. 0013 discloses that the elements (circuit) are located along the wear path so that elements of one value of nominal electrical characteristic are electrically decoupled (de-bonded) from the circuit due to action of wear on the sensor; thus, first reinforcing cable comes into electrical contact with the metal track core as a result of said de-bonding]. Also see para. 0038.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the open-circuit/closed- contact sensing configuration of Davies into the track structure of Richard, thereby advantageously enabling the embedded track sensor to detect deterioration or de-bonding through electrical contact between conductive elements withing the elastomeric track.
The motivation arises from the known desire in Richard’s track system to monitor track condition, and from the predictable suitability of Davies’s open/contact-closure circuit for detecting physical changes in flexible track components. Accordingly, the combination would yield a track system including an embedded open electrical detection circuit closable upon contact between conductive members.
Regarding claim 2, Richard as modified above further discloses the track system and metal track core, but fails to teach that a second terminal of the power source of the open electrical detection circuit is electrically connected to the metal track core; however,
Davies teaches that a second terminal (54, fig. 9) of the power source (junction box 134) of the open electrical detection circuit (fig. 8-9) is electrically connected to the metal track core [para. 0005 teaches that the wear sensor may comprise a substrate (metal core) which is capable of being disposed along a path subject to wear and wherein the circuit (52, 54) is supported by the substrate; thus, the open electrical detection circuit is electrically connected to the metal track core.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electrically connect the second terminal of the power source, such as junction box as taught by Davies into the metal track core of Richard, in order to advantageously establish a return path between the conducting elements is a routine and necessary electrical design choice to complete the sensing circuit.
Regarding claim 3, Richard as modified above further teaches that said first reinforcing cable (371 of Richard, fig. 5; [0074]) is a first continuous reinforcing cable winding (fig. 5 shows a first continuous reinforcing cable winding) which extends in the longitudinal direction of the track of the track system [ para. 0017 teaches that a plurality of traction projections projecting from the ground-engaging outer surface and distributed in a longitudinal direction of the track; and a sensor configured to monitor the track and issue a signal relating to the track; thus, extends in the longitudinal direction of the track of the track system], and wherein the open electrical detection circuit is configured to close (open circuit configuration of Davies; see claim rejections 1-2 above) when a segment of said first continuous reinforcing cable (371 of Richard) winding comes into electrical contact with the metal track core as a result of de-bonding (‘decoupled’ circuit connection of Davies, see claim rejections 1-2 above) of at least one of said metal track core (491 and 492 of Richard, fig. 2; [0070]) and said first continuous reinforcing cable winding (371 of Richard).
Regarding claim 4, Richard as modified above further teaches the first continuous reinforcing cable winding (371 of Richard), the metal track core (491 and 492) and the open electrical detection circuit, but fails to teach that the open electrical detection circuit comprises a current or voltage detector operatively coupled to said open electrical detection circuit; wherein the power source is configured to create a difference of potential between the first continuous reinforcing cable winding and the metal track core; and wherein the current or voltage detector is configured to detect electrical change when the open electrical detection circuit closes; however,
Davies teaches that the open electrical detection circuit comprises a current or voltage (“current or voltage”, [0045]) detector (“ohmmeter”, [0045]) operatively coupled to said open electrical detection circuit (see para. 0045); wherein the power source (via 134) is configured to create a difference of potential (I=V/R, [0045]) between the first continuous reinforcing cable winding and the metal track core (“worn down to level 40”, [0047]); and wherein the current or voltage detector (Ohmmeter) is configured to detect electrical change when the open electrical detection circuit closes [para. 0043 teaches that the resistance can be measured by an ohmmeter (voltage detector). Alternatively the current or voltage can be measured, where the voltage or current (respectively) is known, and the resistance R calculated by the well-known formula V= IR, where V is the voltage across the tracks 52 and 54 and I is the current through one of the wires 32; note that: voltage and current is measurable when circuit closes; thus, the current or voltage detector (Ohmmeter) is configured to detect electrical change when the open electrical detection circuit closes.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Richard to incorporate the teaching of Davies and provide the circuit measurement technique where an open electrical detection circuit embedded in a track that closes upon conductor contact, it would have been obvious to include a current or voltage detector operatively coupled to the circuit and to apply a potential difference between conductors, as recited, since such monitoring of circuit closure through measurable electrical change is a routine and predictable design modification used in-contact-type sensing system.
Regarding claim 10, Richard as modified above further teaches that the metal track core (491 and 492, fig. 2; [0070]) extends transversally to the longitudinal direction of the track [para. 0070 teaches that the track 22 has a longitudinal axis 19 which defines a longitudinal direction of the track 22 (i.e., a direction generally parallel to its longitudinal axis); thus, the metal track core extends transversally to the longitudinal direction of the track.]
Regarding claim 11, Richard as modified above further teaches that the metal track (core (491 and 492, fig. 2; [0070]) comprises: a core portion (“inner side” 45, [0070]) embedded in the elastomeric material of the track [para 0071 teaches that the track 22 is elastomeric, i.e., comprises elastomeric material, to be flexible around the track-engaging assembly], for providing transversal rigidity to the track, and a wheel-engaging portion (481 -48N) protruding from the core portion (fig. 3) and extending outwardly (fig. 3) from the inner surface (inner surface of 45 via 55, fig. 3) of said track (22), at least for guiding and driving the plurality of wheels of the track [ para. 0078 teaches that the inner side 45 of the endless track 22 comprises an inner surface 55 of the carcass 36 and a plurality of wheel-contacting projections 481 -48N that project from the inner surface 55 and are positioned to contact at least some of the wheels 24, 26, 281 -286 to do at least one of driving (i.e., imparting motion to) the track 22; thus, at least for guiding and driving the plurality of wheels.]
Regarding claim 12, Richard as modified above further teaches that the first continuous reinforcing cable winding (371, fig. 5; [0074]) is longitudinally arranged between the metal track core (core (491 and 492, fig. 2; [0070]) and the ground-engaging surface of the track (22), and on a lateral side thereof [ para. 0070 teaches that with additional reference to figs. 2 to 5, the track 22 comprises an inner side 45, a ground engaging outer side 47, and lateral edges 491, 492. The inner side 45 faces the wheels 24, 26, 281 -286, while the ground engaging outer side 47 engages the ground; also, para. 0080 teaches that the drive/guide lugs 481-48N are arranged in a single row disposed longitudinally along the inner side 45 of the track 22.]
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard in view of Davies and further in view of Kwag Jae Ryon (KR 20180026980 A; hereinafter “Ryon”).
Regarding claim 5, Richard as modified above further teaches that the track further comprises a second reinforcing cable (37M, [0074]) made of electrically conductive material (“metallic wire”, [0074, line 6-7]) embedded in the elastomeric material [ para. 0071 discloses: “the track 22 is elastomeric”] and spaced apart (fig. 2 shows spaced apart) from the metal track core (491 and 492; [0070]), the first and second reinforcing cables (371 and 37M [0074]) being spaced apart (fig. 5) from one another in opposite lateral sides (fig. 11A) of the track; but fails to teach a second terminal of the power source and the remaining limitations; however,
Ryon in another tire system similar to the modified Richard teaches that a second terminal (132, fig. 2) of the power source (140, [0036]) is electrically connected (fig. 2) to the second reinforcing cable (132a or 132b); and wherein the open electrical detection circuit (fig. 2 shows open circuit) is configured to close when at least a portion of each of the first and second reinforcing cables (132a and 132b, fig. 2) comes into electrical contact [ para. 0048 teaches that voltage is applied to the second terminal portion (132a) and 132b, and through this, the current value flowing in the second metal track core (equivalent to chimney portion 111c-2) can be transmitted to the control portion (170) through the data transmission portion (150) and the data reception portion (160)] with the metal track core (111c-2 and upper tread 111a, fig. 2 and [0026]; thus, at least a portion of each of the first and second reinforcing cables comes into electrical contact) as a result of de-bonding (wear in the second terminal, [0049]) of at least one of said metal track core (111c-2) and said first and second reinforcing cables (132a and 132b, fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second, substantially identical conductive cable and circuit on the opposite lateral side of the track to achieve balanced sensing and redundancy, since such mirrored duplication of components is a common, predictable design practice in track and belt monitoring systems (see In re Harza 274 F.2d 669 (C.C.P.A. 1960) – “duplication of parts has no patentable significance in the absence of a new or unexpected result.”; MPEP § 2144.04(VI)).
Regarding claim 6, Richard as modified above further teaches that the first and second reinforcing cables (371 and 37M [0074] of Richard) are first and second continuous reinforcing cable windings [para. 0074 of Richard teaches that a layer of reinforcing cables 371-37M that are adjacent to one another and extend generally (continuous windings) in the longitudinal direction of the track 22 to enhance strength in tension of the track 22”], respectively; and wherein the open electrical detection circuit is configured to close when at least a segment of each of the first (reinforcing cable of Davies )and second continuous reinforcing cable windings comes into electrical contact (fig. 2 of Ryon) with the metal track core as a result of de-bonding of at least one of said metal track core and said first and second continuous reinforcing cable windings [ see claim rejection 5 above for the similar limitations and teaching of Ryon.]
Regarding claim 7, Richard as modified does not appear to teach that the open electrical detection circuit comprises a current or voltage detector operatively coupled to said open electrical detection circuit; wherein the power source is configured to create a difference of potential between the first continuous reinforcing cable winding and the second continuous reinforcing cable winding; and wherein the current or voltage detector is configured to detect electrical change when the open electrical detection circuit closes; however,
Ryon teaches that the open electrical detection circuit (fig. 2 of Ryon) comprises a current or voltage detector (“detector unit”, [0010]) operatively coupled to said open electrical detection circuit [0010]; wherein the power source (“power supply”, [0009]) is configured to create a difference of potential (“resistance”; note that: potential R=V/I; [0010])) between the first continuous reinforcing cable winding and the second continuous reinforcing cable winding (132a or 132b OF Ryon, fig. 2); and wherein the current or voltage detector (“detector unit”) is configured to detect electrical change when the open electrical detection circuit closes [ para 0009 teaches that the device may further include a power supply unit that is electrically connected to the first terminal unit and the second terminal unit and applies voltage to the first terminal unit and the second terminal unit; also para. 0012 teaches that the device may further include a data transmission unit that is connected to the detection unit and transmits data on the resistance of the chimney unit to the outside; thus, the current or voltage detector (“detector unit”) is configured to detect electrical change when the open electrical detection circuit closes.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a current or voltage detector operatively coupled to the open electrical circuit between the first and second conductive cables, as taught by Ryon into the invention of the modified Richard in order to advantageously monitor circuit closure and detect the electrical change upon contact via resistance. Incorporating such standard sensing electronics a routine design choice and mere automation of known manual detection function, absent any showing of unexpected result. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI).
Regarding claim 8, Richard as modified above further teaches that the first and second continuous reinforcing cable windings (371 and 37M [0074] of Richard) are longitudinally arranged between the metal track core and the ground-engaging surface of the track [para. 004 teaches that A track comprises a ground-engaging outer side including a plurality of traction projections, sometimes referred to as "traction lugs", "tread bars" or "tread blocks"[ note that: fig. 5 of Richard shows reinforcing cable windings (371 and 37M [0074] of Richard) are longitudinally arranged between the metal track core], which are distributed in its longitudinal direction to enhance traction on the ground (ground-engaging).]
Regarding claim 9, Richard as modified above further teaches that the first and second reinforcing cables (371 and 37M [0074] of Richard) are substantially parallel to each other [ para. 0136 teaches that sensor may be parallel to the longitudinal axis; thus, the first and second reinforcing cables are substantially parallel to each other.]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11225778 B2 to Harmon discloses: a system for monitoring wear of shank attachment members of an agricultural implement includes a shank extending between a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end configured to be pivotally coupled to a portion of the agricultural implement, a shank attachment member coupled to the distal end of the shank, a non-contact sensor positioned remote to the shank attachment member, the noncontact sensor configured to detect a parameter indicative of wear of the shank attachment member.
US 20130082846 A1 to McKinley discloses: the sensor system may be installed on or within the machine component, and the machine component may be installed with the sensor system on the mobile machine.
US 9033431 B1 to Jeremie discloses: the track assembly comprises a plurality of wheels which comprises a drive wheel and a plurality of roller wheels, as well as an elastomeric endless track disposed around the plurality of wheels for engaging the ground.
US 20180022407 A1 to Alain discloses: the track system comprises a track comprising a ground-engaging outer side for engaging the ground and an inner side opposite to the ground-engaging outer side. The track system comprises a track-engaging arrangement for driving and guiding the track around the track-engaging arrangement. The track-engaging arrangement comprises a drive wheel for driving the track and a plurality of roller wheels for rolling on the inner side of the track along a bottom run of the track.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Neacsu Valentin can be reached on (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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611