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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 11/13/2020 and 11/11/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2020-0151752 and KR10-2021-0154549 applications respectively as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 7 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.
Claim 7 recites: specially, the limitation “the bottom portion” lacks clear antecedent basis and structural definition. The term is introduced for the first time in claim 7 without being previously defined or supported by the claim hierarchy. It is therefore unclear whether “the bottom portion” corresponds to the base body of claim 3, or another structural element, such as a lower region of the track shoe body, or some portion of the frictional unit.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saburo Wakabayashi (JPH0669088 U; hereinafter “Saburo”) in view of Haga Masaya (JPH11255159; hereinafter “Haga”).
Regarding claim 1, Saburo discloses: a magnetic track shoe (“protector 1 for shoes in a crawler-type drive vehicle” [0001]) comprising:
a track shoe body (6, fig. 1-2 and [0010]) of continuous tracks (crawler-type vehicle) attached to a surface of a ship;
a magnet member (3, fig. 1-2) provided (via core metal 2, fig. 1-2) in the track shoe body (6) and attaching the track shoe body (6) to the surface of the ship [para. 0001 discloses: “the present invention relates to a rubber protector having a magnetic portion on the surface that joins between the protrusions formed on the outer surface of each shoe”]; and
a frictional unit (rubber protector 1, fig. 2) provided in the track shoe body (6) and preventing [0003] inhibiting the track shoe body (6) from damaging the surface of the ship [003].
Saburo doesn’t appear to disclose that the track shoe body comprises a body inclined portion, and the frictional unit comprises a friction inclined portion corresponding to the body inclined portion; however,
Haga in another body track shoe similar to Saburo teaches that the track shoe body (10, figs. 7-8) comprises a body inclined portion ((10a, 10b) [para. 0015 teaches that: shown in fig. 7, the core body 10 has longitudinal ends 10a and 10b on the ground surface side that form curved surfaces with a radius of curvature R and is annular]); and the frictional unit (‘elastic body 20”; [0015] and figs. 5-7) comprises a friction inclined portion (20a, 20b) corresponding to the body inclined portion (10a, 10b) [ para. 0016 teaches that the elastic action of the elastic body (frictional unit) ends 20a, 20b formed along the curved portions of the core body 10 makes it possible to avoid local stress concentration at the end 20b of the elastic body 20; thus, forming a friction inclined portion] to prevent inhibit the frictional unit (“to avoid local stress concentration”; thus, prevent inhibit the frictional unit) from being damaged by a protrusion provided in the surface of the ship [0011-0016].
It should be noted that as depicted in figs.7-8, the body inclined portion (10a, 10b) is provided in at least one of a left bottom portion and a right bottom portion of the track shoe body and the friction inclined portion (20a, 20b) is provided in at least one of a left bottom portion and a right bottom portion of the frictional unit (elastic body 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic track shoe of Saburo in view of body track shoe of Haga, and further in light of common engineering practice for providing inclined body interfaces on protective or frictional unit to accommodate uneven protruded surfaces with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously integrate the provision of “body inclined portion” and a corresponding “frictional inclined portion”.
The motivation to do so would have been to the frictional contacting unit and maintain smooth operation when the track engages discontinuities or protrusions on a ship hull, as explicitly taught by Haga [0016] or suggested in the prior art concerning resilient track designs and beveled tread geometries; thereby preventing from being cracked [‘Abstract’ of Haga].
Regarding claim 2, Saburo as modified above further teaches that the body inclined portion (10a, 10b) is provided in at least one of a left bottom portion and a right bottom portion (fig. 7 of Haga) of the track shoe body (10) with respect to a traveling direction (fig. 8 of Haga) of the continuous tracks, and the friction inclined portion (20a, 20b) is provided in at least one of a left bottom portion and a right bottom portion of the frictional unit (fig. 8 of Haga shows 20a and 20b are positioned on left and right bottom portion) with respect to the traveling direction of the continuous tracks (fig. 8). See claim rejection 1 above for the illustration.
Regarding claim 3, Saburo as modified above further teaches that the track shoe body (6, fig. 1-2 and [0010]) comprises: a front wall (front wall of 6, fig. 1) provided to face a same direction as the traveling direction of the continuous tracks; a rear wall (rear wall of 6 as depicted in fig. 1) provided at an opposite position to the front wall (opposite to front wall) and disposed to be spaced apart from the front wall (front wall and rear wall has width in between; thus, space apart from the front wall); a pair of lateral walls (left and right lateral walls) connecting the front wall and the rear wall (fig. 1 and 2 shows connection); and a base body (8, fig. 2 of Saburo) blocking a bottom of an accommodating portion (fig. 1-2 of Saburo) formed by the front wall, the rear wall, and the pair of lateral walls, and the body inclined portion (10a, 10b of Haga) is provided in at least one lateral wall of the pair of lateral walls (via bottom left and right ends as depicted in figs. 7-8 of Haga next to the at least one lateral wall of the pair of lateral walls).
Regarding claim 4, Saburo as modified above further teaches the magnetic track shoe, wherein the frictional unit (1, fig. 2) comprises: a frictional body (body of 1).
Saburo teaches the upper surface in contact with the bottom surface, but doesn’t appear to explicitly show in the figures that an upper surface is in contact with a bottom surface of the track shoe body; and the friction inclined portion provided at an end portion of the frictional body; however,
Haga teaches that a frictional body (20) of which an upper surface is in contact (fig. 8 shows in contact) with a bottom surface of the track shoe body (10); and the friction inclined portion (20a, 20b, fig. 8) provided at an end portion (left and right end portions) of the frictional body (20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saburo to incorporate the teaching of Haga and provide the enhanced design configuration, thereby integrating a frictional body of which an upper surface is in contact with a bottom surface of the track shoe body; and the friction inclined portion provided at an end portion of the frictional body with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously positioning a bevel or chamfer at the leading edge or trailing edge of a contacting surface which is a common design measure to prevent edge wear, facilitate smooth contact transition, and avoid damage from protrusions or irregularities on the surface of the engagement; thereby, improving the durability of the elastic shoe [0024 of Haga].
Regarding claim 6, Saburo as modified above in view of Haga teaches the shoes body (6) and the base body (1), but fails to teach that the track shoe body further comprises a covering unit coupled to the base body to cover the accommodating portion; however,
Haga teaches that the track shoe body (40, [0017]) further comprises a covering unit (30) coupled to the base body (20) to cover the accommodating portion (see fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have the track shoe body that comprises a covering unit coupled to the base body to cover the accommodating portion as taught by Haga into the invention of the Saburo with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously integrate the protective cover for enclosing magnet cavities or internal components which are well-known in magnetic crawler and track systems. Such covers prevent contamination and corrosion of embedded magnets and simplify maintenance, thereby ensuring durability and ease of assembly.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saburo
in view of Haga and further in view of Lee Dong-Wook (KR101548602B1; hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 5, Saburo as modified above does not appear to teach that the frictional unit further comprises a draining groove provided on a bottom portion of the frictional body; however,
Lee in another protector for shoes similar to the modified Saburo teaches that the frictional unit (“friction reinforcing member 140; page9 and [0032]) further comprises a draining groove (water-draining grooves 141; fig.8 and [claim 9 of Lee]) provided on a bottom portion (fig. 8 shows on a bottom portion) of the frictional body (140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to provide a draining groove on the bottom surface of the frictional body as taught by Lee into the invention of the modified Saburo with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance design, thereby facilitating fluid evacuation and maintaining stable contact performance by quickly removing the water film [0050 of Lee].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saburo
in view of Haga, in view of Lee and further in view of Togashi Kiyoo (JPH07285473; hereinafter “Kiyoo”).
Regarding claim 7, Saburo as modified above in view of Haga teaches the magnetic track shoe, track shoe body, bottom surface, but fails to teach that the track shoe body further comprises a plurality of groove portions provided on a bottom surface of the bottom portion; however,
Lee teaches that the track shoe body further comprises a plurality of groove portions (water-draining grooves 141; fig.8 and [claim 9]) provided on a bottom surface of the bottom portion (fig. 8 shows on a bottom surface) of the bottom portion (bottom portion of 140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of draining grooves on the bottom surface of the bottom portion as taught by Lee into the invention of the modified Saburo with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance design, thereby facilitating fluid evacuation and maintaining stable contact performance by quickly removing the water film [0050 of Lee].
Saburo as modified above does not appear to teach that the frictional unit is provided by coating an anti-slip agent or attaching an anti-slip tape to the bottom portion and the body inclined portion; however,
Kiyoo in another rubber crawler similar to the modified Saburo teaches that the frictional unit (2) is provided by coating (10, ‘abstract’) an anti-slip agent [‘Abstract discloses: “a silicone resin and fluor resin are typical as a polymer used in the coating layer 10”; note that: the recited materials are being considered as ‘anti-slip agent] or attaching an anti-slip tape to the bottom portion and the body inclined portion (body inclined portion of lug 2, fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to apply or attach an anti-slip coating, agent, or tape to the bottom or inclined surfaces of the magnetic track shoe, as the use of textured or coated traction surfaces on crawler tracks, belts, and hull-cleaning pads as taught by Kiyoo into the invention of the modified Saburo with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance design, thereby preventing slippage, particularly in wet or submerged condition. The addition of the grooves further enhances an adhesion of the coating or tape and aids in water drainage, thereby improving traction performances and durability.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saburo
in view of Haga, and further in view of Kuriyama Yoshihiko (JPH061440 A; hereinafter “Hiko”).
Regarding claim 8, Saburo as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that the magnet member is molded, coated, or plated to inhibit corrosion; however,
Hiko in another magnetic circuit for magnet belt transport similar to Saburo teaches that the magnet member (7) is molded, coated (epoxy resin, [0009]), or plated to inhibit corrosion (“prevent oxidation” [0009]; [ see para. 0011]; also, para. 0009 teaches that the surface of the magnet 7 is coated with epoxy resin or the like to prevent oxidation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to provide the magnet member of a magnetic track shoe with a molded encapsulation, coating or plating for corrosion prevention as taught by Hiko into the invention of the modified Saburo with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance durability and prevent degradation of the magnet material during operation, thereby extending service life and maintaining adhesion performance.
The use of protective layers on the magnetic components – such as epoxy coatings, nickel plating, or polymer encapsulation – is a well-known practice in magnetic assemblies exposed to moisture or marine environments. Applying such treatment would have been an obvious design choice to enhance durability and common knowledge of corrosion-protective coatings.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saburo
in view of Haga, and further in view of Murakami, Osamu (JP 2002-046666; hereinafter “Osamu”).
Regarding claim 9, Saburo as modified above discloses the magnetic track shoe and belt, but fails to teach that a holding block coupled to the track shoe body and coupling the track shoe body to a belt; however,
Osamu in another track link of crawler work machine similar to the modified Saburo teaches that a holding block (8, ‘Abstract’) coupled to the track shoe body (shoe body 6) and coupling (via 8a, 8b, fig. 3) the track shoe body to a belt (fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to provide a holding block for coupling the magnetic track shoe body to a belt, as such mounting structures are commonly used in continuous track systems to secure track shoes to belts or chain as taught by Osamu into the invention of the modified Saburo with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously provide stable attachment and load transfer to the belt surfaces, thereby reducing cost and improving quality.
Regarding claim 10, Saburo as modified above does not appear to teach that a first stepped portion provided in the block body and supporting a lateral side of the belt; and a second stepped portion extended from the first stepped portion and supporting a lateral side of the track shoe body; however,
Osamu teaches that the holding blocks (8, figs. 3) form a pair (pair of 8b, figs.3) and are coupled to the belt (fig. 6) while facing each other (fig. 3), and the holding block (8) comprises: a block body (body of 8 constituted by 8a and 8b, fig. 3) pressing (via 8b) the belt (fig. 6) in a direction of facing the track shoe body (shoe body 6, fig. 6); a first stepped portion (A, annotated fig. 3 below) provided in the block body (8) and supporting a lateral side of the belt (fig. 6 shows lateral side as A is positioned on the lateral side of the shoe body); and a second stepped portion (B, annotated fig. 3 below) extended (in the width direction and to the vertical) from the first stepped portion (A) and supporting a lateral side of the track shoe body (6) [ claim 1 teaches: “a track link for a crawler-type working machine is provided with a track shoe, the track shoe having an engaging protrusion that engages with a drive wheel and contact portions that contact the drive wheel and idler wheel at opposing portions across the engaging protrusion, and the track shoe is connected endlessly and wrapped around the drive wheel and the idler wheel; thus, a first stepped portion provided in the block body and supporting a lateral side of the belt; and a second stepped portion extended from the first stepped portion and supporting a lateral side of the track shoe body].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to configure the holding blocks as a pair facing each other and to provide stepped portions supporting lateral sides of the belt and track shoe body as taught by Osamu into the invention of the modified Saburo with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously configure an optimized interlocking design, as such stepped retention structures are well known in track and belt coupling mechanisms for improving lateral stability and preventing displacement during operation, thereby ensuring secure engagement between components, such as fixing means for fixing the engaging protrusion and the contact portion to the track shoe body [ claim 1, line 6-7 of Osamu].
PNG
media_image1.png
355
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3 of Osamu
Regarding claim 11, Saburo as modified above teaches the magnetic track shoe and the block body, but fails to teach that the belt comprises a plurality of uneven members, and the block body comprises an uneven groove in which the uneven member is inserted; however,
Osamu teaches that the belt (fig. 6) comprises a plurality of uneven members (shown in fig. 6, chain or belt has plurality of uneven members), and the block body (8) comprises an uneven groove (groove part 7, ‘abstract’) in which the uneven member (8b) is inserted [ para. 0018 teaches: “attachment groove portion into which the detachable body fits (inserted); also ‘abstract’ teaches: “A mounting groove part 7 for fitting the attaching/detaching body 8”; thus, the block body comprises an uneven groove in which the uneven member is inserted].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to form a block body with an uneven groove engaging uneven members of the belt, as interlocking or keyed surface configurations as taught by Osamu into the invention of the modified Saburo with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously configure an optimized interlocking design wherein track belt and conveyor couplings systems to prevent slippage and ensure torque transmission, thereby providing improved mechanical engagement and load stability.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saburo
in view of Haga, and further in view of Guo Dajun (CN106995014 A; hereinafter “Dajun”).
Regarding claim 12, Saburo as modified above does not appear to teach a magnet guide provided between the base body and the covering unit of the track shoe body and accommodating an upper portion of the magnet member; however,
Dajun in another magnetic circuit structure similar to the modified Saburo teaches that a magnet guide (8 of plurality of magnet 10 of different polarity [N & S], fig. 3) provided between the base body (9) and the covering unit (working surface 1, [0043]) of the track shoe body (body of 7) and accommodating an upper portion of the magnet member (11) [Claim 4 teaches that a silicone rubber sheet (8) is installed on the other side of the chain plate yoke (9), the silicone rubber sheet (8) is in contact with the magnetic conductive working surface (1); thus, a magnet guide provided between the base body and the covering unit of the track shoe body; also, para. 0010 teaches that ‘detachment’ is simple and quick.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention have the modified Saburo to incorporate the teaching of Dajun and provide a magnet guide or housing; positioned between the base body and the covering unit to accommodate the magnet member with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously configure a protective or positioning guides for magnets which in fact, are commonly used in magnetic arrangement systems to secure alignment, prevent dislodgement, and reduce wear during operation, thereby improving durability and maintenance ease.
Regarding claim 13, Saburo as modified above further teaches that the base body (11) and the frictional unit (9) are detachably coupled [ 0010] to the magnet guide (8, figs. 1-6). See claim rejection 12 above for the illustration.
Regarding claim 14, Saburo as modified above does not appear to teach that the magnet member comprises a plurality of magnet members, and the magnet members disposed adjacent to each other are different in polarity; however,
Dajun teaches the magnet member comprises a plurality of magnet members (even number of magnet parts [0006] and fig. 3), and the magnet members disposed adjacent to each other are different in polarity [ shown in fig. 2, the magnet members are disposed adjacent to each other and are different in polarity.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Saburo to incorporate the teaching of Dajun and provide a plurality of magnet members, those disposed adjacent to each other having of different in polarity with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously enhance to arrange adjacent magnet members with alternating polarity, as such arrangement are well-known in magnetic adhesion systems to increase holding force, stabilize magnetic flux distribution, and reduce demagnetization, thereby improving overall magnetic performance of the track shoe.
Regarding claim 15, Saburo as modified above does not appear to teach that track guide coupled to the continuous tracks and recessed in a middle portion thereof; however,
Dajun teaches that track guide (support plates 12, [0042] and fig.4) coupled to the continuous tracks (fig. 1-4 of Dajun) and recessed in a middle portion (see figs. 1 and 4) thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Saburo to incorporate the teaching of Dajun and provide track guide recessed in the middle portion of the continuous tracks, as recessed or centrally located guide structures are commonly used in track and crawler systems to maintain alignment, reduce lateral deviation, and guise track movement, thereby enhancing stability and smooth operation.
Regarding claim 16, Saburo as modified above further teaches that the magnet member comprises a plurality of magnet members (10, fig. 3), and the magnet members disposed adjacent to each other (fig. 3 shows adjacent to each other) are different in polarity (N & S]; fig. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170253285 A1 to Dong discloses: a caterpillar device includes: a water film removing part which is provided in a power transmission member including chains, presses and removes a water film between an attachment object as a magnetic material.
US 3058783 A to Alexander discloses: this invention relates generally to improvements quickly attachable-detachable traction units which are adapted for use in connection with the endless tracks of certain types of tractors.
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