DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment filed on October 20, 2023 has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: drive wheel member (claims 1, 13), tension wheel member (claims 1, 13).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-27 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 13, “its” (line 4) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests replacing “its” with – a --.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 13-16, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 13 recite an abstract idea of “based on the information received from said at least one sensor, determining if there is a natural frequency of said endless track” (mental process), “determining the natural frequency of said endless track” (mental process), based on the determination associated with natural frequency, determining whether or not there is a potential damage to the endless track” (mental process).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Receiving, from at least one sensor, measurement information associated with vibrations of said endless track is directed to an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
Receiving, from at least one sensor, measurement information associated with vibrations of said endless track is further directed to well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 4, 14, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 15 recites a particular machine, however, the particular machine does not perform the abstract idea.
Claim 25 recites a conventional feature.
Claim 26 is directed to non-statutory subject matter, i.e., computer program.
Claim 27 is drawn to a "computer readable medium". The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a signal per se, a rejection under 35 USC 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter. See 351 OG 212, Feb 23 2010.
The Examiner suggests that Applicant amends the claims as follows: insert -- non-transitory – before “computer readable medium".
Claims 5-12 and 17-24 are directed to insignificant extra solution activities (under step 2A, prong 2), but the insignificant extra solution activities are not conventional (under step 2B). Accordingly, claims 5-12 and 17-24 are patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 13-15, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizusawa et al. (JP 2011011622) in view of Richard et al. (US 2021/0173399).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Mizusawa et al. discloses a method and device for determining potential damage of an endless track of a tracked vehicle (10, Fig. 1) (Abstract, lines 1-2), said tracked vehicle comprising at least one track assembly comprising a drive wheel member (14), a tension wheel member (16), a set of road wheels (24’s) and said endless track (20) disposed in its longitudinal extension around said wheels (Fig. 1), said endless track being configured to be rotated by means of said drive wheel member during drive of the tracked vehicle (Fig. 1), the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, from at least one sensor (44), measurement information associated with vibrations of said endless track (vibrations generated by track rollers 24, page 3, paragraph 2; Fig. 1);
based on the information received from said at least one sensor (vibration, page 2, paragraph 3; Fig. 1), determining whether or not there is a potential damage to the endless track (page 3, paragraph 13 – page 4, paragraph 1).
Mizusawa et al. does not disclose based on the information received from said at least one sensor, determining if there is a natural frequency of said endless track, and if so determining the natural frequency of said endless track, and based on the determination associated with natural frequency, determining whether or not there is a potential damage to the endless track.
Richard et al. discloses based on the information received from said at least one sensor, determining if there is a natural frequency of said endless track (paragraph 0321, lines 1-3), and if so determining the natural frequency of said endless track (identify resonant frequency, paragraph 0321, line 3) for determining whether or not there is a potential damage to the endless track (paragraph 0321, lines 5-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Mizusawa et al. with determining if there is a natural frequency of said endless track as disclosed by Richard et al. for the purpose of determining whether or not there is a potential damage to the endless track.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Mizusawa et al. does not disclose determining if there is a natural frequency of said endless track, and if so, determining the natural frequency of said endless track comprises determining if there is a natural frequency of said endless track, and if so, determining the natural frequency in the longitudinal extension of said endless track.
Richard et al. discloses determining if there is a natural frequency of said endless track, and if so, determining the natural frequency of said endless track comprises determining if there is a natural frequency of said endless track, and if so, determining the natural frequency in the longitudinal extension of said endless track (identifying the resonant frequency of the track, paragraph 0321, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Mizusawa et al. with determining the natural frequency in the longitudinal extension of said endless track as disclosed by Richard et al. for the purpose of determining whether or not there is a potential damage to the endless track.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Mizusawa et al. does not disclose said endless track comprises a wire configuration arranged within said endless track and configured to run in the longitudinal extension of said endless track around said endless track.
Richard et al. discloses a wire configuration arranged within said endless track and configured to run in the longitudinal extension of said endless track around said endless track for reinforcing the track (paragraph 0102, lines 3-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Mizusawa et al. with a wire configuration arranged within said endless track as disclosed by Richard et al. for the purpose of determining whether or not there is a potential damage to the endless track.
Regarding claim 25, Mizusawa et al. discloses a tracked vehicle (10, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26, Mizusawa et al. discloses a computer program (implied by execution of CPU 52) comprising computer-readable instructions (implied by execution of CPU 52), when executed by at least one processor (52) of a device (monitoring device, Abstract, lines 1-2) for determining potential damage of an endless track of a tracked vehicle (10), causes the at least one processor to perform (Abstract).
Regarding claim 27, Mizusawa et al. discloses a computer program product comprising at least one computer-readable medium, such as a non-volatile memory, storing the computer (implied by execution of CPU 52).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizusawa et al. in view of Richard et al. as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of DE 4109257.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Mizusawa et al. as modified by Richard et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above, except determining whether or not there is a potential damage to the endless track comprises the steps of:
comparing the determination associated with natural frequency of said endless track with a predetermined natural frequency associated with said endless track; and,
determining a potential damage to the endless track if the difference between said determination associated with natural frequency and said predetermined natural frequency exceeds a predetermined threshold.
DE 4109257 discloses determining whether or not there is a potential damage to the endless track comprises the steps of:
comparing the determination associated with natural frequency of said endless track with a predetermined natural frequency associated with said endless track (comparing frequency of track with predetermined frequency, Abstract, lines 6-7); and,
determining a potential damage to the endless track if the difference between said determination associated with natural frequency and said predetermined natural frequency exceeds a predetermined threshold (Abstract, lines 6-7, 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Mizusawa et al. as modified with comparing determination associated with natural frequency and said predetermined natural frequency as suggested by DE 4109257 for the purpose of determining an incorrect functioning of the track.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 and 17-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination as claimed wherein a method and device for determining potential damage of an endless track of a tracked vehicle comprising receiving measurement information from measurement of movement of crankshaft of tension wheel member, and based on said crankshaft movement determining if there is a natural frequency of said endless track (claim 5, 17) or receiving measurement information from measurement of pressure variation of a tension cylinder in connection to said tension wheel member of said track assembly, and based on said pressure variation determining if there is a natural frequency of said endless track (claims 6, 18) or receiving measurement information from measurements performed during a drive sweep of said tracked vehicle (claims 7, 19) or receiving measurement information from measurements performed during a first standstill position of said tracked vehicle, during which first standstill position an external trigger frequency is applied in connection to said track assembly (claims 9, 21) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ljung (US 2021/0269107) discloses a deflector arrangement (100) for a tracked vehicle (V) (Abstract, lines 1-2). Ljung further discloses a problem during drive in rough terrain with such vehicle is that ingestion of undesired material such as gravel and stones into the respective track assembly and in between wheels and the endless track may occur which in turn cause damages to the tracked vehicle and in some cases may result in the endless track being torn apart (paragraph 0003). However, Ljung does not disclose based on the determination associated with natural frequency, determining whether or not there is a potential damage to the endless track.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 March 6, 2026