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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because they include reference characters in parentheses. Use of references characters in the claim language makes it unclear if the structures referenced by the characters should be directly imported into the claim or if the broader terms used in the claim should be used.
Further, regarding claim 1, the phrase “a corresponding track unit” should be and is interpreted as “[[a]]the corresponding track unit”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
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 8-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “wherein said at least one connecting pin … identifies a rotation around said axis of rotation” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “identifies” in relation to the connecting pin and the axis of rotation.
Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(2) as being anticipated by US 11,091,358 B1 to Ourada.
Regarding claim 1, Ourada discloses a tracked undercarriage (10) for operating machines (Figs. 21, 27-28 & Abstract) comprising:
a main frame (150) defining a first longitudinal direction (X) (Annotated Fig. 8 & col 8 lns 21-28);
PNG
media_image1.png
329
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a track unit (60) mounted on each of two opposite sides of said main frame (150) and arranged parallel to said first longitudinal direction (X) (Annotated Fig. 8 & col 8 lns 21-28), each track unit (60) comprising a structure (300) and at least one track (60) mounted on said structure (300) (Figs. 27-29 & col 10 lns 34-50); and
a sliding frame (A) mounted on each of said two opposite sides of said main frame (150) (Annotated Fig. 28 depicts the section A includes a variety of parts enabling the sliding as discussed below),
wherein said sliding frame (A) comprises:
a longitudinal member (B) arranged parallel to said first longitudinal direction (X) and interposed between said main frame (150) and a corresponding track unit (60) (Annotated Figs. 8 and 28 noting that as depicted, the section B includes a longitudinal dimension that is parallel to X of Annotated Fig. 8);
first constraining means (163,167), for slidingly constraining said longitudinal member (B) to said main frame (150), said first constraining means (163,167) being configured to enable said longitudinal member (B) to translate with respect to said main frame (150) in a second translation direction (Y), orthogonal to said longitudinal direction (X) (Annotated Figs. 8 and 28, Fig. 27 & col 9 lns 28-44.);
second constraining means (310), for rotatably securing the structure (300) of the corresponding track unit (60) to a corresponding longitudinal member (B), said second constraining means (310) being configured to enable said track unit (60) to rotate with respect to said longitudinal member (B) around an axis of rotation (317), orthogonal to said longitudinal direction (X) (Annotated Fig. 8, Figs. 21-22, 29-31 & col 11 lns 51-61, col 12 ln 48 – col 13 ln 2);
translation means (133A/B), configured to cause a sliding of said longitudinal member (B) with respect to said main frame (150) in said second translation direction (Y) (Annotated Figs. 8 and 28, Fig. 27 & col 9 lns 29-53 and col 17 lns 55-65 disclose the extendable axles are driven in the Y direction by hydraulic cylinders. Examiner notes, that although col 9 states cylinders 250 control the axles, it is unclear based on their disclosed positioning in Figs. 27-28 how they could be horizontally driven, and thus the call out of cylinders 250 is interpreted as being a typographical error. In light of this apparent error, cylinders 133 from the alternative embodiment are interpreted as being the disclosed cylinders for driving axles 163/167.); and
PNG
media_image2.png
296
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
rotation means (330), configured to cause a rotation of said track unit (60) with respect to said longitudinal member (B) around said rotation axis (317) (Annotated Fig. 8, Figs. 21-22, 29-31 & col 11 lns 51-61, col 12 ln 48 – col 13 ln 2).
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Ourada further discloses wherein said first constraining means (163,167) of each sliding frame (A) comprise at least one beam (163,167) placed parallel to said second translation direction (Y) and slidably housed in a guide or seat (160,165) made in said main frame (150) (Annotated Figs. 8 and 28, Fig. 27 & col 9 lns 28-44).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 2, Ourada further discloses wherein said first constraining means (163,167) of each sliding frame (A) comprise at least two of said beams (163 // 137 & 167 // 137B) parallel to each other (Annotated Figs. 8 and 28, Fig. 27 & col 9 lns 29-53 and col 17 lns 55-65 see above rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 2, Ourada further discloses wherein said translation means (133A/B) comprise at least one hydraulic cylinder (133A/B) acting on said sliding frame (A), extension or contraction of said sliding frame (A) causing a corresponding translation of the sliding frame (A) with respect to the main frame (150) (Annotated Figs. 8 and 28, Fig. 27 & col 9 lns 29-53 and col 17 lns 55-65).
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 1, Ourada further discloses wherein said second constraining means (310) comprise at least one connecting pin (310) between said longitudinal member (B) and said structure (300) of a respective track unit (60), and wherein said at least one connecting pin (310) is placed orthogonally to said first longitudinal direction (X) and identifies a rotation around said axis of rotation (Y) of said track unit (60) with respect to said sliding frame (A) (Annotated Fig. 8, Figs. 21-22, 29-31 & col 11 lns 51-61, col 12 ln 48 – col 13 ln 2).
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 8, Ourada further discloses wherein the at least one connecting pin comprises two coaxial pins (310) of said two opposing sliding frames (200, 300) (Annotated Fig. 8, Figs. 21-22, 29-31 & col 11 lns 51-61, col 12 ln 48 – col 13 ln 2 disclose each track 60 includes axle 310).
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 5, Ourada further discloses wherein said rotation means (330) comprise at least one hydraulic cylinder (330) hinged between a fixed point (B) integral with said longitudinal member (B) and at least one fixed point (334) integral with said structure (300) of the track unit (60), and wherein rotation axes of hinges of said at least one hydraulic cylinder (330) are parallel to said axis of rotation (Y) (Annotated Fig. 8, Figs. 21-22, 29-31, and 33 & col 11 lns 51-61, col 12 ln 48 – col 13 ln 2).
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 5, Ourada further discloses wherein said at least one hydraulic cylinder (330) of each sliding frame (A) is controlled by a hydraulic circuit which controls an operation of said at least one hydraulic cylinder (330) selectively, independently and/or simultaneously with said hydraulic cylinder (510) of another sliding frame (300, 200) of said tracked undercarriage (Fig. 34 & col 15 lns 7-37).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ourada in view of US 8,662,216 B2 to Roucka.
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 5, Ourada does not appear to disclose wherein said at least one hydraulic cylinder (133A/B) is of a double-acting type.
Roucka teaches that it was old and well known in the art of horizontally adjustable tracked vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a hydraulic cylinder (110) is of a double-acting type (Figs. 3-4 & col 3 ln 50 – col 4 ln 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of horizontally adjustable tracked vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydraulic cylinders of the horizontally adjustable tracked vehicle disclosed by Ourada to double-acting type as taught by Roucka in order to enable the cylinders to operate in both directions requiring less cylinders than if using single acting, e.g., see Roucka col 7 lns 50-61, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611