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 .
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, the portion of the wear strip including the inserts “being located exclusively along the rear portion” of the rail beam as set forth in claim 2; 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal terms (see below). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprising”, “means”, and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 6 of paragraph [0041], the term “trips” should be replaced with the term - -strips- -.
In line 3 of paragraph [0043], the term “32aof” should be replaced with the phrase - -32a of- -.
These corrections are for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term - -an- - should be inserted prior to the term “ultra-high” in line 1 of these claims, for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 2 sets forth the limitation of the portion of the wear strip including the inserts “being located exclusively along the rear portion” of the rail beam. First, this feature is not shown in the drawings. Second, this feature is not explicitly disclosed in the specification. A negative limitation requires positive description in the specification. For the aforementioned reasons, this limitation is not enabled.
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 1-25 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.
Claims 1-2 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to secure”, given the fact that this phrase fails to describe any physical structure of the invention.
Claim 2 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrases “a rail beam” and “a tracked vehicle” are double recitations. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “rail beam” and “tracked vehicle” set forth in line 2 are the same elements of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or are additional elements of the invention.
Claims 6-7 and 13 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “a long dimension”. Namely, no geometry for the insert and/or wear strip has been set forth in the claims. Furthermore, it is believed that the term “long” should be replaced with the term - -length- - to more clearly describe the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the long dimension" in 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the lower surfaces" (of the inserts) in 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
The term “mostly” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mostly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No quantitative or qualitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term.
The term “most” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “most” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No quantitative or qualitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the bottom" in 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sibilleau (2017/0174276).
Per claim 1, Sibilleau shows a wear strip 100 with a body 102 formed of a first wear-resistant polymer, and a plurality of inserts 104-1 fastened therein such that the lower surfaces of the inserts 104-1 are exposed along a portion of the lower surface of the wear strip 100. The inserts 104-1 are formed of a second wear-resistance polymer that is more wear resistant and harder than the first polymer.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Sibilleau does not disclose that a longitudinal portion of the wear strip 100 having the inserts 104-1 is occupied by the inserts 104-1 between 40-50 percent. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the wear strip of Sibilleau in the above manner, dependent upon the desired amount of reinforcement required at specific locations of the track frame.
Per claim 2, the wear strip 100 secures to a rail beam 826 of a snowmobile. The rail beam 826 includes a rear portion and front portion that is angled with respect to the rear portion. The wear strip (with inserts) is located “exclusively along the rear portion” of the rail beam 826 inasmuch as the Applicant’s invention is disclosed and shown.
Per claim 3, the wear strip 100 defines a keyway (410-2, 408-2) for receiving the rail beam 826.
Per claims 4 and 12, the first wear-resistant polymer (of the wear strip body 102) may be formed of an ultra-high molecular weight polymer with a molecular weight of at least 200,000 atomic mass units.
Per claims 5 and 12, the second wear-resistant polymer (of the inserts 104-1) may be formed of polybenzimdazole.
Per claims 8-9, as shown in Figure 4, the inserts 404-2 may be oriented such that the rearward end of one insert overlaps with and is rearward of the forward end of an adjacent insert.
Per claim 11, as shown in Figure 1, the inserts 104-1 are positioned only along the rear portion of the wear strip 100. The rear portion is generally straight and would be parallel to a riding surface when installed.
Regarding claim 14, while not disclosed, it is well-known in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a snowmobile track to include drive engagement bars and track clips, with the clips interfacing with at least a portion of the wear strip as the track rotates.
Per claim 15, the inserts 104-1 are substantially flush with a bottom surface of the wear strip 100.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sibilleau (‘276) as applied to claims 1-5, 8-12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Sibilleau (2009/0008990).
Sibilleau (‘276) states that the inserts 404-1 are arranged at an angle of approximately 30 degrees with respect to the longitudinal direction of the wear strip (see paragraph [0061], but does not provide any specific ranges less than 30 degrees of the angle.
Sibilleau (‘990) teaches that inserts (or discrete areas) 25 are arranged at less than 30 degrees with respect to the longitudinal direction of a slide rail (aka wear strip) 10 (see lines 15-19 of paragraph [0006]). Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to arranged the inserts of Sibilleau (‘276) at an angle of less than 30 degrees, as a substitute equivalent configuration, dependent upon the desired contact area for the inserts with respect to the track.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference shows a wear rail having inserts of a different material than the body of the wear rail.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615