DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. 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 limitation “occupies more than a 90 degree segment” as set forth in claims 9 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “a proximal end 72” in Para [0020].
4. The drawings are objected to because:
· The reference characters in Figs. 1-5 appear to be hand-written and lack uniformity and clarity. Reference characters must be in a consistent, legible, and permanent form.
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
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
· In para [0016] and [0020], “the traction pad” and “the first and second ridges”, respectively, do not consistently refer to the reference characters shown in the drawings.
· In para [0024], “the valleys 12” should be amended to read “the valleys 34”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 3, 9, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
· In claim 3, “a remainder the traction pad” should be amended to read “a remainder of the traction pad”.
· In claims 9 and 20, “second second inwardly-extending” should be amended to read “second inwardly-extending”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 4, 12, and 17 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.
9. Claim 12 is unclear due to insufficient antecedent bases. Please note the following limitations:
· Claim 12, “the first and second connecting passages”, line 5
10. Claim 4 is indefinite because the claim includes multiple recitations of the same element without clarity as to whether the recited elements refer to the same element previously set forth in the claims or to an additional element. Please note the following:
· Claim 4: “a rigid polymeric material”
11. Claim 17 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear whether it properly depends from claim 12, which is directed to a different statutory class. Claim 17 will be treated as if it depended upon claim 13 for purposes of applying the prior art, as that is the independent “Traction Link” claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
14. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Collins (US4626046A).
Regarding claim 10, Collins discloses a method of making a drive track, the method comprising: interlocking distal ends of first and second connecting posts (distal ends of pins 13 and 15 of link 11, the pins having locking grooves 23 and 25 engaged by clip 35 to prevent withdrawal; Figs. 1 and 2; Col. 2, lines 39-68; Col. 3, lines 1-20) of a plurality of connecting links (11) inside, respectively, first and second connection passages (20 and 19 “steel sleeves”; Fig. 1) defined in adjacent pairs of traction links (21 and 22 “tank tread shells” connected by link 11; Fig. 1) to form an endless chain (“a link is disclosed having two tapered pins for connecting adjacent tank tread segments together” per Summary of the Invention).
15. Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kremer et al (US20080018173A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kremer et al discloses a traction link (22 “single shoe”; Refer to the below annotated Fig. 8) of a drive track (18; Fig. 1), the traction link (22) comprising: a traction pad (44 “grouser pad”; Fig. 9) having a traction face (Refer to the traction face in the below annotated Fig. 8) and a connection face (Refer to the connection face in the below annotated Fig. 8), the connection face including first and second ridges separated by a valley (Refer to the connection face, first and second ridges, and 30 “opening” in the below annotated Fig. 8), first and second connection passages (Refer to the first and second connection passages in the below annotated Fig. 8) being defined, respectively, in the first and second ridges and the traction face (Refer to the ridges and traction face in the below annotated Fig. 8) includes an elastomeric contact material (“The grouser pad 44 is formed from elastomeric material” per Para [0025]; Figs. 8 and 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
495
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Kremer et al
Regarding claim 17, Kremer et al discloses the traction link (22) of claim 12, wherein the connection face includes opposing side walls extending between outer ends of the first and second ridges and enclosing opposite ends of the valley (As best understood, claim 17 is interpreted as depending from claim 13 rather than claim 12; Refer to the connection face, first and second ridges, side walls, and 30 in the below annotated Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
528
913
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Kremer et al
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kremer et al (US20080018173A1).
Regarding claim 11, Collins discloses the method of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the adjacent pairs of traction links are connected by the plurality of connecting links such that an elastomeric material on a traction face of a traction pad of each of the traction links faces outwardly.
Kremer et al, however, teaches wherein the adjacent pairs of traction links are connected by the plurality of connecting links (adjacent shoe tracks 22 connected by pins 38 and pin connectors 40 to form a continuous track; Para [0020], lines 1-8; Fig. 2) such that an elastomeric material (“The grouser pad 44 is formed from elastomeric material.” per Para [0025], lines 3-7) on a traction face of a traction pad (44 “grouser pad”; Figs. 4, 5, and 9) of each of the traction links (22) faces outwardly (Figs. 4, 5, and 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the traction links of Collins by including an elastomeric contact material on a traction face, as taught by Kremer et al, with the motivation to reduce wear and vibration and to facilitate operation on hard road surfaces.
Collins further fails to disclose further comprising mounting the drive track on a plurality of teeth of at least one drive sprocket such that a first portion of the plurality of teeth are received in valleys formed between the first and second connection passages of a portion of the plurality of traction links and a second portion of the plurality of teeth are received between the first and second connecting passages of the adjacent ones of the portion of the plurality of traction links as set forth in claim 12.
Kremer et al discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising mounting the drive track (18 “track”; Fig. 1) on a plurality of teeth (34 “teeth”; Fig. 3) of at least one drive sprocket (32 “drive sprocket”; Fig. 3; Para [0022]) such that a first portion of the plurality of teeth (34) are received in valleys (30 “opening”; Figs. 2 and 3) formed between the first and second connection passages (36 “openings”; Fig. 2) of a portion of the plurality of traction links (openings 30 formed between laterally adjacent half tracks 24 and associated pins 38 extending through the openings 36; Figs. 2 and 3; Para [0021] and [0023])) and a second portion of the plurality of teeth are received between the first and second connecting passages (36) of the adjacent ones of the portion of the plurality of traction links (adjacent shoe tracks 22 connected by pins 38 and pin connectors 40 to form a continuous track, wherein teeth 34 alternately engage successive openings 30 as shown in Figs. 2 and 3; Para [0020], [0022], and [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified by the segmented drive track of Collins by incorporating the sprocket-engaging configuration as taught by Kremer et al, with the motivation to provide a known and predictable engagement between a drive sprocket and a segmented track for transmitting drive force in a track vehicle.
20. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremer et al, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ivy (US4863420A).
Regarding claim 14, Kremer et al fails to disclose wherein a remainder of the traction pad is formed of a rigid polymeric material.
Ivy, however, teaches wherein a remainder of the traction pad (30 “track segment” excluding elastomeric contact material 39; Figs. 6 and 7) is formed of a rigid polymeric material (“In a preferred embodiment, the drive member 40 and the sprocket recessed portion are made from a plastic such as nylon.” per Col. 3, line 31-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the traction pad of Kremer et al by forming the remainder of the traction pad from a rigid polymeric material as taught by Ivy, with the motivation to provide a lighter weight and corrosion-resistant structural component while maintaining sufficient rigidity in a track assembly.
21. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremer et al, as modified by Ivy, as applied to claims 13 and 14 above, and further in view of Boily et al (WO2016138592A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kremer et al, as modified by Ivy, discloses the elastomeric contact material and the rigid polymeric material but fails to disclose the elastomeric contact material is overmolded onto the rigid polymeric material.
Boily et al, however, teaches overmolding as a technique for joining dissimilar materials, including elastomeric and thermoplastic materials (Refer to the highlighted portions on pages 24, 25, 38, and 39 of the attached document of Boily et al; Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the traction pad of Kremer et al, as modified by Ivy, by overmolding the elastomeric contact material onto the rigid polymeric material using the overmolding technique taught by Boily et al, with the motivation to improve adhesion, enhance structural integrity, and eliminate separate fastening or attachment components.
Regarding claim 16, Kremer et al, as modified by Ivy, discloses the traction link of claim 15, wherein a tread pattern is formed in the elastomeric contact material (Kremer et al: “The grouser pad 44 may be provided with a lug design to assist in traction characteristics for the track. The lug design may mimic lug designs provided on conventional all elastomeric tracks or agricultural, off the road tires.” per Para [0025]).
Allowable Subject Matter
22. Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 18-21 are allowed.
23. Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose track systems including linking mechanisms and related structural features.
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615