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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are replete with informalities. For example:
Seventh Embodiment shown in Figs. 31-35C
The elements represented by reference characters 50, 62b and 125 in this embodiment fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because they are modified (i.e., distinct) with respect to the elements represented by these same reference characters in at least the embodiment shown in Figs. 3-7C. As such, they should be labeled with distinct reference characters.
Eighth Embodiment shown in Figs. 36-39
The elements represented by reference characters 50, 62b and 125 in this embodiment fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because they are modified (i.e., distinct) with respect to the elements represented by these same reference characters in at least the embodiment shown in Figs. 31-35C. As such, they should be labeled with distinct reference characters.
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 “indicator for providing an indication when the wheel axle is in a predetermined position corresponding to a predetermined tension in the track, the indication being based on at least one of (i) a predetermined position of the first member relative to the second member, and (ii) a predetermined position of the resilient assembly relative to the frame” as set forth in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 indicator being “a hard stop reference” as set forth in claim 9 in combination with the shaft “being threadedly connectable at one end to the wheel axle” as set forth in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Applicant is required to carefully review and revise the drawings relating to the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth embodiments to ensure there are no other informalities.
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 disclosure is objected to because they are replete with informalities. For example, the following informalities with respect to the description of the first, seventh and eighth embodiments have been noted:
In paragraph [00285] while describing the “retracted position”, the phrase “so that the second member 724 approaches the first member 722 and the resilient member 740 is compressed” contradicts what is shown by the retracted position of Fig. 35A (note paragraph [00126]). Specifically, Fig. 35A clearly shows the distance between second member 724 and the first member 722 being increased in the “retracted position” when the shaft 712 moves in a direction towards the wheel axis 62b as compared to the neutral position of Fig. 35B.
In paragraph [00302] while describing the “retracted position” shown in Fig. 39, the phrase “so that the first and second members 822, 824 come closer and the resilient member 840 is compressed” is not shown in Fig. 39. Specifically, there does not appear to be shown any relative movement of the second member 824 and the first member 822 (and thus compression of the resilient member 840) when moving from the deployed position shown in Fig. 37 to the retracted position shown in Fig. 39.
Applicant is required to carefully review and revise the specification relating to the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth embodiments to ensure there are no other informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient and inadequate support in the disclosure, either in the specification or in the drawings, for a single embodiment of Applicant’s invention wherein the indicator is “a hard stop reference” as required in claim 9 in combination with the shaft “being threadedly connectable at one end to the wheel axle” as required by independent claim 1. Specifically, there is no description of how a “hard stop reference” would be arranged and configured to be used with the embodiment shown in Figs. 36-39.
6. 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.
Claim 19 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.
Regarding claim 19, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least one axle”.
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)(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.
Claims 1-12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borst Jr. (US 1,276,319; hereinafter “Borst”).
Regarding claim 1, Borst discloses a tensioning assembly (Fig. 1) for modulating a tension in a track 15 of a vehicle track system (lines 96-103 of page 1), the vehicle track system including a wheel 25 with a wheel axle (unlabeled axle of idler 25 best shown in Fig. 3), the track extending at least partially around the wheel (Fig. 1), the tensioning assembly comprising: a shaft 31 having a longitudinal axis (inherent) and being threadedly connectable (i.e., indirectly connectable) at one end to the wheel axle (adjusting rod 31 is threaded to crosshead 30 as shown in Fig. 3); a resilient assembly at 33 operatively connected to the shaft such that when the shaft is rotated about the longitudinal axis the wheel axle is caused to move away or toward the track to modulate the tension in the track (evident from lines 96-103 of page 1), the resilient assembly comprising: a first member 28 connected to a frame 40 of the vehicle track system, the shaft extending through the first member (Fig. 3) and is slidably connected thereto (evident from Fig. 3 and lines 96-103 of page 1); a second member 30 connected to the shaft between the first member and the wheel axle (Fig. 3); a resilient member 33 resiliently biasing the second member away from the first member (lines 96-98 of page 1); an indicator (e.g., a position of crosshead 30 in longitudinal slot 29 of yoke 28 as shown in Fig. 3 or a distance between the coils of the spring as shown in Fig. 3) for providing an indication when the wheel axle is in a predetermined position corresponding to a predetermined tension in the track, the indication being based on at least one of (i) a predetermined position of the first member relative to the second member (e.g., a position of crosshead 30 in longitudinal slot 29 of yoke 28 as shown in Fig. 3), and (ii) a predetermined position of the resilient assembly relative to the frame.
Regarding claim 2, Borst further discloses the second member comprises a shoulder 30 extending from the shaft (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Borst further discloses a connection between the first member and the frame is configured to provide a loose joint (evident from Fig. 1 which shows the “loose joint” connection permitting movement of crosshead or second member 30 with respect to yoke or first member 28).
Regarding claim 4, Borst further discloses the first member comprises a bushing (portions of first member 28 with slots 29 at each side thereof that slidably receive crosshead 30 as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Borst further discloses a tool interface portion at 32 connected to the shaft (Fig. 3), the tool interface portion being configured to (i.e., capable of being used) be used with a ratchet and socket tool (evident from Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Borst further discloses the shaft is configured such that rotating the shaft about the longitudinal axis causes the shaft to be translated laterally towards and away from the wheel axle (evident from Fig. 3 and lines 96-103 of page 1).
Regarding claim 7, Borst further discloses the resilient member is made of a material (i.e., material of helical spring 33) having stable and predictable elastic properties over a range of temperature of operation of the vehicle track system (implicit from at least Fig. 3 and lines 96-103 of page 1).
Regarding claim 8, Borst further discloses the resilient member is a spring 33.
Regarding claim 9, Borst further discloses the indicator is a visual reference (e.g., a position of crosshead 30 in longitudinal slot 29 of yoke 28 as shown in Fig. 3 or a distance between the coils of the spring as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Borst further discloses the resilient member is a spring 33 and the visual reference is a distance between coils of the spring (evident from Fig. 3 and lines 96-103 of page 1 that the distance between the coils of the spring would indicate the amount of compression of the spring and thus a predetermined tension in the track).
Regarding claim 11, Borst further discloses the shaft and the wheel axle are positioned on substantially the same plane (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Borst further discloses the shaft is configured to move between a retracted position and a deployed position (lines 96-103 of page 1), the deployed position corresponding to the predetermined position of the wheel axle (evident from Fig. 3 and lines 96-103 of page 1).
Regarding claim 19, Borst further discloses a track system (Fig. 1) for a vehicle (lines 10-14 of page 1), the track system comprising: the frame 40; the axle (unlabeled axle of idler 25 best shown in Fig. 3) movably connected to the frame (evident from lines 96-103 of page 1); the wheel 25 connected to the axle (Fig. 3); the track 15 supported by the at least one axle (Fig. 3); the tensioning assembly for adjusting a tension of the track (lines 96-103 of page 1).
Regarding claim 20, Borst further discloses a method for adjusting a tension in a track 15 of a vehicle track system (Fig. 1) by using a tensioning assembly, the method comprising: causing the shaft to be rotated about the longitudinal axis; and determining the tension in the track using the indicator (evident from Fig. 3 and lines 96-103 of page 1 that a position of crosshead 30 in longitudinal slot 29 of yoke 28 as shown in Fig. 3 or a distance between the coils of the spring as shown in Fig. 3 could be used to indicate the tension in the track).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments “Regarding reference numerals 50, 62b, and 125, while the structure and shape of the corresponding components may differ among the various embodiments, each reference numeral consistently refers to the same general component throughout the application…” , note again each distinct part, including modified parts (See MPEP 608.01(g) and MPEP 608.02(e)), should be labeled with a distinct reference character to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). Furthermore, such distinct reference characters should be mentioned in the description to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Figs. 36-39 shows the indicator being “a distance between two coils of the spring when the resilient assembly 840 if the spring”, note claim 1 requires the “indicator for providing an indication when the wheel axle is in a predetermined position corresponding to a predetermined tension in the track, the indication being based on at least one of (i) a predetermined position of the first member relative to the second member, and (ii) a predetermined position of the resilient assembly relative to the frame”. The distance between two coils of the spring is not “a predetermined position of the first member relative to the second member” or “a predetermined position of the resilient assembly relative to the frame” as required by claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding the drawing objection related to claim 9 that Fig. 38 shows the “hard stop reference” which Applicant asserts is “the relative positioning of the first and second members 822, 824”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Fig. 38 does not show a hard stop reference or the first member 822 as alleged by Applicant. Nor does paragraph [00302] of the specification describe the claimed “hard stop reference” as alleged by Applicant.
It is further noted that Applicant has not carefully reviewed and revised the drawings relating to the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth embodiments to ensure there are no other informalities as required in the Non-Final Office Action.
In response to Applicant’s statements that paragraphs [00285] and [00302] have been amended for clarity, the Examiner notes that such amendments do not address the issues regarding the specification objections related to these paragraphs as discussed above.
It is further noted that Applicant has not carefully reviewed and revised the specification relating to the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth embodiments to ensure there are no other informalities as required in the Non-Final Office Action.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding the rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112(a) that paragraph [00302] provides support for the claimed “hard stop”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that paragraph [00302] makes no mention of a “hard stop”. Nor does paragraph [00302] describe the first member 822 and the second member 824 abutting one another as alleged by Applicant. Moreover, none of the drawings of the embodiment shown in Figs. 36 to 39 show the claimed “hard stop reference”.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Borst does not disclose “a shaft…threadedly connectable at one end to the wheel axle” as set forth in claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that such a limitation does not require “a direct” connection as alleged by Applicant. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead, the limitation “a shaft…threadedly connectable at one end to the wheel axle” encompasses shafts that are either directly threadably connectable at one end to the wheel axle or shafts that are indirectly threadably connectable at one end to the wheel axle via intermediate components. As noted above, Borst discloses the shaft being indirectly threadably connectable at one end to the wheel axle via intermediate components. Specifically, Borst discloses a shaft 31 being threadedly connectable at one end to crosshead 30 as shown in Fig. 3. Crosshead 30 is connected to the wheel axle (unlabeled axle of idler 25 best shown in Fig. 3). Thus, shaft 31 of Borst is indirectly threadedly connectable at one end to the wheel axle.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights