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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: paragraph 40 uses the reference numbers for the second embodiment (i.e. 120, 124, and 129) instead of the reference numbers for the third embodiment (i.e. 220, 224, and 229). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: the term “study” should most likely be exchanged for the term “stud” to match the other claims and specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9, and 15-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the base” in lines 2 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15 and 16 recite the limitation "the snowmobile stud assembly". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the base” in lines 4 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson US 5299860 A in view of Goss et al. US 5207132 A.
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches a snowmobile stud assembly comprising: a stud structure 10 including a stud base 15 (head) and a pin 13 extending from the base 15, the pin 13 including a threaded portion; and a stud backer 30 including a body 32 (collar) extending from a backer base 35 (flange), the body 32 narrowing from the base 35 to a narrow end 32a, the body 32 further including an axial opening extending from the backer base 35 to the narrow end 32a, the axial opening including internal threads 33. (Fig. 1)
Anderson does not teach the body including a plurality of channels providing a surface within which a tool is configured to be keyed for the purpose of tightening the backer to the stud structure.
Goss teaches a fastener which includes a plurality of channels instead of a hex shape and a tool that is fitted to said channels in order to provide a fastener which can be more efficiently torqued with less chance of “rounding off” the fastener. (Fig. 14; col. 4, lines 20-24) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use slots or channels instead of a hex head to decrease the chance of rounding off the stud backer, thereby increasing the life of each unit with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud assembly of claim 1. Neither Anderson, nor Goss explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of channels remove material from the structure of the backer and are configured to reduce mass and weight of the backer. However, it is well known in the art to use subtractive manufacturing (e.g. CNC machining) to manufacture various components and would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the channels by removing material from the structure of the backer which would inherently reduce the mass and weight of the backer with a reasonable expectation of success. Official notice is hereby given.
Regarding claim 3, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud assembly of claim 2. Goss further teaches wherein each of the plurality of channels extend down from the narrow end to the backer base, and wherein the backer base defines a bottom structure of each of the plurality of channels. (Fig. 14) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the channels the length of the body of the backer base to ensure maximum contact with the tool while tightening and loosening with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud assembly of claim 3. Goss further teaches wherein the plurality of channels includes six channels. (Fig. 14; col. 4, lines 33-40) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 6 channels as a design choice and to give adequate engagement surface without weaking the structure with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud assembly of claim 4. Anderson further teaches wherein the stud backer is made of plastic. (claim 21)
Regarding claim 6, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud assembly of claim 5. Anderson further teaches wherein the stud structure is made of metal. (col. 1, lines 32-34)
Regarding claim 7, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud assembly of claim 6. Anderson further teaches wherein the pin 13 extends to a pointed end 11, wherein the pointed end 11 is configured to dig into the surface over which a snow mobile is traversing. (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 8, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud assembly of claim 1. Anderson further teaches wherein a bottom surface 67 of the stud backer 60 includes at least one of a plurality of channels and a plurality of projections 61, 62, 63. (Fig. 7; col. 6, lines 36-40)
Regarding claim 9, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud assembly of claim 8. Anderson further teaches wherein the stud backer 60 includes the plurality of projections 61, 62, 63 configured to grip a track of a snow mobile when the snow mobile stud assembly is attached to the track of the snow mobile. (Fig. 7; col. 6, lines 36-40)
Regarding claim 10, Anderson teaches a snowmobile stud backer 30 comprising: a body 32 extending from a backer base 35 (flange), the body 32 narrowing from the base 35 to a narrow end 32a, the body 32 further including an axial opening extending from the backer base 35 to the narrow end 32a, the axial opening including internal threads 33. (Fig. 1)
Anderson does not teach the body including a plurality of channels providing a surface within which a tool is configured to be keyed for the purpose of tightening the backer to the stud structure.
Goss teaches a fastener which includes a plurality of channels instead of a hex shape and a tool that is fitted to said channels in order to provide a fastener which can be more efficiently torqued with less chance of “rounding off” the fastener. (Fig. 14; col. 4, lines 20-24) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use slots or channels instead of a hex head to decrease the chance of rounding off the stud backer, thereby increasing the life of each unit with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud backer of claim 10. Neither Anderson, nor Goss explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of channels remove material from the structure of the backer and are configured to reduce mass and weight of the backer. However, it is well known in the art to use subtractive manufacturing (e.g. CNC machining) to manufacture various components and would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the channels by removing material from the structure of the backer which would inherently reduce the mass and weight of the backer with a reasonable expectation of success. Official notice is hereby given.
Regarding claim 12, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud backer of claim 11. Goss further teaches wherein each of the plurality of channels extend down from the narrow end to the backer base, and wherein the backer base defines a bottom structure of each of the plurality of channels. (Fig. 14) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the channels the length of the body of the backer base to ensure maximum contact with the tool while tightening and loosening with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud backer of claim 12. Goss further teaches wherein the plurality of channels includes six channels. (Fig. 14; col. 4, lines 33-40) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 6 channels as a design choice and to give adequate engagement surface without weaking the structure with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud backer of claim 13. Anderson further teaches wherein the stud backer is made of plastic. (claim 21)
Regarding claim 15, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud assembly of claim 10. Anderson further teaches wherein a bottom surface 67 of the stud backer 60 includes at least one of a plurality of channels and a plurality of projections 61, 62, 63. (Fig. 7; col. 6, lines 36-40)
Regarding claim 16, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile stud assembly of claim 15. Anderson further teaches wherein the stud backer 60 includes the plurality of projections 61, 62, 63 configured to grip a track of a snow mobile when the snow mobile stud assembly is attached to the track of the snow mobile. (Fig. 7; col. 6, lines 36-40)
Regarding claim 17, Anderson teaches a snowmobile track comprising: a track 50 configured to rotate about idler wheels and a track driver of a snowmobile; and a stud assembly connected to the track of the snowmobile, the stud assembly including: a stud structure 10 including a stud base 15 (head) and a pin 13 extending from the base 15, the pin 13 including a threaded portion; and a stud backer 30 including a body 32 (collar) extending from a backer base 35 (flange), the body 32 narrowing from the base 35 to a narrow end 32a, the body 32 further including an axial opening extending from the backer base 35 to the narrow end 32a, the axial opening including internal threads 33, wherein the pin of the stud extends through an opening of the track, and wherein the stud backer is attached to the stud such that the track is located between the stud base and the backer base. . (Fig. 1)
Anderson does not teach the body including a plurality of channels providing a surface within which a tool is configured to be keyed for the purpose of tightening the backer to the stud structure.
Goss teaches a fastener which includes a plurality of channels instead of a hex shape and a tool that is fitted to said channels in order to provide a fastener which can be more efficiently torqued with less chance of “rounding off” the fastener. (Fig. 14; col. 4, lines 20-24) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use slots or channels instead of a hex head to decrease the chance of rounding off the stud backer, thereby increasing the life of each unit with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile track of claim 17. Anderson further teaches the track further comprising an array of a plurality of the stud assemblies connected to the track of the snowmobile. (col. 1, line 10 teaches a plurality of studs is old in the art)
Regarding claim 19, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile track of claim 18. Anderson further teaches wherein the stud backer 30 is made of plastic (claim 21) and wherein the stud structure is made of metal. (col. 1, lines 32-34)
Regarding claim 20, Anderson and Goss teach the snowmobile track of claim 19. Anderson further teaches wherein a bottom surface 67 of the each of the plurality of stud backers 60 includes at least one of a plurality of channels and a plurality of projections 61, 62, 63, and wherein the at least one of the plurality of channels and the plurality of projections 61, 62, 63 are configured to grip the track 50 and prevent rotation of the stud backers 60 about the stud structure. (Fig. 7; col. 6, lines 36-40)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX R PALMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm MST.
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.
/AP/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615