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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilles (3,606,497).
Per claims 1 and 14, Figure 2 of Gilles shows a resilient component (i.e. a tire) for a wheel of a track system. The tire includes a resilient body 8a/8b defining a hub aperture in which a hub component 7a/7b is received. The body 8a/8b extends radially outwardly from the hub aperture and defines first and second laterally spaced sidewalls. A wear element 11a/11b is connected to one of the sidewalls to at least partially surround the hub aperture, while projecting at least partially laterally from the sidewalls, and being radially spaced from the hub component 7a/7b.
Per claim 2, the resilient body 8a/8b is deformable by a “first amount” when the wear element 11a/11b is disconnected therefrom; and is deformable by a “second amount” when the wear element 11a/11b is connected thereto. The first amount is generally “similar” to the second amount.
Per claim 3, the resilient body 8a/8b has a first modulus of elasticity when the wear element 11a/11b is disconnected therefrom; and has a second modulus of elasticity when the wear element 11a/11b is connected thereto. The first amount is generally equal to the second amount.
Per claim 4, the wear element 11a/11b is deformable.
Per claims 5-6, the wear element 11a/11b includes an anchoring portion.
Per claim 7, the wear element 11a/11b is a wear ring.
Per claim 8, the wear ring has a rectangular cross-section.
Per claim 12, the body 8a/8b is connected to the hub component 7a/7b by at least one of a chemical bond, mechanical interlock, or interference fit.
Per claim 15, the wheel is a non-pneumatic wheel.
Per claim 16, the wheel of Gilles is part of one of an idler wheel assembly or a support wheel assembly.
Per claim 17, the anchor portion of the wear element 11a/11b acts as a retaining ring that engages a retaining portion 10a/10b of the hub component 7a/7b to axially retain the resilient body 8a/8b thereon.
Per claim 18, the wheel of Gilles may be used on a track system including a frame having the wheel connected thereto, and an endless track surrounding the frame and wheel.
Per claim 20, the wheel of Gilles is manufactured by forming the resilient body 8a/8b, connecting a wear element 11a/11b to the body 8a/8b, and then connecting the body 8a/8b to a hub component 7a/7b.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles. Gilles shows the wear element 11a/11b extending axially within the resilient body 8a/8b, but does not specify the length of the axial portion of the wear element 11a/11b with respect to axial length of the body 8a/8b.
Claim 9 sets for this distance as being “about” half, with the term “about” being defined as 5-20%. The limitation “about half” then equals 40-60% of the axial length of the resilient body.
As shown in Figure 1, the axially extending portion of the wear element 11a/11b of Gilles appears to extend roughly one-quarter (25%) the axial length of the body 8a/8b. 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 element of Gilles with the axially extending portion to have “about half” the axial length of the resilient body, dependent upon the desired resiliency, and to increase the reinforcement, of the body.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles as applied to claims 1-9, 12, 14-18, and 20 above, and further in view of Payne et al (4,607,892).
Regarding claim 10, Gilles does not show the use of a plurality of wear elements.
Regarding claim 11, Gilles does not show the use of a plurality of spherical wear elements.
Payne et al teaches the use of a plurality of wear elements 32B in Figures 4-5. Payne et al also teaches the use of a plurality of wear elements 32a in Figures 2-3 which may be spherical (shot in column 2, lines 45-48). Therefore, from these teachings, 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 element of Gilles as a plurality of wear elements that may also be spherical in shape, as substitute equivalent configurations, to achieve the same purpose (i.e. reducing wear on the track contacting portions of the wheel), dependent upon availability, cost, and the desired amount of contact between the wear element and track components.
Claim(s) 13, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles as applied to claims 1-9, 12, 14-18, and 20 above, and further in view of Maeda (8,034,267).
Gilles does not show the resilient body including at least two strengthening layers. Maeda teaches the use of a resilient body 26 formed with at least two strengthening layers 20 and 24. Therefore, from these teachings, 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 provide the resilient body of Gilles with at least two layers dependent upon the desired chemical and physical characteristics of the resilient body (such as each “fold” having different moduli of elasticity, etc.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that that Gilles does not show the wear elements being “radially offset from the hub component”. However, this is not the case, as Figure 2 of Gilles shows this feature. Namely, the outer peripheral surface of the flanges 7a/7b are clearly shown in Figure 2 as being radially offset, in this instance radially outward of, the outer peripheral surface of the inserts 11a/11b. The claims lack any physical structure to preclude this structure of Gilles.
The Applicant argues that the inserts 11a/11b are “in radial alignment” with the hub components 7a/7b and are also “in radial alignment” with the hub apertures. However, neither is the case. As set forth above, the outer peripheral surface of the flanges 7a/7b are clearly shown in Figure 2 as being radially offset, in this instance radially outward of, the outer peripheral surface of the inserts 11a/11b. Therefore, this also means that the hub apertures (formed by the radially inner periphery of the resilient bodies 8a/8b) are radially outwardly offset, or spaced, from the outer peripheral surface of the inserts 11a/11b, which meets the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights