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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "50" and "54" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 2.
Reference characters "112a" and "124a" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 4B.
Reference characters "112b" and "124b" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 4B.
It should be noted that reference characters denoting an overall element or assembly (such as 112a and 112b mentioned above) should include an arrowhead at the end of their leader line.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because reference characters “50”, “70”, and “342” should include an arrowhead at the end of their leader lines, given the fact that these reference characters denote an overall element of the invention.
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.
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: 74, 212, and 245.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: ′74 (as shown in Figure 2).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 of the following informalities: It is unclear what physical features of the invention actually constitute “folds”. Namely, it is unclear whether this term is used as its basic meaning of “one part laid over another” (i.e. the resilient material is actually doubled over on itself); or to imply layers or plies of reinforcing material embedded within the resilient material; or simply layers of resilient material.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term - -the- - should be inserted prior to the term “first” in line 30, for grammatical clarity.
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 2-3, 8, 13-14, 17, and 19-20 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 2 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by limitations that the resilient body is deformable by a “first amount” and a “second amount”. Namely, it is unclear whether these “amounts” refer to action of a force, a distance, etc.
Claim 13 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the limitation that the resilient body includes at least two “folds”. Namely, it is unclear whether the term “folds” is used as its basic meaning of “one part laid over another” (i.e. the resilient material is actually doubled over on itself); or to imply layers or plies of reinforcing material embedded within the resilient material; or simply layers of resilient material. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the term “folds” cannot be determined.
Claim 14 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “a hub component” is a double recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “hub component” set forth in line 2 of claim 14 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claim 17 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to axially retain”, given the fact that this phrase fails to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 19 is indefinite due to the fact that a period (.) is present in line 26 thereof, which makes it unclear whether or not the limitations that follow the period are part of the claim.
Claim 20 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to be connectable”, given the fact that this phrase fails to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 20 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “a hub component” is a double recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “hub component” set forth in line 5 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
The term “similar” in claims 2-3 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claims, 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 8 recites the limitation "the wear ring" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 improperly depends from itself.
Claim 8 does not depend from a preceding claim, which is improper.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1 of Gilles shows a resilient component (i.e. a tire) for a wheel of a track system. The tire includes a resilient body 2a/2b defining a hub aperture in which a hub component 1a/1b is received. The body 2a/2b extends radially outwardly from the hub aperture and defines first and second laterally spaced sidewalls. A wear element 5a/5b is connected to one of the sidewalls to at least partially surround the hub aperture, while projecting at least partially from the sidewalls.
Per claim 2, the resilient body 2a/2b is deformable by a “first amount” when the wear element 5a/5b is disconnected therefrom; and is deformable by a “second amount” when the wear element 5a/5b is connected thereto. The first amount is generally “similar” to the second amount.
Per claim 3, the resilient body 2a/2b has a first modulus of elasticity when the wear element 5a/5b is disconnected therefrom; and has a second modulus of elasticity when the wear element 5a/5b is connected thereto. The first amount is generally “similar” to the second amount.
Per claim 4, the wear element 5a/5b is deformable.
Per claims 5-6, the wear element 5a/5b includes an anchoring portion (i.e. the radially inwardly extending leg).
Per claim 7, the wear element 5a/5b is a wear ring.
Per claim 8, the wear ring has a rectangular cross-section.
Per claim 12, the body 2a/2b is connected to the hub component 1a/1b 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 5a/5b acts as a retaining ring that engages a retaining portion 4a/4b of the hub component 1a/1b to axially retain the resilient body 2a/2b 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 2a/2b, connecting a wear element 5a/5b to the body 2a/2b, and then connecting the body 2a/2b to a hub component 1a/1b.
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 5a/5b extending axially within the resilient body 2a/2b, but does not specify the length of the axial portion of the wear element 5a/5b with respect to axial length of the body 2a/2b.
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 5a/5b of Gilles appears to extend roughly one-quarter (25%) the axial length of the body 2a/2b. 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 folds”. Maeda teaches the use of a resilient body 26 formed with at least two “strengthening folds” 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 “folds” 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 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show track wheel structure.
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