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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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.
Claims 1-6 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation in lines 1 begins the preamble: “An elastic crawler”, but the recitations of line 6: “a driving sprocket”, and line 14” “rollers”, reference components not included in the elastic crawler, but rather included as a components of a crawler traveling device of vehicle. It is suggested by the Examiner to change line 1 of claim 1 to “a construction vehicle including a crawler traveling device including a driving sprocket, rollers and an elastic crawler”, (see specification para 27-29), for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 1, line 14 recites “rollers arranged along a ground roll on a top of the guide protrusions”, is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by it. Generally rollers are arranged in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle, and roll within the elastic crawler, not upon the ground surface, because the crawler belt contacts and moves along the ground. For the purposes of examining, Examiner will interpret line 14 to be “rollers arranged along a longitudinal direction of the elastic crawler and roll on a top of the guide protrusions” for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation in lines 24-26 “among the roller disengagement preventing protrusions meshing each other in the crawler width direction and the core metal blade parts.” Is indefinite, because it is redundant and unclear as to what is meant by it.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation in line 17 “a crawler circumferential direction”, has been previously introduced in lines 3-4 of claim 1, thus Examiner suggests line 17 be changed to “the crawler circumferential direction”, for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation in line 19-21 “the roller disengagement preventing protrusions protruding in the crawler circumferential direction to protrude to each other toward respective opposed core metals mesh each other in the crawler width direction” is indefinite because and it is unclear what is meant by it. For the purposed of examining Examiner has interpreted the limit as “the roller disengagement preventing protrusions on adjacent core metals protrude in the crawler circumferential direction to protrude toward eachother and mesh each other in the crawler width direction”.
Regarding Claim 2, recites “or located on the crawler inner circumference side of the crawler outer circumference side surface”, is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by it. Furthermore, the wording is uncomprehensible so Examiner does not know how to interpret it for examination so it has been lined through.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation “the rib sits on a steel cord layer” is indefinite, as the ribs are part of the core metal, which is upward or above the steel cord layer, but not “on” the steel cord layer, as it is part of the core metal. For the purposes of Examining , Examiner has interpreted this limit as “the rib sits on a radially inward side of the a steel cord layer”.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JP-5657258-B2 to Thomson (“Thomson”).
Regarding Claim 1, Thomson discloses a construction vehicle (10 “vehicle body”,) including a crawler traveling device (12 “rubber crawler assembly/built in body, 14 rubber crawler ) including a driving sprocket (20), rollers (26 “idler”) and an elastic crawler (14 “rubber crawler” ; 12 “rubber crawler building in body”) with core metals (18 “cored bar”) embedded in an endless belt-shaped elastic body (16 “endless rubber body”) made of an elastic material (“endless belt shape by [of] rubber”) at constant intervals in a crawler circumferential direction (parallel to F1 “forward direction” Fig 2 i.e. longitudinal direction of crawler), the elastic crawler with core metals having a configuration in which a core metal main body (18) elongated in a crawler width direction of the core metal (20) includes a central engagement portion (30 “central portion” where 24 “engagement holes” are located) with which the driving sprocket (22 “engaging portions” of 20 sprocket) is engaged, a pair of guide protrusion bases (base perimeter of 34, where 40, 42, 38, 36 meets 18, Figs 3-5) formed at opposite ends of the central engagement portion, and a pair of core metal blade parts (32 “pair of blade/wings”) extending laterally (Fig 3, 4, 5) to opposite sides to each other from the pair of guide protrusion bases, a pair of guide protrusions (34 “projecting portions”) protrudes from the pair of guide protrusion bases (Fig 3,4,5) to a crawler inner circumference side (16U, Fig 3), the core metal is embedded in (Fig 3) the endless belt-shaped elastic body except for at least the guide protrusions, and the rollers (5) arranged along a longitudinal direction of the elastic crawler and roll on a top of the guide protrusions in a longitudinal direction of the elastic crawler roll on a top surface () of the guide protrusion, wherein roller disengagement preventing protrusions (including: widthwise inward parts: 40 “narrow portion”, 42 “asymptotic portion”, and 38 “wide portions” 38, where 40, 42, 38 guide and suppress widthwise displacement [of 28 protrusion of idler that is between 38 “wide portions” with 40 “narrow portion” of adjacent core metal enters 38 “wide portion to “suppress misalignment” ET Page 4 , Para 3 “beginning Further, the shape…”; and 28 protrusion of idler between 38 wide portions makes it difficult for idler to be removed Et Page 4 ,Para 6 beginning “when the vehicle..” ], and widthwise outward part 36 “inclined surface enables idler to return between 34 during installation or if the idler detaches, as described ET Page 3-5) respectively protrude in opposite directions (Fig 3-5) of the crawler circumferential direction from the pair of guide protrusion bases of the core metal main body, the roller disengagement preventing protrusions on adjacent core metals protrude in the crawler circumferential direction to protrude toward eachother (Fig 4,5) and mesh (Fig 4) each other in the crawler width direction, and ribs (Annotated Fig 5 “AF5”) are formed that connect (Fig 4, 5) the roller disengagement preventing protrusions on a side of the core metal blade part (for strike out and bolded font see paragraphs 7-11 of this document) .
PNG
media_image1.png
487
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Thomson discloses the elastic crawler with core metals according to claim 1 to wherein the rib has a crawler outer circumference side surface (AF5) located at the same position (the surfaces join at the thinnest portion of the rib, AF5) as a crawler outer circumference side surface of the core metal blade part (AF5), (for lined through limits see paragraph 12 of this document).
Regarding Claim 3, Thomson discloses the elastic crawler with core metals according to claim 1 wherein the rib (described in previous paragraph) is raised toward (shown AF5) the crawler inner circumference side.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP-5065741-B2 to Yoshida (“Yoshida”).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoshida discloses the elastic crawler with core metals according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the rib sits on a radially inward side of the a steel cord layer embedded on a crawler outer circumference side of the core metal blade part of the endless belt-shaped elastic body in a crawler thickness direction (for lined through limits see paragraph 13 of this document).
Yoshida discloses a steel cord layer (English Translation “ET”, Page 4, Para 9 beginning “In addition, on the outer…”, “on the outer peripheral side of the cored bar 9 in the crawler body 7, a tensile strength (not shown) is formed by arranging a number of tensile cords [i.e. a steel cord layer] such as steel cords embedded in the circumferential direction”.
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the elastic crawler and the steel cord layer formed by an arrangement of steel cords embedded in the circumferential direction in on a crawler outer circumference side of a cored bar in the crawler body , in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the elastic crawler of Thomson and the teaching the steel cord layer formed by an arrangement of steel cords embedded in the circumferential direction in on a crawler outer circumference side of a cored bar in the crawler body, to modify the elastic crawler of Thomas such that it includes a steel cord layer embedded in the elastic crawler, on an outer circumference side of the core metal, [i.e. thus the ribs of the core metal are radially inward of the steel cord layer], with the motivation to provide additional tensile strength to the elastic crawler (Yoshida ET, Page 4, Para 9), having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Thomson and Yoshida discloses the elastic crawler with core metals and paired roller disengagement preventing protrusions according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the paired roller disengagement preventing protrusions have protrusion lengths different from each other.
Yoshida further discloses the paired roller disengagement preventing protrusions (15A & 16B “lateral regulating projections” having a mountain shape with length L1; and 15B & 16A “lateral regulating projections” having a V-shape with length L2, Annotated Figure 7b “AF7b”, where Distance L2-L1 is less than 15% of pitch P spacing between the core metals AF7b) have protrusion lengths different from each other (specifically 15A & 16B V shaped protrusions extend outward of 15B & 16A, AF7b) mountain shaped protrusions AF5).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the elastic crawler and the paired roller disengagement preventing protrusions of different lengths, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the elastic crawler of the combination of Thomson and Yoshida teaching of the paired roller disengagement preventing protrusions of different lengths of Yoshida, to modify the elastic crawler of the combination of Thomson and Yoshida, specifically the paired roller disengagement preventing protrusions thereof, such that the paired roller disengagement preventing protrusions have of different lengths (like Yoshida), specifically the 38 wide portions having a longer length than 38 the narrow portions, having a with the motivation ensure the 38 are sufficiently long to guide 28 protrusion of the 26 idler and suppress misalignment and displacement even when the elastic crawler is deformed in lateral displacement or twisting (Thompson Page 4, Para 5) having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image2.png
299
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Thomson and Yoshida discloses the elastic crawler with core metals according to The elastic crawler with core metals according to claim 5, wherein a difference (L2-L1 AF7b) between the protrusion lengths (L2, L1) of the pair of roller disengagement preventing protrusions (15B & 16A AND 15A & 16B) is 15% or less of an embedding pitch (P, AF7b) of the core metal (as described in paragraph 23 of this document).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Choi (US-20210354770-A1), Uneo 上野 吉郎 (JP-3035000-B2), Mishima (JP-2021037849-A), Yoshida (JP-2008265369-A, JP-5065741-B2) disclose vehicles having elastic crawlers with core metals and protrusions and or core metals, steel cords, rollers and sprockets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615