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 Objections
Claims 1, are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 1, for consistency, “wheel bearing” should be -wheel-bearing-. 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 1-17 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.
In claim 1, lines 5-6, it is not clear to what “thereto” refers (the wheel-bearing frame member, the aperture). In claim 1, lines 5 and 6, it is not clear what distance constitutes “proximate” the apertures. The claim does not give a frame of reference for the term and applicant’s disclosure does not clearly define what is meant by it.
In claim 9, line 2, the claim must end with a period “’.” not a comma “,”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz (USPN 6,024,183).
Regarding claim 1, Diez teaches a wheel-bearing frame member 12 (Figure 12 show frame 12) for a track system 14, 18, 22, the wheel bearing frame member defining a first aperture for receiving an axle assembly supporting a support wheel assembly (frame 12 supports the transverse axle of drive wheel 14 which is also a support wheel) and defining a second aperture for receiving an assembly supporting an idler wheel assembly (idler 18 is supported by frame 12 by a link 36 that is connected to the frame by a transverse pivot), the wheel-bearing frame member comprising a first sensor (speed sensor 44, seen in Figure 1) located proximate the first aperture and operatively connected thereto (connected to the wheel-bearing frame member 12), and a second sensor (speed sensor 46, seen in Figure 1) located proximate the second aperture and operatively connected thereto (the sensors appear to be proximate the first and second apertures and applicant has not clearly defined what distance constitutes “proximate”).
Dietz teaches sensors, but is silent regarding the sensors including an “array of sensors” (more than one sensor) in each location. However, courts have held that a mere duplication of parts is not patentable unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04VIB. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) where the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). In the present case, one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first and second array of sensors, rather than a single sensor, proximate the first and second sensors taught by Dietz, in order to provide better accuracy and redundancy in measuring the speed of the wheels.
Regarding claim 8, Dietz teaches the sensors are operationally connected to a system controller 42 configured to receive the signals from the sensors (col. 3, lines 11-17).
Regarding claim 16, Dietz teaches the second aperture (supporting idler 46, seen in Figure 1) is configured to receive an axle assembly pivotably connectable to a wheel linkage 36 (link 36 supports idler 18 at one end and is pivotably connected to frame 12 at the second aperture; col. 1, lines 60-66).
Regarding claim 17, Dietz teaches that the wheel linkage 36 is operationally connectable to a tensioner 32 (col. 2, lines 63-66).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugihara (WO2019
Regarding claim 1, Sugihara teaches a wheel-bearing frame member 32 (Figure 1) for a track system 20, the wheel bearing frame member defining a first aperture for receiving an axle assembly supporting a support wheel assembly (each support wheel 26 has an axle 26A that is rotatably supported in an aperture of the frame 32; page 2, 11th paragraph of translation) and defining a second aperture for receiving an assembly supporting an idler wheel assembly 24 (idler wheel 24 has a shaft portion 24A that is rotatably supported in an aperture in an adjustment frame portion of support frame 32; see page 2, 8th paragraph of translation), the wheel-bearing frame member comprising a first array of sensors (at least two sensors 50, shown in Figure 3) located proximate the first aperture and operatively connected thereto, and a second array of sensors 46, 48 (two sensors 46 and two sensors 48, as seen in Figure 3), operatively connected to the frame 32, closer to the idler wheel 24 that the first sensors 50 (seen in Figure 3). Applicant does not define how close the sensors need to be to the apertures to meet the limitation “proximate” to the apertures, so it is not clear if the Sugihara meets that claim limitation. However, Sugihara teaches that the sensors can be positioned at different locations on the frame and the sensors are positioned to detect the temperature of the track or outer surface of wheels (see Abstract, last two lines). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the first and second arrays of sensors proximate the first and second apertures for mounting the wheels 24, 26, in order to position the sensors where they are best able to detect the temperature at the wheels and/or track, which is the objective of the sensors.
Regarding claim 2, the wheel-bearing frame member 32 is a leading wheel-bearing frame member (mounted at the leading end of the vehicle).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the first and second sensors are temperature sensors.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuchoski et al. (PGPub 2017/0120970) in view Sugihara (WO2019/225752).
Regarding claim 1, Zuchoski teaches a vehicle having a vehicle having front and rear wheel wheel-bearing track assemblies (16(1), 16(2)). Each track assembly includes a wheel-bearing frame member 44 (a front wheel-bearing frame member and a rear wheel-bearing frame member; Figure 1A) pivotable to leading frame member (front of vehicle) and a trailing wheel-bearing frame member 16(3)). Each wheel-bearing frame 44 includes a first aperture for the axle of at least one support wheel 50(5) and a second aperture supporting the axle of at least one idler 50(1), 50(2), 50(9), 50(10) (see Figure 6). Zuchoski includes a sensor 152 to sense one or mor parameters of the track system (for determining a state of the track system (para [0151], vehicle, [0152], and/or environment of the track system [0152]). It also teaches that the sensors can measure pressure at both front and rear idler wheels 50(1), 50(2), 50(9), 50(10) (para [0164]).
Zuchoski is silent regarding the number or location of the sensors.
Sugihara teaches a wheel-bearing frame member 32 (Figure 1) for a track system 20, the wheel bearing frame member defining a first aperture for receiving an axle assembly supporting a support wheel assembly (each support wheel 26 has an axle 26A that is rotatably supported in an aperture of the frame 32; page 2, 11th paragraph of translation) and defining a second aperture for receiving an assembly supporting an idler wheel assembly 24 (idler wheel 24 has a shaft portion 24A that is rotatably supported in an aperture in an adjustment frame portion of support frame 32; see page 2, 8th paragraph of translation), the wheel-bearing frame member comprising a first array of sensors (at least two sensors 50, shown in Figure 3) located proximate the first aperture and operatively connected thereto, and a second array of sensors 46, 48 (two sensors 46 and two sensors 48, as seen in Figure 3), operatively connected to the frame 32, closer to the idler wheel 24 that the first sensors 50 (seen in Figure 3). Applicant does not define how close the sensors need to be to the apertures to meet the limitation “proximate” to the apertures, so it is not clear if the Sugihara meets that claim limitation. However, Sugihara teaches that the sensors can be positioned at different locations on the frame and the sensors are positioned to detect a parameter of the track or outer surface of wheels (see Abstract, last two lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Zuchoski wheel-bearing frame with a first array of sensors proximate the first aperture and a second array of sensors proximate the second aperture, in view of Sugihara, in order to position the sensors where they are best able to detect the parameters of the track assembly. The precise position of the sensors is not clearly defined and is believed to be a matter of obvious design choice absent evidence of criticality of the positioning.
Regarding claim 2, one wheel-bearing frame member of Zuchoski is a leading wheel-bearing frame member (for front track assemblies 16(1), 16(2), mounted at the leading end of the vehicle; Figure 1B).
Regarding claim 3, one wheel-bearing frame member of Zuchski pivotably connectable to a leading frame member of the track system (at front track assemblies 16(1), 16(2)).
Regarding claim 4, one of the wheel-bearing frame members of Zuchoski is a trailing wheel-bearing frame member (part of a rear track assembly 16(3), 16(4)).
Regarding claim 5, a wheel-bearing frame member of Zuchiski is pivotably connectable to a trailing frame member of the track system (part of a rear track assembly 16(3), 16(4)).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the sensors of Zuchoski include load sensors (pressure sensor 252 [para [0164]), accelerometers (para [0163]), and/or ultrasonic (para [0166]).
Regarding claim 8, Zuchoski teaches that the sensors are operationally connected to a system controller (controller 250; para [0149]) configured to receive the signals from the first and second arrays of sensors (para [0150]).
Regarding claims 9-11, the combination teaches the first array of sensors is positioned and configured to measure a load parameter acting on the support wheel assembly by the track (Zuchoski teaches that the sensors are positioned and configured to measure a load parameter and Suihara teaches sensors proximate the support wheel assembly). It also teaches that the second array of sensors is positioned and configured to measure a load parameter acting on the idler wheel assembly (sensors are positioned at both idlers and support wheels).
Regarding claim 12, Zuchoski suggests that the system controller is configured to estimate a load parameter acting on i) one of the support wheel assemblies, ii) a portion of an endless track the support wheel assembly rolls on, iii) the idler wheel assembly, or iv) on a combination thereof (a pressure sensors may be used to directly sense load, para [0164], or another parameter, such as speed may be used to estimate or approximate the pressure applied in to the track, para [0187], [0189]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination does not mention using data from finite element analysis of the wheel-bearing frame member. However, this language suggests a product by process. That is, the data includes information regarding the wheel-bearing frame assembly. Finite element analysis is not being done by the vehicle controller, rather, the stored data regarding the frame assembly was attained by a finite element method. Therefore, that data does not distinguish over data gathered by alternative methods unless the data (the product by process) is materially different from data attained by another method. In the present case, the data is of parameters of the frame assembly. That data is not believed to be materially different from frame assembly data attained by different methods, therefore, the claim does not patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Zuchiski teaches the wheel-bearing member 44 is operatively connected to a frame member 11 (para [0049], lines 1-5) of the track system and further comprises an actuator assembly 52 operatively connected between the wheel-bearing frame member and the frame member (para [0082]).
Regarding claim 15, Zuchoski teaches that the sensors are operationally connected to a system controller 154 (para [0173]-[179]) configured to receive signals from the sensors and where in response to the signals from the sensors, the actuator assembly 52 (including actuator 156) is operated to adjust positioning of the wheel-bearing frame member relative to the frame member in accordance with a predetermined objective.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brandenburger, Rust, Banjerjee, and Rebinsky teach sensors mounted to track frame members.
Pare teaches a wheel-bearing frame member 138 having apertures to receiving idler and support wheel axles.
Kelderman teaches a track support frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights