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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “respective stop elements resting against one another in a positive manner in the direction of rotation about the thread axis” as set forth in claim 1; and the reinforcing element having a base body formed as a “round tube”, an “oval tube”, a “square tube”, or a “U-shaped profile” as set forth in claim 3; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 because reference character “6” should include an arrowhead at the end of its leader line throughout the drawings, given the fact that it refers to 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)(4) because reference characters "36" and "20" have both been used to designate the same element.
Reference characters "G" and "c" have both been used to designate the same element. Reference characters cannot share the same 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate both the threads of the insert and the through hole of the base plate in Figure 6.
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: 40 and a.
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 title of the invention is not descriptive (namely the title is long and convoluted). A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Wear Pad for a Tread Member of a Crawler Track.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0040], the number “12” should be replaced with the number - -14- - in the phrase “recesses 12 to 16”, to correspond to the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 7, 10, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “configured as” should be removed from claims 4 and 12 to more clearly and concisely define the invention.
The limitations of claim 5 are redundant with lines 26-27 of claim 1.
The term “this” should be replaced with the term - -the- - in line 7 of claim 7, for grammatical clarity.
The phrase “are configured for fastening” should be replaced with the term - -fastens- - or - -secures- - in line 9 of claim 10 to more clearly and concisely define the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In this instance, claim 11 sets forth the limitation a “fastening means”, which includes the generic placeholder term “means” preceded by the functional term “fastening”. It should be noted that the specification indirectly defines the “fastening means” as collar nuts, thus defining physical structure.
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 1-18 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 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “a fastening recess” in line 9 is a double recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “fastening recess” set forth in line 9 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “a radial direction” in line 25 is a double recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “radial direction” set forth in line 25 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what element of the invention is being referred to by the term “them” in line 29.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “a direction toward the fastening side” in lines 29-30 is a double recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “direction toward the fastening side” set forth in lines 29-30 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed in lines 33-35, regarding “respective stop elements”.
Claim 4 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “at least one fastening element” in line 1 is a double recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “at least one fastening element” set forth in line 1 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claim 6 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “at least one fastening element” in line 2 is a double recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “at least one fastening element” set forth in line 2 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claim 7 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what element of the invention is being referred to by the term “its”.
Claim 7 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “prism-like (square faces; trapezoidal etc.)”. This phrase is open ended (use of the term “etc.”) and does not clearly define the term “prism-like”.
Claim 10 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrases “a tread member”, “a crawler track”, “a track unit”, “a construction machine”, and “a wear pad” are all double recitations. These limitations have been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the aforementioned phrases are the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or are additional elements of the invention.
Claims 11-12 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear whether or not the action following the phrase “can be” is actually part of the invention.
Claims 13 and 18 are indefinite due to the fact that the term “via” is generally narrative, and fails to describe any actual physical features of the invention.
Claim 15 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrases “a pad body ridge”, “a reinforcing element” are double recitations. These limitations have been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the aforementioned phrases are the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or are additional elements of the invention.
Claim 16 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrases “a crawler track”, “a track unit”, “a construction machine”, and “a wear pad” are all double recitations. These limitations have been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the aforementioned phrases are the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or are additional elements of the invention.
Claim 17 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrases “a crawler track”, “a track unit”, and “a construction machine” are all triple recitations. These limitations have been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the aforementioned phrases are the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or are additional elements of the invention.
Claim 18 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrases “a tread member”, “a construction machine”, and “a base plate” are all triple recitations. These limitations have been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the aforementioned phrases are the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or are additional elements of the invention.
Claim 18 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “a base plate” is a double, triple and quadruple recitation in lines 1, 5-6, and 9, respectively. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “base plate” set forth multiple times in claim 18 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or are additional elements of the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 7-10, 13-14, and 17 the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "essentially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 1, 7, and 10 recites the limitation "the longitudinal extension direction" in lines 13, 4-5, and 3-4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the part" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear what element of the invention is being referred to by this limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective stop elements" in line 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear what element of the invention is being referred to by this limitation.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
A non-limiting example of narrative and indefinite language is use of the phrase “in each case”.
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)(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) 1-5, 7, and 9-18, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chiang (11,459,042).
Per claim 1, Figures 5-7 of Chiang shows a wear pad 400 for a tread member of a crawler track including a pad body 410 with a wear side and fastening side opposite thereto. A reinforcing element 420 is at least partially enclosed by the material of the pad body 410, and includes two fastening recesses 421 longitudinally spaced apart from each other. Two fastening elements 430 are at least partially enclosed by the material of the pad body 410 and arranged within the fastening recesses 421. The fastening elements 430 include an opening 432 with internal threads 433 therein. a thread axis is transverse and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the reinforcing element 420. A displacement stop 431 protrudes radially from the thread axis and around the fastening recess 421. The stop 431 is in positive contact with a side of the reinforcing element 420 along the thread axis in the direction toward the wear side of the pad body 410. A guide region 435, which includes an extension region, adjoins the stop 431 in a direction towards the fastening side of the pad body 410. The extension region does not protrude beyond the fastening recess 421. A mounting contact surface opposite the stop 431 is planar and perpendicular to the thread axis. The material of the pad body 431 does not protrude beyond a contact plane in a direction toward the fastening side. A positive rotation lock, in both directions about the thread axis, is provided by interaction of the fastening elements 430 and the reinforcing element 420. The reinforcing element 420 is held in position relative to the fastening elements in a displacement direction toward the fastening side exclusively by the material of the pad body 410, and the reinforcing element 420 abuts against the stop 431 in the direction toward the wear side.
Per claim 2, the reinforcing element 420 extends exclusively in a straight-line manner in the longitudinal direction.
Per claim 3, the reinforcing element 420 has a base body with a U-shaped profile.
Per claim 4, the fastening element 430 is a collar nut.
Per claim 5, the mounting contact surface of the fastening element 430 is planar.
Per claim 7, the pad body 410 includes at least one body ridge 411 on the fastening side, that protrudes perpendicularly to a ridge height. The base body 410 is trapezoidal shaped. The reinforcing element 420 is disposed within the ridges 411. The fastening element 430 extends into the wear pad 400 no more than up to the ridge height.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation of how the fastening recesses are formed is a method step set forth in a product claim, and receives no patentable weight (see MPEP 2113).
Per claim 10, a tread member 200 is formed of a base plate 300 with a body and at least two webs protruding therefrom at least partially parallel to each other in the longitudinal direction, to form a fastening channel 310 therebetween. The wear pad 400 is arranged within the fastening channel 310. The fastening elements 430 fasten the wear pad 400 to the base plate 300.
Per claim 11, the base plate 300 includes passages 320 for receiving fasteners 210 that engage the internal threads 433 of the fastening elements 430.
Per claim 12, the fasteners 210 are threaded bolts.
Per claim 13, contact surfaces (i.e. the head) of the fasteners 210 directly contact the plate body 300 at a planar mating contact surface.
Per claim 14, the material of the pad body 410 is arranged between the reinforcing element 420 and the base plate 300.
Per claim 15, a total of three webs are arranged on the plate body 300 to form two channels 310. The ridges of the pad body 410 are arranged in the channels 310.
Per claim 16-17, a plurality of tread members 200 forms a crawler track of a construction machine. It should be noted that the limitation that the construction machine is a “road milling machine” receives no patentable weight, as it is merely an intended use limitation.
Per claim 18, contact forces are transmitted from the machine to the base plate 300 due to compression of the material of the wear pad 400.
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) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang as applied to claims 1-5, 7, and 9-18 above, and further in view of Busley et al (7,731,306).
Regarding claim 6, Chiang does not show the guide region of the fastening element having a polygonal configuration, that mates with a complementary polygonal configuration in the fastening recess of the reinforcing element. Figure 7 of Busley et al teaches the use of a reinforcing element 18 for a wear pad including a polygonal shaped guide region of fastening element 26 mated with a complementarily shaped fastening recess 22 in the reinforcing element 18. Therefore, from this teaching, 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 fastener element and fastening recess of Chiang with a polygonal configuration, as a substitute equivalent shape, for the purpose of preventing relative rotation therebetween, and dependent upon availability and cost.
Regarding claim 8, Chiang does not disclose the material forming the body of the wear pad. Busley et al teaches that the material forming the body of the wear pad may be polyurethane. Therefore, from this teaching, 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 body of the wear pad from polyurethane, dependent upon the desired chemical and physical properties thereof (such as wear resistance, hardness, etc.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show track pad configurations.
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