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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 20 May 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: There is no support in the original disclosure for sleeve 165 extending into a recess in bearing assembly 160b as now shown in replacement Fig. 6.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because replacement Fig. 6 now shows sleeve 165 extending into a recess in bearing assembly 160b without any support in the original disclosure for such an arrangement.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hait (US 2,337,991).
Regarding claim 1, Hait discloses a wheel assembly 10 for a track system (shown in Fig. 1) of a light heavy-duty vehicle 11, the track system having a frame 12 and an elastomeric endless track 15 (lines 14-21 of col. 2 on page 1), the wheel assembly being removably connectable to the frame (evident from Fig. 1 and lines 19-23 of col. 1 on page 2), the wheel assembly comprising: a wheel 20 defining a wheel cavity (unlabeled cavity that receives axle 46 and bearings 36 as shown in Fig. 1); an axle (axle 46 or axle 46 and respective sleeves 60) receivable in the wheel cavity and including a first end portion (portion to the “right” side of the central portion 47 as shown in Fig. 1), a middle portion (at central portion 47 and including the portion of the axle 46 that abuts metal rings 55), and a second end portion (portion to the “left” side of the central portion 47 as shown in Fig. 1), the axle defining a shoulder member (“right” side ring nut 56) proximate to the first end portion and a retaining zone (at threads 50) proximate to the second end portion (Fig. 1); a first bearing assembly (“right” side ball bearing 36) and a second bearing assembly (“left” side ball bearing 36), the first and second bearing assemblies rotationally connecting the axle to the wheel (Fig. 1), the first bearing assembly being disposed in the wheel cavity proximate to the first end portion and axially inwardly from the shoulder member (Fig. 1); and the second bearing assembly being disposed in the wheel cavity proximate to the second end portion and axially inwardly from the retaining zone (Fig. 1); a sleeve member (comprised of the “right” side metal ring 55 and the “left” side metal ring 55) being disposed on the middle portion, and the sleeve member abutting the first bearing assembly and the second bearing assembly (Fig. 1 shows the “right” side metal ring 55 of the sleeve member abutting the “right” side ball bearing 36 and the “left” side metal ring 55 of the sleeve member abutting the “left” side ball bearing 36); and a retaining member (“left” side ring nut 56) cooperating with the retaining zone such that the first and second bearing assemblies are prevented from axial movement by the shoulder member, the sleeve member, and the retaining member (evident from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Hait further discloses the wheel has a first side (at “right” side of wheel 20) and a second side (at “left” side of wheel 20) opposite to the first side, and a portion at 51 of the first end portion of the axle extends from the first side of the wheel (Fig. 1) and a portion at 51 of the second end portion of the axle extends from the second side of the wheel (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Hait further discloses a first seal (“right” side seal ring 66) disposed in the wheel cavity, axially outwardly to the first bearing assembly and in contact with the wheel at 44 and the axle at 60, the first seal sealing one side of the wheel cavity (Figs. 1 and 2); and a second seal (“left” side seal ring 66) disposed in the wheel cavity, axially outwardly to the second bearing assembly and in contact with the wheel at 44 and the axle at 60, the second seal sealing another side of the wheel cavity (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hait further discloses the first bearing assembly includes a first seal (unlabeled seal immediately adjacent to the “right” side ball bearing at a “right” side thereof and between the inner and outer races of the ball bearing as shown in Figs. 1 and 2) integrated to the first bearing assembly and the second bearing assembly includes a second seal (unlabeled seal immediately adjacent to the “left” side ball bearing at a “left” side thereof and between the inner and outer races of the ball bearing as shown in Fig. 1) integrated to the second bearing assembly.
Regarding claim 5, Hait further discloses a first fastener 62 connectable to the first end portion of the axle and a second fastener 61 connectable to the second end portion of the axle, the first and second fasteners removably connecting the wheel assembly to the frame of the track system (evident from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Hait further discloses the first and second bearing assemblies are connected to the axle by one of an interference fit, a clearance fit, and a transition fit (evident from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hait further discloses the retaining member is a nut (“left” side ring nut 56) and the retraining zone is a threaded zone (at threads 50) configured to cooperate with the nut (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Hait further discloses the wheel cavity has an inner cylindrical wall (unlabeled inner cylindrical wall of each central recess 35 as shown in Fig. 1) and the first and second bearing assemblies are connected to the inner cylindrical wall by one of an interference fit, a clearance fit, and a transition fit (evident from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Hait further discloses the wheel has a first track-engaging portion (at the “right” side roller 21), a second track-engaging portion (at the “left” side roller 21), and a central portion 22 defined between the first and second track engaging portions (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Hait further discloses the elastomeric track is a polymeric elastomeric track (“rubber” per lines 14-21 of col. 2 on page 1).
Regarding claim 14, Hait further discloses the elastomeric track is laterally deformable (evident from the use of “rubber” for the track and the lack of any lateral-extending reinforcements as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Hait further discloses the elastomeric track is laterally deformable along an entire width of the elastomeric track (evident from the use of “rubber” for the track and the lack of any lateral-extending reinforcements as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Hait further discloses the elastomeric track is longitudinally reinforced (Fig. 1; lines 16-21 of col. 2 of page 1).
Regarding claim 17, Hait further discloses the elastomeric track is longitudinally reinforced with longitudinal reinforcing members 24 (Fig. 1; lines 16-21 of col. 2 of page 1).
Regarding claim 18, Hait further discloses the longitudinally reinforced elastomeric track is non-reinforced laterally (evident from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Hait further discloses a track system (shown in Fig. 1) operatively connectable to a light heavy-duty vehicle 11, the track system comprising the wheel assembly (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Hait further discloses a light heavy-duty vehicle 11 comprising the track system (Fig. 1).
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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hait in view of Ketting et al. (US 5,803,558; hereinafter “Ketting”).
Hait fails to disclose at least one of the first and the second bearing assemblies includes a spherical bearing. Instead, Hait utilizes ball bearings for the first and the second bearing assemblies (Figs. 1 and 2; line 30 of col. 2 of page 1).
Ketting, however, teaches a wheel assembly in which a spherical bearing 3 can be used (Fig. 1; lines 5-14 of col. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel assembly of Hait by substituting at least one of its first and the second bearing assemblies for a bearing assembly that includes a spherical bearing, such as taught by Ketting, as a well-known alternative type of bearing that would have a reasonable expectation of success for providing predictable results for allowing relative rotation between the wheel and axle while more easily and cost-effectively compensating for potential misalignment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hait in view of Pawlik et al. (EP 2789528 A1; hereinafter “Pawlik”).
Hait fails to disclose at least one of the first and the second bearing assemblies includes a spherical roller bearing. Instead, Hait utilizes ball bearings for the first and the second bearing assemblies (Figs. 1 and 2; line 30 of col. 2 of page 1).
Pawlik, however, teaches a wheel assembly in which a spherical roller bearing 11 can be used (Fig. 2; the third full paragraph on page 4 and the last two paragraphs on page 5 of the English-language machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel assembly of Hait by substituting at least one of its first and the second bearing assemblies for a bearing assembly that includes a spherical roller bearing, such as taught by Pawlik, as a well-known alternative type of bearing that would have a reasonable expectation of success for providing predictable results for allowing relative rotation between the wheel and axle while having improved load-carrying capacity and the ability to compensate for misalignment or deflections of the wheel or the axle.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hait in view of Wickersham (US 1,365,429).
Hait fails to disclose at least one of the first and the second bearing assemblies includes a tapered roller bearing. Instead, Hait utilizes ball bearings for the first and the second bearing assemblies (Figs. 1 and 2; line 30 of col. 2 of page 1).
Wickersham, however, teaches a wheel assembly in which a tapered roller bearing 22 can be used (Figs. 2 and 3; lines 81-84 on page 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel assembly of Hait by substituting at least one of its first and the second bearing assemblies for a bearing assembly that includes a tapered roller bearing, such as taught by Wickersham, as a well-known alternative type of bearing that would have a reasonable expectation of success for providing predictable results for providing improved load capacity and durability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Hait does not disclose “the sleeve member abutting the first bearing assembly and the second bearing assembly” as newly set forth in amended claim 1 because “neither of the metal rings 55 abuts both of the bearings”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim language does not require a single metal ring 55 to abut both of the bearings as appears to be argued. Instead, inasmuch as the claimed “a sleeve member” in Hait is considered to be comprised of both the “right” side metal ring 55 and the “left” side metal ring 55, the claimed sleeve member abuts the first bearing member assembly and the second bearing assembly as claimed. Specifically, Fig. 1 shows the “right” side metal ring 55 of the sleeve member abutting the “right” side ball bearing 36 and the “left” side metal ring 55 of the sleeve member abutting the “left” side ball bearing 36.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights