Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q) because the following reference characters are improperly underlined.
· “13”, “13a”, “13b”, and “15” in Fig. 1
· “13”, “13a”, “13b”, and “13bc” in Fig. 2
· “15” in Fig. 3
· “13b” and “15” in Fig. 4
· “13a” in Fig. 5
· “13a” and “15” in Fig. 6
Since the reference characters are associated with lead lines, the underlining should be removed.
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.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
· A reference numeral such as “15b” in Para [0036] not shown in the drawings. This objection was made in the prior office action, but it has not been corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
· A comma should be removed after “a rolling wheel (5)” for grammatical clarity in claim 3, line 5.
· A comma should be inserted after “the central groove (13a)” for grammatical clarity in claim 4, line 7. The objection was made in the prior office action, but it has not been corrected.
· Claim 5 appears to have an incorrect status identifier, as the claim has been amended from “The rubber crawler according to claim 1” to “The rubber crawler according to any of claims 1 to 4” without markings indicating the change.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the crawler thickness direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. Claims 1, 2, and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori (US5380076A) in view of Shimozono (WO2004062990A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hori discloses a rubber crawler (6 “rubber crawler belt”; Fig. 8(a)) in which a plurality of core bars (1 “core members”; Figs. 1-4) embedded at regular intervals in a circumferential direction (Fig. 8(a)) of the crawler (6) in an endless belt-shaped rubber body (6) that has a rubber lug (19 “lug”; Fig. 8(a)) formed on an outer circumferential side of the crawler (6, Fig. 8(a)), endless belt-shaped tension member layers (7 “core lines”; Fig. 7(b)), which extend in the crawler circumferential direction on the crawler outer circumferential side relative to the core bars (Figs. 7(a) and 7(b), Col. 12, line 44-49), are embedded in the endless belt-shaped rubber body (6) on both sides of a center in a width direction of the crawler (Fig. 7(b)), and a sprocket hole (9 “engaging holes”; Fig. 7(b); Col. 9, line 1-5), into which teeth of a sprocket (“drive wheel”; Col. 2, line 3-5), around which the rubber crawler (6) is wound, enter, is formed between the core bars (1), adjacent in the crawler circumferential direction, at the center in the crawler width direction of the endless belt-shaped rubber body (6; Figs. 6(a), 7(a)-(b), and 8(a); Claim 15), but fails to disclose a closed bottom portion of the sprocket hole is formed by the rubber lug.
Shimozono, however, teaches a closed bottom portion (Refer to the closed bottom portion in the below annotated Fig. 3; Para [0011]) of the sprocket hole 50 is formed by a rubber lug 4a/4b (Figs. 3-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
457
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Hori
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the rubber brawler belt of Hori by including a lug disposed beneath the sprocket hole, as taught by Shimozono, with the motivation to reduce vertical movement of the rolling wheel and thereby reduce vibration during operation while maintaining desired traction characteristics.
Regarding claim 2, Hori further discloses a bottom surface of the sprocket hole (9) is located at a position deeper than the tension member layers (7; Fig. 7(b)).
Regarding claim 3, Hori further discloses a groove (12 “grooves”; Fig. 7(b)) formed between adjacent ones of the rubber lugs (19; Fig. 7(b)) of the endless belt-shaped rubber body (6), partially overlaps, in the crawler thickness direction (Fig. 7(b)), with the core bars (1) and with a rolling wheel passage surface (4 “a rolling rail surface”; Fig. 7(b)) which is located on an inner circumferential side (Figs. 7(a)-(b)) of the rubber crawler (6) and on which a rolling wheel rolls (Namely, Figs. 7(a)-(b) show the rolling wheel disposed along an inner surface of the crawler and rolling relative thereto).
9. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori, as modified by Shimozono, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Tateishi (US10435091B2).
Regarding claim 4, Hori, as modified by Shimozono, discloses the rubber crawler according to claim 3, wherein the groove (12; Figs. 8(a) and 8(b)) includes: an outer groove (12; Fig. 8(a)) that extends outward of the rolling wheel passage surface (4) in the crawler width direction (Fig. 8(a)); and a central groove (12; Fig. 8(a)) that is formed continuously with the outer groove (12) at the center in the crawler (6) width direction relative to the outer groove (Fig. 8(a)), but fails to disclose the width, in the crawler circumferential direction of a continuous groove portion of the outer groove continuous with the central groove, is smaller than a width in the crawler circumferential direction of the central groove.
Tateishi, however, teaches a width in the crawler circumferential direction of a continuous groove portion of the outer groove (As evident from Fig. 3 near reference numeral “5c”) continuous with the central groove is smaller than a width in the crawler circumferential direction of the central groove (As evident from Fig. 3 near reference numeral “5a”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the rubber crawler of Hori, as modified by Shimozono, by substituting its groove configuration for a groove configuration having a wider central portion, such as taught by Tateishi, with the motivation to improve material retention within the groove and obtain predictable traction performance.
Regarding claim 5, Hori, as modified by Tateishi, discloses at least an outer rubber lug portion of the rubber lug located on an outer side in the crawler width direction extends obliquely at an angle to the crawler width direction and laterally from a central side in the crawler width direction (Fig. 8(a)), but fails to disclose a part of the outer rubber lug portion has a side surface parallel to the crawler width direction.
Tateishi, however, teaches a part of the outer rubber lug portion has a side surface parallel to the crawler width direction (Refer to Fig. 1 and the arrows pointing to the claimed feature in the below examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Tateishi).
PNG
media_image2.png
647
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Tateishi
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the rubber crawler of Hori, as modified by Shimozono, by substituting its outer rubber lug portion for an outer rubber lug portion, such as taught by Tateishi, with the motivation to improve material retention and provide more stable engagement between the rubber lugs and material during operation.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references disclose a crawler belt including the sprocket hole closed by rubber lug.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights