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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
· The “on which a rolling wheel (5) arranged along the ground rolls” as set forth in Claim 3, line 7-8.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
· Reference characters “5p(5)”, “5q(5)”, “12a(12)”, “12b(12)”, “21a(21)”, and “21b(21)” are used in Figs. 2 and 4-6 include unnecessary parenthetical notation, where a single reference character would be sufficient to identify the element.
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
4. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for exceeding the 150-word limit (see below).
Reference to Figure 6 should also be removed from the abstract.
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).
5. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
· Reference numerals such as “5p, 5p”, “12, 12”, “12a, 12a”, “12a and 12a”, “12b, 12b”, “12bf, 12bf”, “13b, 13b”, “13bc, 13bc”, “16, 16”, “20, 20”, “21a, 21a”, “21b, 21b”, “22, 22”, “23, 23”, “23 and 23”, and “30, 30” in Para [0026-0033], [0035-0040], and [0042-0043] are improperly repeated. A single reference numeral is sufficient to identify plural instances of the same element.
· A reference numeral such as “15b” in Para [0036] not shown in the drawings.
· Reference numerals such as “5p” and “5q” are not listed in the reference signs list.
· The phrase “rolling wheels 5 are arranged along the ground” in para [0014], [0024], and [0037] is unclear, as the rolling wheel is not shown as being arranged along the ground in the drawings.
· The term “cored bars” used throughout the specification should be amended to “core bars”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 1, 3, and 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
· In Claim 1, line 2, 10, and 15, the phrase “cored bars (20)” should be amended to read “core bars (20)”.
· In Claim 1, line 2, the phrase “a plurality of cored bars (20) is embedded at” should be amended to read “a plurality of cored bars (20) embedded at.”.
· In Claim 1, line 4-5, the phrase “an endless belt-shaped rubber body (11) that has an endless belt shape and has a rubber lug (12)” should be amended to read “an endless belt-shaped rubber body (11) that has a rubber lug (12)”.
· In Claim 1, line 10, the phrase “are embedded in the endless belt-shaped rubber body (11)” should be amended to read “and embedded in the endless belt-shaped rubber body (11)”.
· In Claim 1, line 11, the phrase “at both sides of a center” should be amended to read “on both sides of a center”.
· In Claim 1, line 13, a comma should be inserted after “a sprocket hole (15)” for grammatical clarity.
· In Claim 1, line 14, a comma should be inserted after “is wound, enter” for grammatical clarity.
· In Claim 1, line 15, a comma should be inserted after “the cored bars (20)” for grammatical clarity.
· In Claim 1, line 16, a comma should be inserted after “crawler circumferential direction” for grammatical clarity.
· In Claim 3, line 3, a comma should be inserted after “the endless belt-shaped rubber body (11)” for grammatical clarity.
· In Claim 3, line 3, a reference numeral such as “(12, 12)” is improperly repeated. A single reference numeral is sufficient to identify plural instances of the same element.
· In Claim 3, line 5, the phrase “cored bars (20)” should be amended to read “core bars (20)”.
· In Claim 3, line 8, a comma should be inserted after “arranged along the ground” for grammatical clarity.
· In Claim 4, line 8, a comma should be inserted after “a width (Wbc)” for grammatical clarity.
· In Claim 4, line 10, a comma should be inserted after “the central groove (13a)” for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
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 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “a rolling wheel (5) arranged along the ground rolls” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, the rolling wheels are “arranged along” the inner surface of the track. Applicant is advised that removing the phrase “arranged along the ground” would overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 2, and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hori (US5380076A).
Regarding claim 1, Hori discloses a rubber crawler (6 “rubber crawler belt”; Fig. 8(a)) in which a plurality of cored bars (1 “core members”; Figs. 1-4) is 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 an endless belt shape (Fig. 8(a); Claim 15) and 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 cored bars (Figs. 7(a) and 7(b), Col. 12, line 44-49), are embedded in the endless belt-shaped rubber body (6) at 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 cored 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), wherein a bottom portion of the sprocket hole (9) is formed by the rubber lug (19; Fig. 7(b)).
Regarding claim 2, Hori discloses the rubber crawler (6) according to claim 1, wherein 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 discloses the rubber crawler (6) according to claim 1, wherein 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 cored 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 “arranged along the ground” rolls (Namely, Figs. 7(a)-(b) show the rolling wheel disposed along an inner surface of the crawler and rolling relative thereto).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori in view of Tateishi (US10435091B2), as applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Hori 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 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 the rubber crawler according to claim 1, wherein 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_image1.png
647
796
media_image1.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 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.
Conclusion
16. 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
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615