Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/533,356

UNDERCARRIAGE SUSPENSION FOR A WORK MACHINE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 08, 2023
Examiner
STRICKLER, SCOTT LAWRENCE
Art Unit
3612
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Great Plains Manufacturing Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
36 granted / 45 resolved
+28.0% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
79
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
60.9%
+20.9% vs TC avg
§102
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 45 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This communication is in response to application No. 18/533,356; Undercarriage Suspension for a Work Machine; filed on 12/08/2023. Claims 1 - 18 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim Objections Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7, line 2 should say "a plurality of the torsion axles," Claim 13, line 3 should say “the loader frame on the ground” Appropriate correction is required. 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. PNG media_image1.png 577 430 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 2018/0178864 A1). Regarding claim 1, Wagner discloses; A loader (construction machine/ track loader 2; paragraph 3, fig. 1) comprising: a loader frame that defines a longitudinal loader axis; (fig. 3 illustrates the loader frame and track systems, arranged along the longitudinal axis of the loader.) a tracked drive assembly that supports the loader frame on ground and is configured to propel the loader over the ground, (fig. 1 and paragraph 62, describe the track drive assembly with track (6), support wheels (9), idler wheel (13) and drive wheel (10) along both sides of the vehicle.) said tracked drive assembly including an endless track (track 6), with upper and lower runs extending longitudinally between forward and aft track margins, (see fig. 1) said tracked drive assembly further including an idler wheel (idler wheel 13, paragraph 63), one or more roller wheels (support wheels 9) spaced longitudinally between the idler wheels, and a torsion axle (track wheel suspension 8; paragraph 62), with the track being entrained on the idler wheels and the one or more roller wheels, (Wagner discloses a single idler wheel, with the drive wheel serving the function of the second idler wheel as seen in fig. 1. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the front idler wheel in the form of a second idler wheel located at the rear of the track, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Additionally, a two idler wheel arrangement, with a drive wheel located above the idler wheels is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See for example Arulraja (US 2009/0321152 A1) which is merely being cited for evidentiary purposes). said idler wheels being supported relative to the loader frame and supporting the track adjacent the forward and aft track margins, (fig. 1 and 2 illustrate the idler wheel 13 and the drive wheel (10) positioned at the forward and raft ends of the track.) said torsion axle (track wheel suspension 8) shiftably supporting a single one of the one or more roller wheels relative to the idler wheels and urging the single roller wheel into rolling engagement with the lower run, with the torsion axle permitting up-and-down movement of at least part of the lower run relative to the idler wheels. (fig. 13 illustrates a single roller wheel and torsion suspension unit which runs in the lower run of the track loop.) Regarding claim 2, Wagner discloses; said torsion axle including an axle mount (bar housing 30; fig. 13, paragraph 77), an elastomeric insert (elastic element 32), and a torsion arm (swing device 12; fig. 13, paragraph 78) that cooperatively define an axle pivot joint, with the torsion arm swingably supported relative to the axle mount by the insert and rotatably supporting the single roller wheel, (figs. 13 and 14 illustrate the pivoting wheel axle about the centerline (B) of the torsion bar (16) as resisted by elastic inserts (32).) said torsion arm and said single roller wheel being biased toward a neutral position by the insert when the torsion arm is rotated out of the neutral position. (figs 13 and 14 illustrate the box shaped housing (30) and the square section bar (16), which along with the elastic inserts (32) bias the wheel / torsion arm towards a central, neutral position when unloaded.) Regarding claim 3, Wagner discloses; said single roller wheel including a roller axle and a roller mounted on the axle, said roller axle being in a trailing position relative to the corresponding axle pivot joint. (figs. 13 and 14 illustrate the wheel (13) rotatably attached to the swinging arm (12) along rotational axis (A) and positioned in a trailing configuration behind the torsion-arm, pivot axis (B). Wagner does not specifically describe an axle, but an axle is a well understood method of attaching a wheel to a swing-arm and would have been well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.) Regarding claim 4, Wagner, fig. 5, illustrates a pair of rollers fixed to the roller axle of the swinging, torsion arm, however, both rollers are on the outside of the torsion arm, rather than on opposite sides of the torsion arm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to rearrange the torsion arm so that it was positioned to mount between the pair of rollers , since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, such a modification would be expected to yield predictable results, and the torsion axle suspension system would continue to urge the rollers into rolling engagement with the lower run, and permit up-and-down movement of at least part of the lower run relative to the idler wheels Regarding claim 5, Wagner discloses; said axle mount including a torsion bar (torsion bar 16) and said torsion arm (swing device 12) presenting an opening to rotatably receive the torsion bar. (fig. 12 and paragraph 78, illustrate the square section torsion bar fitting into a square hole in the torsion arm.) Regarding claim 6, Wagner discloses; said one or more roller wheels (wheel 13) comprising a plurality of roller wheels, each of said plurality of roller wheels being in rolling engagement with the lower run and shiftably supported relative to the idler wheels to permit up-and-down movement of at least part of the lower run relative to the idler wheels. (fig. 1 illustrates two wheels, located between the end idler/drive wheels, and suspended by the torsion bar arrangement to permit up-and-down movement of the lower track.) Regarding claim 7, Wagner discloses; said tracked drive assembly including a plurality of torsion axles (track wheel suspension 8), each of said torsion axles shiftably supporting a respective one of the roller wheels relative to the idler wheels and urging the respective roller wheel into rolling engagement with the lower run, with the torsion axles cooperatively permitting up-and- down movement of at least part of the lower run relative to the idler wheels. (fig. 2 illustrates a side view of the roller wheels with wheel axis (A) which are supported by and the torsion arms and pivot on axis (B). Fig. 13 illustrates axis (A) and axis (B) in relation to the wheel, torsion arm, and torsion bar.) Regarding claim 8, Wagner discloses; each of said torsion axles including an axle mount (bar housing 30; fig. 13, paragraph 77), an elastomeric insert (elastic element 32), and a torsion arm (swing device 12; fig. 13, paragraph 78) that cooperatively define an axle pivot joint, with the torsion arm swingably supported relative to the axle mount by the insert and rotatably supporting a respective one of the plurality of roller wheels, (figs. 13 and 14 illustrate the pivoting wheel axle about the centerline (B) of the torsion bar (16) as resisted by elastic inserts (32).) each of said torsion arms and said plurality of roller wheels being biased toward a neutral position by the corresponding insert when the torsion arm is rotated out of the neutral position. (figs 13 and 14 illustrate the box shaped housing (30) and the square section bar (16), which along with the elastic inserts (32), bias the wheel / torsion arm towards a central, neutral position when unloaded.) Regarding claim 9, Wagner discloses; each of said plurality of roller wheels including a roller axle and a roller mounted on the axle, each of said roller axles being in a trailing position relative to the corresponding axle pivot joint. (figs. 13 and 14 illustrate the wheel (13) rotatably attached to the swinging arm (12) along rotational axis (A) and positioned in a trailing configuration behind the torsion-arm, pivot axis (B). Wagner does not specifically describe an axle, but an axle is a well understood method of attaching a wheel to a swing-arm and would have been well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.) Regarding claim 10, Wagner, fig. 5, illustrates a pair of rollers fixed to the roller axle of the swinging, torsion arm, however, both rollers are on the outside of the torsion arm, rather than on opposite sides of the torsion arm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to rearrange the torsion arm so that it was positioned to mount between the pair of rollers, since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, such a modification would be expected to yield predictable results, and the torsion axle suspension system would continue to urge the rollers into rolling engagement with the lower run, and permit up-and-down movement of at least part of the lower run relative to the idler wheels Regarding claim 11, Wagner discloses; said torsion axle (track wheel suspension 8) including a support arm (swing device 12; fig. 13, paragraph 78) shiftably supported relative to the loader frame, said single roller wheel including a roller axle and a roller mounted on the roller axle to one side of the support arm. (figs. 13 and 14 illustrate the wheel (13) rotatably attached to the swinging arm (12) along rotational axis (A) and positioned to one side of the support arm (12). Wagner does not specifically describe an axle, but an axle is a well understood method of attaching a wheel to a swing-arm and would have been well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.) Regarding claim 12, Wagner, fig. 5, illustrates a pair of rollers fixed to the roller axle of the swinging, torsion arm, however, both rollers are on the outside of the torsion arm, rather than on opposite sides of the torsion arm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to rearrange the torsion arm so that it was positioned to mount between the pair of rollers, since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, such a modification would be expected to yield predictable results, and the torsion axle suspension system would continue to urge the rollers into rolling engagement with the lower run, and permit up-and-down movement of at least part of the lower run relative to the idler wheels Regarding claim 13, Wagner discloses; A loader (construction machine/ track loader 2; paragraph 3, fig. 1) comprising: a loader frame that defines a longitudinal loader axis; (fig. 3 illustrates the loader frame and track systems, arranged along the longitudinal axis of the loader.) a tracked drive assembly that supports the loader frame on ground and is configured to propel the loader over the ground, (fig. 1 and paragraph 62, describe the track drive assembly with track (6), support wheels (9), idler wheel (13) and drive wheel (10) along both sides of the vehicle.) said tracked drive assembly including an endless track (track 6), with upper and lower runs extending longitudinally between forward and aft track margins, (see fig. 1) said tracked drive assembly further including roller wheels (support wheels 9) spaced longitudinally along the loader axis, and torsion axles (track wheel suspension 8; paragraph 62), with the track being entrained on the roller wheels, (Fig. 1 illustrates the roller wheels along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, with the wheel axes (A), and the track (6) entrained on the wheels. ) each of said torsion axles shiftably supporting a respective one of the roller wheels relative to the loader frame and urging the respective roller wheel into rolling engagement with the lower run, with the torsion axles cooperatively permitting up-and- down movement of at least part of the lower run relative to the loader frame. (Fig. 2 illustrates the pivot axes (B) of the torsion suspension system urging the roller wheels into the lower track while permitting up-and-down movement of the wheels and track.) Regarding claim 14, Wagner discloses; each of said torsion axles including an axle mount (bar housing 30; fig. 13, paragraph 77), an elastomeric insert (elastic element 32), and a torsion arm (swing device 12; fig. 13, paragraph 78) that cooperatively define an axle pivot joint, with the torsion arm swingably supported relative to the axle mount by the insert and rotatably supporting a respective roller wheels, (figs. 13 and 14 illustrate the pivoting wheel axle about the centerline (B) of the torsion bar (16) as resisted by elastic inserts (32).) each of said torsion arms and respective roller wheels being biased toward a neutral position by the corresponding insert when the torsion arm is rotated out of the neutral position. (figs 13 and 14 illustrate the box shaped housing (30) and the square section bar (16), which along with the elastic inserts (32), bias the wheel / torsion arm towards a central, neutral position when unloaded.) Regarding claim 15, Wagner discloses; each of said roller wheels including a roller axle and a roller mounted on the axle, each of said roller axles being in a trailing position relative to the corresponding axle pivot joint. (figs. 13 and 14 illustrate the wheel (13) rotatably attached to the swinging arm (12) along rotational axis (A) and positioned in a trailing configuration behind the torsion-arm, pivot axis (B). Wagner does not specifically describe an axle, but an axle is a well understood method of attaching a wheel to a swing-arm and would have been well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.) Regarding claim 16, Wagner, fig. 5, illustrates a pair of rollers fixed to the roller axle of the swinging, torsion arm, however, both rollers are on the outside of the torsion arm, rather than on opposite sides of the torsion arm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to rearrange the torsion arm so that it was positioned to mount between the pair of rollers, since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, such a modification would be expected to yield predictable results, and the torsion axle suspension system would continue to urge the rollers into rolling engagement with the lower run, and permit up-and-down movement of at least part of the lower run relative to the idler wheels Regarding claim 17, Wagner discloses; each of said torsion axles (track wheel suspension 8) including a support arm (swing device 12; fig. 13, paragraph 78) shiftably supported relative to the loader frame, each of said roller wheels including a roller axle and a roller mounted on the roller axle to one side of the support arm. (figs. 13 and 14 illustrate the wheel (13) rotatably attached to the swinging arm (12) along rotational axis (A) and positioned to one side of the support arm (12). Wagner does not specifically describe an axle, but an axle is a well understood method of attaching a wheel to a swing-arm and would have been well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.) Regarding claim 18, Wagner, fig. 5, illustrates a pair of rollers fixed to the roller axle of the swinging, torsion arm, however, both rollers are on the outside of the torsion arm, rather than on opposite sides of the torsion arm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to rearrange the torsion arm so that it was positioned to mount between the pair of rollers, since it has been held that, absent any showing of unexpected results, rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, such a modification would be expected to yield predictable results, and the torsion axle suspension system would continue to urge the rollers into rolling engagement with the lower run, and permit up-and-down movement of at least part of the lower run relative to the idler wheels Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Arulraja (US 2009/0321152) describes a track arrangement with a second idler wheel, at the aft end of the track, with the drive wheel located above. The track frame is suspended by a swing-arm arrangement supported by elastomeric inserts. Tuhy (US 7,552,785 B2) describes a track arrangement with individually suspended roller wheels, but the suspension takes the form of a bending beam (leaf spring) rather than a torsion bar with elastomeric inserts. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER whose telephone number is (703)756-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9:30am to 5:30pm. 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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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. /SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3614 /JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 08, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594991
CRAWLER-TYPE WORK MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594996
VEHICLE FRONT STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576685
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE SUSPENSION WITH USER CONTROLLED PNEUMATIC ASSIST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570357
Method for Influencing a Movement of a Steering Control Element of a Steer-by-Wire Steering System in a Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568880
RIDING LAWN MOWER, DISPLAY INTERFACE OF A POWER TOOL AND RIDING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.6%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 45 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month