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 with an amendment filed on 06/09/2026. Claims 1 - 18 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1 - 18 have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 7 and 13 to correct informalities, therefore objections related to these claims within the office action dated 02/09/2026 have been removed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-8, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tuhy (US 7,552,785).
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 13 to clarify a track frame which is secured to a side of the vehicle, fore and aft idler wheels directly secured to front and aft ends of the track frame, and roller wheels secured to the track frame by torsion axles. Primary reference Wagner includes a track assembly with roller wheels suspended by torsion axles, but without a track frame. Secondary reference Tuhy describes a track frame secured to the side of the loader vehicle with fore and aft idler wheels secured to the track frame. Tuhy describes roller wheels suspended from the track frame through a leaf spring, trailing arm arrangement, but it would have been an obvious modification to utilize the torsion axle described by Wagner in place to the leaf springs.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 2018/0178864 A1) in view of Tuhy (US 7,552,785).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 torsion axle (track wheel suspension 8) shiftably supporting the 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.)
PNG
media_image2.png
444
819
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wagner discloses a track frame secured to a side of the loader frame, but the track frame mounting assembly provides for a suspension of the vehicle frame in relation to the track frame. Wagner also does not disclose the forward and aft idler wheels as directly secured to the track frame or the roller wheels being secured to the track frame. However, Tuhy teaches;
said tracked drive assembly comprising a track frame (track frame 75; fig. 4, col. 3, lines 4-14) secured to a side of the loader frame, (Fig. 4 and col. 4, lines 14-30, describe the track frame as rigidly mounted to the vehicle body by brackets 190.)
said forward (idler 90) and aft (idler 95) idler wheels being directly secured to front and aft ends, respectively, of said track frame and supporting the track adjacent the forward and aft track margins, (Figs. 4-5 and col. 4, lines 14-30, describe the idlers as secured to the front and aft ends of the track frame. The aft idler is fixed, while the forward idler can move in a horizontal direction only.)
a single one of the one or more roller wheels being secured to said track frame via said torsion axle, (Fig. 5 of Tuhy illustrates the roller wheels as suspended from the track frame through a leaf spring arrangement. The modification of Wagner, under the teaching of Tuhy would apply the torsion, roller wheel suspension to the track frame and result in a track frame secured to the side of the loader frame, with fore and aft idler wheels and rollers suspended from the frame by a torsion axle.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wagner to include a track frame secured to a side of the loader frame, forward and aft idler wheels secured to the track frame, and roller wheels attached to the track frame, as taught by Tuhy, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to a suspension system for a tracked vehicle. As disclosed by Tuhy, it is well known for tracked vehicle suspension to include a track frame secured to a side of the loader frame, forward and aft idler wheels secured to the track frame, and roller wheels attached to the track frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wagner to include a track frame secured to a side of the loader frame, forward and aft idler wheels secured to the track frame, and roller wheels attached to the track frame, as taught by Tuhy, as such a modification would, under normal conditions, support the weight of the vehicle on the roller wheels while, under select conditions, supporting some of the weight on the idlers, in order to rigidify the track suspension. (Col. 1, lines 11-22).
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 the 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 the 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.)
Wagner discloses a track frame secured to a side of the loader frame, but the track frame mounting assembly provides for a suspension of the vehicle frame in relation to the track frame. Wagner also does not disclose the forward and aft idler wheels as directly secured to the track frame or the roller wheels being secured to the track frame. However, Tuhy teaches;
said tracked drive assembly comprising a track frame (track frame 75; fig. 4, col. 3, lines 4-14, Tuhy) secured to a side of the loader frame, (Fig. 4 and col. 4, lines 14-30, describe the track frame as rigidly mounted to the vehicle body by brackets 190.)
said tracked drive assembly further including forward (idler 90; fig. 4, Tuhy) and aft (idler 95) idler wheels, roller wheels (roller 110) spaced longitudinally between the idle wheels along the loader axis, and torsion axles, with the track being entrained on the idler wheels and the roller wheels, (The modification of Wagner under the teaching of Tuhy would suspend the roller wheels from torsion axles.)
said forward (idler 90) and aft (idler 95) idler wheels being directly secured to front and aft ends, respectively, of said track frame and supporting the track adjacent the forward and aft track margins, (Figs. 4-5 and col. 4, lines 14-30, describe the idlers as secured to the front and aft ends of the track frame. The aft idler is fixed, while the forward idler can move in a horizontal direction only.)
the roller wheels being secured to said track frame via said torsion axle, (Fig. 5 of Tuhy illustrates the roller wheels as suspended from the track frame through a leaf spring arrangement. The modification of Wagner, under the teaching of Tuhy would apply the torsion, roller wheel suspension to the track frame and result in a track frame secured to the side of the loader frame, with fore and aft idler wheels and rollers suspended from the frame by a torsion axle.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Wagner to include a track frame secured to a side of the loader frame, forward and aft idler wheels secured to the track frame, and roller wheels attached to the track frame, as taught by Tuhy, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to a suspension system for a tracked vehicle. As disclosed by Tuhy, it is well known for tracked vehicle suspension to include a track frame secured to a side of the loader frame, forward and aft idler wheels secured to the track frame, and roller wheels attached to the track frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wagner to include a track frame secured to a side of the loader frame, forward and aft idler wheels secured to the track frame, and roller wheels attached to the track frame, as taught by Tuhy, as such a modification would, under normal conditions, support the weight of the vehicle on the roller wheels while, under select conditions, supporting some of the weight on the idlers, in order to rigidify the track suspension. (Col. 1, lines 11-22).
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.
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 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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 3612
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights