DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 3 recites the limitation “with rollers” which should be changed to “with the rollers”.
Claim 15, line 2 recites the limitation “the roller axle” which should be changed to “a corresponding roller axle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5 and 14 are 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 5, line 4 recites the limitation “the bar”, however, it is unclear whether “the bar” refers to the “radially extending bar” or the “torsion bar”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "each of said roller axles” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the corresponding axle pivot joint” in lines 2 – 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 6 – 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 – 18 of copending Application No. 18/533,356 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application No. 18/533,356 recites all of the required claim structure and limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
(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.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Allen (US 2,779,636 A).
For claim 1, Alen discloses a loader (vehicle) comprising:
a loader frame 10 that defines a longitudinal loader axis; and
a tracked drive assembly (fig. 1) that supports the loader frame on ground and is configured to propel the loader over the ground] (col. 2, lines 60 – 64, via rear driving sprockets 14),
said tracked drive assembly including an endless track 12, [with upper and lower runs extending longitudinally between forward and aft track margins] (fig. 1),
said tracked drive assembly further including a roller wheel 11 [entrained by the track and a support arm 17 [that shiftably supports the roller wheel] (col. 2, lines 65 – 69),
[said roller wheel being in rolling engagement with the lower run] (fig. 1) and [shiftably supported relative to the loader frame to permit up-and-down movement of at least part of the lower run relative to the loader frame] (col. 2, lines 65 – 69),
said roller wheel including a roller axle 18 [mounted on the support arm] (fig. 1, col. 2, lines 69 – 72), and a pair of rollers 11 [fixed to the roller axle on opposite sides of the support arm] (fig. 1) [so that the roller axle and rollers are rotatable with one another] (col. 2, line 72).
For claim 2, Allen discloses the loader said roller axle and each of said rollers including [complemental male and female elements that engage one another to restrict relative rotation between the roller axle and the rollers] (fig. 3).
For claim 3, Allen discloses the loader said tracked drive assembly including a bearing 19 [that rotatably supports the roller wheel relative to the support arm] (col. 3, lines 17 – 19).
For claim 4, Allen discloses the loader said support arm including a radially extending bar 26, 27 and a sleeve 29 [mounted at a distal end of the bar] (col. 3, lines 17 – 18) [to operably receive the bearing and the roller axle] (col. 3, line 19), [with rollers located at opposite ends of the sleeve] (fig. 3).
For claim 5, Allen discloses the loader said tracked drive assembly including a torsion bar 34 [that supports the support arm] (fig. 3), said support arm including a housing 32 [mounted at a proximal end of the bar] (figs. 2 and 3) and [presenting an opening to rotatably receive the torsion bar] (figs. 4 and 5).
For claim 6, Allen discloses the loader [said support arm being shiftably supported relative to the loader frame] (col. 3, lines 2 – 6).
For claim 7, Allen discloses the loader said tracked drive assembly including a torsion axle 17, 30, 36, 37 which includes the support arm, [said torsion axle shiftably urging the roller wheel into rolling engagement with the lower run and permitting up-and-down movement of at least part of the lower run relative to the loader frame] (col. 4, lines 40 – 52).
For claim 8, Allen discloses the loader, said torsion axle including an axle mount 30 and an elastomeric insert 36 that cooperate with the support arm to define an axle pivot joint 22, 23, 24, 25 [with the support arm swingably supported relative to the axle mount by the insert and rotatably supporting the roller wheel] (figs. 2 and 3), [said support arm and roller wheel being biased toward a neutral position by the insert when the support arm is rotated out of the neutral position] (col. 4, lines 8 – 13).
For claim 9, Allen discloses the loader [each of said roller axles being in a trailing position relative to the corresponding axle pivot joint] (fig. 2, wherein the roller axles are in a trailing position relative to some of the pivot joints).
For claim 10, Allen discloses the loader said axle mount including a torsion bar 34 and [said support arm presenting an opening to rotatably receive the torsion bar] (fig. 3).
For claim 11, Allen discloses the loader said tracked drive assembly including a plurality of roller wheels 11 including the first-mentioned roller wheel, [each of said roller wheels being in rolling engagement with the lower run] (fig. 1) and [shiftably supported relative to the loader frame to permit up-and-down movement of at least part of the lower run relative to the loader frame] (col. 2, lines 65 – 69).
For claim 12, Allen discloses the loader said tracked drive assembly including a plurality of torsion axles 17, 30, 36, 37, which includes a respective support arm 17, [each of said torsion axles shiftably urging a respective roller wheel into rolling engagement with the lower run and permitting up-and-down movement of at least part of the lower run relative to the loader frame] (col. 4, lines 40 – 52).
For claim 13, Allen discloses the loader each of said torsion axles including an axle mount 30 and an elastomeric insert 36 that cooperate with a respective support arm to cooperatively define an axle pivot joint 22, 23, 24, 25, [with the support arm swingably supported relative to the axle mount by the insert and rotatably supporting a respective roller wheel] (figs. 2 and 3), [each of said support arms and roller wheels being biased toward a neutral position by the corresponding insert when the support arm is rotated out of the neutral position] (col. 4, lines 8 – 13).
For claim 14, Allen discloses the loader [each of said roller axles being in a trailing position relative to the corresponding axle pivot joint] (fig. 2, wherein the roller axles are in a trailing position relative to some of the pivot joints).
For claim 15, Allen discloses the loader each of said roller wheels including a pair of rollers 11 [fixed to the roller axle on opposite sides of the support arm] (fig. 3).
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.
Claims 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 2,779,636 A) in view of Lewis et al. (US 2021/0221454 A1).
For claim 16, Allen does not explicitly disclose the loader said tracked drive assembly further including forward and aft idler wheels, with the roller wheel spaced longitudinally between the idler wheels, and the track being entrained on the idler wheels and roller wheel.
Lewis et al. discloses track system comprising a continuous track 26; a pair of idler wheels 48, 50 are mounted at a front and rear of a carriage assembly; one or more sub-assemblies or bogies 54] (page 3, paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the forward and rear idler wheels of Lewis et al. with the rollers of Allen with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved tensioning of the track and shock absorption, thus improving overall traversing of the vehicle.
For claim 17, Allen modified as above discloses the loader [said roller wheel being in rolling engagement with the lower run] (fig. 1) 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] (col. 2, lines 65 – 69),
For claim 18, Allen modified as above discloses the loader [at least one of said idler wheels being rigidly mounted relative to the loader frame and supporting the track adjacent a respective one of the forward and aft track margins] (page 3, paragraph [0037] of Lewis et al., “any combination of the idler wheels, road wheels, and bogies can be fixed and/or can be provided with suspension for traversing terrain”).
For claim 19, Allen modified as above discloses the loader [at least one of said idler wheels being shiftably mounted relative to the loader frame and operating as a tensioner to support the track adjacent a respective one of the forward and aft track margins] (page 3, paragraph [0037] of Lewis et al., “any combination of the idler wheels, road wheels, and bogies can be fixed and/or can be provided with suspension for traversing terrain”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20180178865; US-20090321152 – comprising a track; roller wheel, and support arm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacob D. Knutson whose telephone number is (571)270-5576. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)-272-6265. 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.
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611