DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
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 ‘track system’, ‘rollers’, ‘ground engaging wheels’ and ‘vehicle’ in claim 1; ‘heim joint’ and ‘anti-rotation arm’ in claim 2; the ‘caliper bolt holes’ in claim 3; the ‘track system’, ‘rollers’, ‘ground engaging wheels’, ‘vehicle’ and ‘caliper bolt holes’ in claim 4; ‘heim joint’ and ‘anti-rotation arm’ in claim 5; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show how the bracket is installed in relation to the other described and claimed features of the utility vehicle (the drawings fail to show any of the elements that the bracket is connected to; caliper, heim joint, anti-rotation arm, track system etc as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: “helm” should be “heim” and “configured stabilize” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kohler et al. (US 2025/0304162).
With respect to claim 1, Kohler et al. discloses an apparatus comprising: a track system (100) having a track configured to rotate on rollers (140A-140C); a knuckle bracket (253) coupled to the track system (through elements 230, 235, 255) and configured to mount to caliper bolt holes (holes element 252A extend through) that support mounting of ground engaging wheels (210) of a vehicle. (Figs. 8, 15-18, paragraphs 143-150.)
With respect to claim 4, Kohler et al. discloses a system comprising: a vehicle having caliper bolt holes (holes element 252A extend through) that support mounting of ground engaging wheels (210); a track system (100) having a track configured to rotate on rollers (140A-140C); and a knuckle bracket (253) configured to mount to caliper bolt holes (holes element 252A extend through). (Figs. 8, 15-18, paragraphs 143-150.)
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohler et al. in view of Gee et al. (GB 2 397 811 A).
With respect to claims 2 and 5, Kohler et al. discloses the knuckle bracket includes an anti-rotation arm (258; paragraph 150) configured stabilize the track system during movement of the track but is silent regarding a heim joint. Gee et al. teaches of using heim joints (elements 7, 9, 13 or 15) configured to stabilize the track system during movement of the track (claim 1). (Figs. 3-4, pages 7-8.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Gee et al. into the invention of Kohler et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an improved and integrated means for transmitting steering movement to at least one wheel of a motor vehicle that is movable longitudinally and laterally of the vehicle, such movement being controlled by elements which also constitute part of the suspension of the wheel. (Page 2, lines 11-16.)
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohler et al. in view of Johnston et al. (US 2,002,474).
With respect to claims 3 and 6, Kohler et al. discloses the knuckle bracket (230, 235, 255, 253) is configured to mount with the caliper bolt holes (holes element 252A extend through) but does not specifically show a flush mounting. Wager teaches as a general proposition to mount elements (38, 50) flush with one another. (Figs. 1, 4, page 2.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Johnston et al. into the invention of Kohler et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide improved and sturdy connection. (Page 1, col. 1, lines 5-14.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614