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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “58” and “72” have been used interchangeably.
On fig. 2, reference character “58” points to the second tooth set, while on fig. 3 it points to the first tooth set.
On fig. 2 & fig. 6, reference character “72” points to the first tooth set.
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. 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.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The fore-aft direction of claims 1, 8 and 11-12 must be shown in the figures or the features canceled from the claims. The fore and aft of the link must be indicated in the drawings. No new matter should be entered.
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 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the omitted structural cooperative relationships are: The clamping surface is stated to slope by: “a first clamping surface including a descending slope, an ascending slope extending to a vertically-facing link surface”. However, the direction of the slope is not clearly indicated, since it doesn’t say which vertically facing link surface.
Regarding claims 1 and 11-12, the omitted structural cooperative relationships are: The claims set forth the limitation “spaced fore-aft” for the location of the first tooth set, to the inboard-outboard bore. However, the direction of fore and aft of the link are not shown in the drawings. So, the first tooth set could be both “fore” and “aft” of the bore.
Regarding claim 8, the omitted structural cooperative relationship is: “the slope gradient transition is located rearward of the first inboard-outboard bore.” However, the location of the fore and aft of the link are not shown in the drawings.
Regarding claim 11, the omitted structural cooperative relationship is: “a clamping surface extending vertically between the shoe-side surface and the rail surface”, is unclear. The direction of the “extending vertically” defines slope direction. However, the claim does not state the origin of the extension, so the slope could be either up or down vertically.
The terms “larger” and “smaller” in claim 3 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “larger” and “smaller” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No datum or comparison point is provided in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (Grilli et al. US4365848A) herein after Grilli.
Per claim 1, Grilli discloses a master link (1) for a track including a first half link (1a) with a first link strap having a first inboard-outboard bore (3a) therein. A first clamping surface (2) includes a descending slope (10) and an ascending slope (10) extending to a vertically-facing link surface (14). A first tooth set is spaced “fore-aft” (inasmuch as the Applicant’s invention) from the first bore (3a), and arranged between the descending and ascending slopes (10). The ascending slope (10) includes a link lateral thickness transition and a slope gradient transition. The slope gradient transition is “spaced fore-aft” (inasmuch as the Applicant’s invention) between the link lateral thickness transition and the center axis of the bore (3a). A second half link (1b) has a second link strap with a second inboard-outboard bore (3b) formed therein. the second half link (1b) includes a second clamping surface (2) shaped complementary to the first clamping surface (2).
(Fig 1, and below).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Grilli discloses the master link of claim 1, and the link lateral thickness transition connects between a link lateral surface, and a strap lateral surface extending planarly around the first inboard-outboard bore (Column 3, line 22).
Regarding claim 8, Grilli discloses the master link of claim 1. And, the slope gradient transition (fig. 1, see callout above) is located rearward of the first inboard-outboard bore (3a).
Regarding claim 9, Grilli discloses the master link of claim 1. Also, the clamping surface (2) includes a descending slope (10) and an ascending slope (2), and the second tooth set (8) includes a leading tooth root (9) defined by a leading tooth (12) and the respective descending slope (2).
Claim 11,14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (US4457565A Bissi et al.) herein after Bissi.
Regarding claim 11, Bissi discloses, A half link (12) for a master link comprising: a link body including a (15) shoe-side surface (19) and a rail surface (18) opposite the shoe-side surface, a clamping surface (13) extending vertically between the shoe-side surface and the rail surface and fore-aft between a link body end and a link strap (16) having an inboard-outboard bore formed therein; the clamping surface including a descending slope(13’), an ascending slope(13’), and a tooth set (13”) arranged between the descending slope (13’) and the ascending slope (13’); the ascending slope (13’) having a varied width (fig. 2, below) forming a link lateral thickness transition (call out below), and a varied gradient forming a slope gradient transition (fig. 1 below); and the link lateral thickness transition defines a first stress concentration location, and the slope gradient transition (13) defines a second stress concentration location and is spaced from the link lateral thickness transition (fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
207
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Bissi discloses the half link of claim 11, and the ascending slope (13’) includes an upper slope (13) extending curvilinearly between the slope gradient transition and the rail surface, and a lower slope (13’)(Fig 1, see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
257
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Bissi discloses the half link of claim 11, and a (22) single tooth (see fig. 1 above), which is included in the group three or fewer teeth, since three or fewer is 3 or 2 or 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilli as applied to claims 1 and 7-9, and further in view of (US12037064B2 Weisbruch et al.) herein after Weisbruch.
Regarding claim 2, Grilli discloses the master link of claim 1. Grilli fails to disclose, “a first bolt hole extends through the ascending slope and the second clamping surface, and a second bolt hole extends through the descending slope.” And “first tooth set includes a total of three full teeth or less confined in distribution between the first bolt hole and the second bolt hole.”
However, Weisbruch teaches a “first tooth set 70 and second tooth set 72 are confined in distribution between first bolt hole 78 and second bolt hole 80. “Confined in distribution” means that bolt holes 78 and 82 do not intersect teeth or tooth roots of either of first tooth set 70 or second tooth set 72,” (Column 3, line 61). Also, “the first clamping surface and the second clamping surface slope fore and aft (ascending and descending slope) between first transverse bore 66 and second transverse bore 92.” (detailed description, line 44). “a first half link having a first outside surface, and a first inside clamping surface forming a first tooth set” (claim 9). This describes the location of the bolt holes on the slope of the clamping surface, outside of the teeth (ascending, descending slope). “A total of five or fewer (three full teeth or less fall in the category of 5 or fewer) in each respective tooth set” (Column 4, line 2).
Grilli and Weisbruch are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, master links. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of 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 link of Grilli with the bolt holes, and teeth of Weisbruch, for the purpose of preventing weakened areas of the teeth due to impingement of the bolt holes thereon; and furthermore, an obvious multiplication of the number of full teeth, thus increasing the contact area of the link halves.
Regarding claim 3, Grilli discloses the master link of claim 1. Grilli also shows, the vertically-facing link surface (15) includes a track rail surface (15) facing a first vertical direction, and the descending slope (10) extends to a shoe-side surface (14) facing a second vertical direction the first inboard-outboard bore (3a) includes a bushing bore defining a larger inner diameter dimension, and the second inboard-outboard bore (3b) includes a pin bore defining a smaller inner diameter dimension of claim 3. Grilli fails to disclose, the master link of claim 2. However, Weisbruch teaches the limitations of the master link of claim 2. Refer to item 12 above.
Claims 4 and 5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilli as applied to claims 1 and 7-9, and further in view of Bissi.
Regarding claim 4, Grilli discloses the master link of claim 1. Grilli fails to disclose, “slope gradient transition connects between a linearly extending lower slope, and a curvilinearly extending upper slope.” However, Bissi teaches a “end (curvilinear extending upper slope) portions, two oblique (linearly extending lower slope) portions extending in two imaginary parallel planes, said end portions merging (slope gradient transition connects) into respective oblique portions” (Column 3, line 16). Also: (Fig 1, see below)
PNG
media_image4.png
320
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Grilli discloses the master link of claim 1. Grilli fails to teach, the slope gradient transition of claim 4, and the line tangent to the upper slope at the intersection is oriented normal to the vertically-facing link surface. However, Bissi teaches the slope gradient transition of claim 4 and “includes two substantially vertical (upper slope at the intersection is oriented normal to the vertically-facing link surface.) end portions 13” ((Column 3, line 14). Also:(Fig 1, and above)).
Grilli and Bissi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, master links. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of 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 link of Grilli with the slope transition and vertical interface of Bissi, for the purpose of reducing stress concentration at this contact region.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grilli as applied to claims 1 and 7-9, and further in view of (US20080174175A1 Livesay et al.) herein after Livesay.
Regarding claim 10, Grilli teaches the master link of claim 1. Grilli fails to teach, the leading tooth root defines a concave profile and the respective descending slope defines a linear profile directly connected to the concave profile. Livesay teaches, “a sinusoidal segment defined by a tooth (42) and an adjacent recess (root) (40) adjoining the first and second slopes, respectively.” (Paragraph 0024, line 7). Grilli and Livesay are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, master links. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of 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 link of Grilli with the concave tooth root leading to a linear profile on the slope of Livesay, for the purpose of separating the stress concentration locations.
Claims 12, 13, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissi as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Grilli.
Regarding claim 12, Bissi discloses the half link of claim 11, however Bissi does not teach a slope gradient transition spaced both fore-aft and vertically from the link lateral thickness transition. However, Grilli teaches a slope gradient transition (17) is spaced both fore-aft and vertically from the link lateral thickness transition. (Fig 1, and below).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bissi and Grilli are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, master links. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of 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 link of Bissi with the slope gradient transition location of Grilli, so that the stress concentration locations are separated.
Regarding claim 13, Bissi discloses the half link of claim 11, however Bissi does not teach claim 12. However, Grilli teaches claim 12, as well as the slope gradient transition is located rearward of the inboard-outboard bore (Fig 1, and below).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bissi and Grilli are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, master links. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of 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 link of Bissi with the slope gradient transition location of Grilli, so that the stress concentration locations are separated.
Regarding claim 15, Bissi discloses the half link of claim 11, however Bissi does not teach claim 12. However, Grilli teaches claim 12, and the link lateral thickness transition (fig 5, see below) is within the lower slope (10) and includes a flattening transition (fig 5, see below), and the slope gradient transition (17) includes a steepening transition.
PNG
media_image5.png
170
331
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Bissi and Grilli are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, master links. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of 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 link of Bissi with the slope gradient transition location of Grilli, so that the stress concentration locations are not overlapping, to prevent compound loads.
Claims 17-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisbruch, in further view of Grilli.
Regarding claim 17, Weisbruch discloses a track link assembly (Column 6, line 51) comprising: a plurality of track links coupled together end-to-end to form a track chain (Column 6, line 52). and including a master link having a first half link and a second half link; the first half link including a first clamping surface (Column 6, line 55) having a first tooth set, and the second half link including a second clamping surface having a second tooth set; the first clamping surface (Column 7, line 18). Weisbruch fails to disclose, a descending slope extending between the first tooth set and a first vertically-facing link surface, and an ascending slope extending between the first tooth set and a second vertically-facing link surface; and the first clamping surface further including a link lateral width transition, and a slope gradient transition spaced from the link lateral width transition. However, Grilli teaches, a descending slope extending between the first tooth set and a first vertically-facing link surface (8). Grilli further teaches, an ascending slope extending between the first tooth set and a second vertically-facing link surface (8). Also, first clamping surface further including a link lateral width transition, and a slope gradient transition spaced from the link lateral width transition (Fig 1, and below).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of 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 track link assembly of Weisbruch with the slope gradient transition location of Grilli, so that the stress concentration locations are not overlapping, to prevent compound loads.
Regarding claim 18, Weisbruch in further view of Grilli teach the track link assembly of claim 17. Furthermore, Grilli teaches a linearly extending lower slope (10) between the first tooth set and the slope gradient transition (17) of claim 18. Also, the link lateral thickness transition is within the linearly extending lower slope (Fig 1, and above) of claim 18. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of 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 track link assembly of Weisbruch with the slope gradient transition location of Grilli, so that the stress concentration locations are not overlapping, to prevent compound loads.
Regarding claim 19, Weisbruch and Grilli teach the track link assembly of claim 17 and 18. Weisbruch and Grilli fail to teach the upper slope includes a curvilinearly extending upper slope, and the slope gradient transition connects between the linearly extending lower slope and the curvilinearly extending upper slope. However, Bissi teaches the upper slope (13’) includes a curvilinearly extending upper slope (13), and the slope gradient transition (see callout) connects between the linearly extending lower slope (13) and the curvilinearly extending upper slope (13’).
PNG
media_image6.png
334
511
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of 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 track link assembly of Weisbruch with the slope gradient transition location of Grilli, so that the stress concentration locations are not overlapping, to prevent compound loads.
Claim 20, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisbruch, in view of Grilli, and further in view of Livesay.
Regarding claim 20, Weisbruch as modified by Grilli teaches the track link assembly of claim 17. Weisbruch further discloses, the second clamping surface includes a descending slope (60) and an ascending slope (54), and the second tooth set (72) includes a total of three full teeth or less (paragraph 0013, line 20). Weisbruch and Grilli fail to disclose, a leading tooth, and a leading tooth root defined between the leading tooth and the respective descending slope, and wherein the leading tooth root defines a concave profile and the respective descending slope defines a linear profile directly connected to the concave profile.
However, Livesay teaches, a leading tooth (42), and a leading tooth root (41) defined between the leading tooth (42) and the respective descending slope (50a), and wherein the leading tooth root (41) defines a concave profile (fig 2 below) and the respective descending slope (50a) defines a linear profile directly connected to the concave profile(41).
PNG
media_image7.png
518
512
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of 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 track link assembly of Weisbruch with the slope gradient transition location of Grilli, so that the stress concentration locations are not overlapping, to prevent compound loads.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-4579394-A, teaches a master link with teeth and a clamping surface.
US-7614709-B2, teaches a tapered master link with a curvilinear upper slope.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD BINNS whose telephone number is (571)272-9456. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 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 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.
/HOWARD PATRICK BINNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights