DETAILED ACTION
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 1-3, 7-16 and 18-24 of this application are subject to examination.
Claim Construction in Examination
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Examiner’s Claim Construction
The following claim limitations are construed by the examiner to aid in examination:
Claim Limitation:
locking device that functions to selectively lock or release movement of the ball head spindle (claim 1), or that functions to selectively engage the blocking spindle to prevent movement of the ball head spindle in the longitudinal direction (claims 22 and 24)
Examiner’s Construction:
a clutch or brake that selectively fixes and locks the blocking spindle so as to selectively fix and release the ball head spindle, and art-recognized equivalents of such a clutch or brake
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “device” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
The corresponding structure identified in the specification is a clutch or brake that selectively fixes and locks the blocking spindle so as to selectively fix and release the ball head spindle. In preferred embodiments, the corresponding structure is a hydraulically-released, spring-loaded dog clutch (shown in Fig. 4) or multi-disc brake (not shown).
Claim Limitation:
supply unit that functions to supply at least one of hydraulic or electric energy (claim 13), or energy supply unit that functions to selectively supply an energy to the ball head spindle to extend or retract the ball head spindle in the longitudinal direction relative to the spindle housing (claim 22), or energy supply unit that functions to selectively supply an energy to the blocking spindle to extend or retract the ball head spindle in the longitudinal direction relative to the spindle housing (claim 24)
Examiner’s Construction:
a hydraulic or electric energy supply unit of unknown/unspecified structure that applies hydraulic energy (hydraulic pressurization) or electrical energy to the ball head spindle to hydraulically or electrically retract and extend the ball head spindle
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “unit” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claim does not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, “supply unit” is synonymous with “means for supplying”.
The corresponding structure identified in the specification is a hydraulic or electric energy supply unit having a hydraulic or electric connection to supply hydraulic or electrical energy to the track tensioner. Nothing more is disclosed concerning the corresponding structure. Rather, the specification discusses only the following functions to be performed:
Applying hydraulic energy (hydraulic pressurization) or electrical energy to the ball head spindle to hydraulically or electrically retract and extend the ball head spindle to change the track tension.
Supplying reduced energy to reduce track tension and supplying increased energy to increase track tension, with the energy being supplied in correspondence with control variables supplied by a control unit.
Providing the required energy to the track tensioner only for the tensioning process itself, with the energy supply terminated after a change in track tension is carried out.
Applying energy on the clutch piston (in conjunction with applying energy on the ball head spindle) to cause the clutch piston to be released from positive connection with the dog clutch against the force of the return spring before retracting or extending the ball head spindle.
Reducing energy to the clutch piston so that the force of the return spring brings the clutch piston into engagement with the dog clutch, and then switching off the supply of energy to switch the track tensioner force free.
Claim Limitation:
electric open-loop and closed-loop control unit (claim 14)
Examiner’s Construction:
an electric open-loop control unit or an electric closed-loop control unit of unknown/unspecified structure
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “unit” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. While “electric open-loop” and “electric…closed-loop” identify broad classes of control systems, the claim does not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, “control unit” is synonymous with “means for controlling”.
The corresponding structure identified in the specification is an open-loop and closed-loop control unit that relies on P-control behavior, I-control action, or PI-control action. The specification’s use of “open-loop and closed-loop” is not understood since it is well settled that open-loop control systems are distinct from closed-loop control systems. Further, the specification fails to define the terms P-control behavior, I-control action, and PI-control action. Nothing more is disclosed concerning the corresponding structure. Rather, the specification discusses only the following functions to be performed:
Converting track tension setpoints (set using an operating unit) into corresponding control variables used to change the energy supplied by the energy supply unit in proportion to the setpoints.
Receiving feedback from track tension sensors or measurement devices.
Claim Limitation:
operating unit (claims 15 and 23)
Examiner’s Construction:
an operating unit of unknown/unspecified structure
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “unit” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claim does not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, “operating unit” is synonymous with “means for operating”.
The corresponding structure identified in the specification is an operating unit. Nothing more is disclosed concerning the corresponding structure. Rather, the specification discusses only the following functions to be performed:
Allowing a driver (operator) to specify desired track tensions.
Using the driver’s desired track tensions to generating track tension setpoints for use by the electric control unit.
Objection to Amendment – New Matter
The instant application is the national stage of International Application No. PCT/EP2022/069072. Thus, the “original disclosure” is the disclosure of International Application No. PCT/EP2022/069072 as filed on February 15, 2022.
The amendment filed on November 30, 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the original disclosure. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The specification has been amended to include a new first paragraph, which (i) sets forth applicant’s priority claim to International Application No. PCT/EP2022/069072 and German Application No. 10 2021 120 647.2, and (ii) concludes with the statement “the contents of both applications are incorporated herein by reference in the entirety for all purposes”. This constitutes new matter because the original disclosure did not incorporate by reference the entirety of each of International Application No. PCT/EP2022/069072 and German Application No. 10 2021 120 647.2.
The last sentence of the abstract has been amended to read “An operating unit, a control unit, and an energy supply unit control movement of the track tensioner allowing the track tension to be adjusted from the interior of the tracked vehicle.” The specification states that adjusting and locking the track tension can be done automatically from the driver’s seat, with the driver initiating the tensioning process via an operating unit. However, the original disclosure fails to mention an “interior” of the tracked vehicle and fails to provide support for adjustment of the track tension “from the interior of the tracked vehicle”.
Claim 2 has been amended to recite “at least one of an amount of hydraulic or electric energy applied to the ball head spindle such that, depending on the amount of energy applied, the ball head spindle is retracted or extended.” As explained in the Examiner’s Claim Construction section above, the original disclosure provides support for a generic hydraulic energy supply unit or (alternatively) a generic electric energy supply unit. Due to the phrase “at least one of”, claim 2 encompasses the application of both hydraulic and electric energy. No such invention is supported by the original disclosure.
Claim 13 recites “a supply unit configured to supply the at least one of the hydraulic or electric energy.” Due to the phrase “at least one of”, claim 13 recites new matter for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 18 recites “applying at least one of hydraulic or electric energy to the locking device” (l. 4). Due to the phrase “at least one of”, claim 18 recites new matter for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 2.
New claim 23 recites “an operating unit positioned in an interior of the tracked vehicle having a driver’s seat” (l. 2). The original disclosure fails to provide support for this subject matter for the reasons explained above.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
GROUND 1: Claims 2, 3, 13-15, 18-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 13, 18 and 23 recite new matter for the reasons explained above. Claims 3, 14, 15 and 19-21 are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
GROUND 2: Claims 2, 3, 7-15 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims such that the claimed invention is capable of achieving the desired results.
Claim 2 recites “at least one of an amount of hydraulic or electric energy applied to the ball head spindle such that, depending on the amount of energy applied, the ball head spindle is retracted or extended.” Claim 13 recites “a supply unit configured to supply the at least one of the hydraulic or electric energy.” Claim 18 recites “applying at least one of hydraulic or electric energy to the locking device” (l. 4). Claim 22 recites “an energy supply unit in communication with the ball head spindle, the energy supply unit is configured to selectively supply an energy to the ball head spindle to extend or retract the ball head spindle in the longitudinal direction relative to the spindle housing” (ll. 12-15). Claim 24 recites a similar “energy supply unit” (ll. 12-15). As explained in the Examiner’s Claim Construction section above, the original disclosure mentions a generic hydraulic energy supply unit or a generic electric energy supply unit. While mention is made of a hydraulic or electric connection to supply hydraulic or electrical energy to the track tensioner, nothing more is disclosed concerning the actual structure of an energy supply unit that is capable of applying energy to the ball head spindle. The drawings fail to illustrate how the energy supply unit is structured, and the specification fails to describe how it is structured or the specifics of its operation. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “the blocking spindle is configured to rotate about an axis to move the ball head spindle in a longitudinal direction relative to the vehicle hull” (ll. 4-5). Claim 24 recites “wherein on rotation of the blocking spindle about an axis the ball head spindle moves in the longitudinal direction to extend or retract the ball head spindle relative to the spindle housing” (ll. 9-11) and “the energy supply unit is configured to selectively supply an energy to the blocking spindle to extend or retract the ball head spindle in the longitudinal direction relative to the spindle housing” (ll. 12-14). This subject matter appears to read on an alternative embodiment mentioned in ¶ 0037 of the specification. The drawings fail to illustrate such an embodiment,1 and the specification fails to describe how such an embodiment is structured or the specifics of its operation. No explanation is provided as to how energy is supplied to the blocking spindle to cause it to rotate about an axis to thereby cause the ball head spindle to move longitudinally. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites “the locking device comprises a spring-loaded multi-disc brake.” This subject matter appears to read on an alternative embodiment mentioned in ¶¶ 0029 and 0080 of the specification. The drawings fail to illustrate such an embodiment,2 and the specification fails to describe how such an embodiment is structured or the specifics of its operation. No explanation is provided as to how the multi-disc brake is incorporated into the track tensioner or how it interacts with the blocking spindle. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites “an electric open-loop and closed-loop control unit”. As explained in the Examiner’s Claim Construction section above, the original disclosure mentions a generic open-loop and closed-loop control unit that relies on P-control behavior, I-control action, or PI-control action. The specification’s use of “open-loop and closed-loop” is not understood since it is well settled that open-loop control systems are distinct from closed-loop control systems. The specification fails to define how a control system with both open-loop and closed-loop control would be structured or how it would function. While mention is made of P-control behavior, I-control action, and PI-control action, these terms are not defined or explained. No specific P-control, I-control or PI-control is described either in terms of its structure or its operation. The drawings fail to illustrate any specific structure of the control unit, and the specification fails to describe how it is structured or the specifics of its operation. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites “at least one operating unit”. Claim 21 recites “establishing setpoints for setting the track tension”. Claim 23 recites “an operating unit positioned in an interior of the tracked vehicle having a driver's seat, the operating unit is in communication with the energy supply unit and is configured to establish setpoints to adjust the tension of the continuous track.” As explained in the Examiner’s Claim Construction section above, the original disclosure mentions a generic operating unit. While mention is made of the ability to specify desired track tensions and generate setpoints, nothing more is disclosed concerning the actual structure of an operating unit. The drawings fail to illustrate how the operating unit is structured, and the specification fails to describe how it is structured or the specifics of its operation. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “measuring the track tension by sensors”. This subject matter appears to read on the embodiment mentioned in ¶ 0098 of the specification. The drawings fail to illustrate such an embodiment, and the specification fails to describe how such an embodiment is structured or the specifics of its operation. No explanation is provided as to what type of sensors are used, how the sensors are structured, how they are incorporated into the track vehicle, or how their output is utilized (e.g., the control unit) to measure track tension. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 recites “turning the applied energy off when a predetermined track tension is reached.” This subject matter appears to read on the embodiment mentioned in ¶¶ 0035, 0061 and 0093 (in conjunction with the embodiment mentioned in ¶ 0098) of the specification. The drawings fail to illustrate such an embodiment, and the specification fails to describe how such an embodiment is structured or the specifics of its operation. No explanation is provided as to what type of structure is relied upon to turn the applied energy off, how it is incorporated into the track tensioner, or how it operates to turned the applied energy off when a predetermined tension is reached. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
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.
GROUND 3: Claims 1-3, 7-16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a locking device configured to selectively lock or release movement of the ball head spindle” (ll. 11-12). In the only disclosed embodiment that is described in any detail, the invention relies upon a rotatable blocking spindle that is acted on by the locking device to selectively lock or release movement of the ball head spindle. Since a rotatable blocking spindle is not required by claim 1, the claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements.
As explained more fully in GROUND 2, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claims 2, 3, 7-15 and 18-24 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Absent such supporting disclosure, the scope of claims 2, 3, 7-15 and 18-24 cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is unclear what subject matter is encompassed by the claims, and what is excluded therefrom.
Claim 2 recites “at least one of an amount of hydraulic or electric energy applied to the ball head spindle such that, depending on the amount of energy applied, the ball head spindle is retracted or extended.” However, the claim fails to recite any structural element that performs the claimed function of applying hydraulic or electric energy. As a result, the scope of the claim encompasses any and every possible structure. Such claim scope, which far exceeds applicant’s disclosure, is indefinite because it is impossible to ascertain with a reasonable degree of certainty what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and what subject matter is excluded therefrom. Further, the claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements (i.e., the structure for applying energy), such omission amounting to a gap between the elements.
As explained in the Examiner’s Claim Construction section above, claims 13, 22 and 24 recite a “supply unit” that invokes 112(f), i.e., “supply unit” is synonymous with “means for supplying”. The specification only discloses a generic hydraulic or electric energy supply unit of unknown/unspecified structure. Due to the failure to disclose the corresponding structure, the scope of claims 13, 22 and 24 is unknown and, thus, indefinite.
As explained in the Examiner’s Claim Construction section above, claim 14 recites a “control unit” that invokes 112(f), i.e., “control unit” is synonymous with “means for controlling”. The specification only discloses a generic electric open-loop and closed-loop control unit of unknown/unspecified structure. Due to the failure to disclose the corresponding structure, the scope of claim 14 is unknown and, thus, indefinite.
As explained in the Examiner’s Claim Construction section above, claims 15 and 23 recite an “operating unit” that invokes 112(f), i.e., “operating unit” is synonymous with “means for operating”. The specification only discloses a generic operating unit of unknown/unspecified structure. Due to the failure to disclose the corresponding structure, the scope of claims 15 and 23 is unknown and, thus, indefinite.
Claim 18 recites a step of “applying at least one of hydraulic or electric energy to the locking device” (l. 4) followed by a separate step of “releasing the locking device” (l. 5). According to the specification, energy is applied to the locking device so as to release the locking device. Such a construction cannot be accurately characterized as involving the two separate method steps of claim 18.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Bümach”
DE Publication No. 202 16 197 U1 (with translation)
“Collins et al.”
US Publication No. 2023/0322314 A1
“Hesse”
US Patent No. 4,712,469
“West et al.”
US Publication No. 2021/0101653 A1
“Wintjen”
DE Publication No. 10 2004 049 854 B3 (with translation)
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; or
(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.
GROUND 4: Claims 1-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wintjen.
With respect to claim 1, Wintjen discloses a tracked vehicle comprising a continuous track 14 engaged with an idler wheel 13. See Figs. 5-5a; ¶ 0028.3 A track tensioner comprises an idler wheel support engaged with the idler wheel 13 and configured to connect the idler wheel 13 with a vehicle hull of the tracked vehicle in a rotatable and eccentric manner. See Fig. 5a; ¶ 0028. The track tensioner further comprises a spindle 2 configured to act on the idler wheel 13 support such that, depending on a position of the spindle 2, a position of the idler wheel 13 relative to the vehicle hull can be changed, the spindle 2 further comprising a locking device 5 configured to selectively lock or release movement of the spindle 2. See Figs. 1-4a; ¶¶ 0023-0027.
In a first interpretation, the spindle 2 constitutes a “ball head” spindle, as broadly claimed, since the claims do not specify any structure of the spindle that is not taught by Wintjen.
With respect to claim 2, hydraulic energy is applied to the spindle 2 such that, depending on the amount of energy applied, the spindle 2 is retracted or extended. See Figs. 1 and 3; ¶¶ 0023, 0027.
With respect to claim 3, the spindle 2 is supported in a spindle housing 1 in a longitudinally movable manner. See Figs. 1 and 3; ¶¶ 0023, 0027.
With respect to claim 18, the locking device 5 is released by applying hydraulic energy to the locking device 5, the spindle 2 is retracted or extended by applying hydraulic energy to the spindle 2, and the locking device 5 is locked when the hydraulic energy is not applied. See Figs. 1-4a; ¶¶ 0023-0027.
GROUND 5: Claims 1-3, 7-11, 13, 18-20, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Collins et al.4
With respect to claims 1, 22 and 24, Collins et al. discloses a tracked vehicle comprising a continuous track. See ¶¶ 0002-0003. The continuous track is engaged with an idler wheel (see Figs. 8-9), and a track tensioner 100 comprises an idler wheel support (see Figs. 8-9) engaged with the idler wheel and configured to connect the idler wheel with a vehicle hull of the tracked vehicle in a rotatable and eccentric manner. See Figs. 8-9; ¶¶ 0003, 0035. The track tensioner 100 further comprises a ball head spindle 120 configured to act on the idler wheel support (see Figs. 8-9) such that, depending on a position of the spindle 120, a position of the idler wheel (see Figs. 8-9) relative to the vehicle hull can be changed, the spindle 120 further comprising a locking device 150 configured to selectively lock or release movement of the spindle 120. See Figs. 1-13; ¶¶ 0035-0041, 0049-0059, 0061.
Figs. 2-4 and 7-9 illustrate the ball head spindle 120 as having a ball head at one end thereof, Figs. 3-4 and 7-9 illustrate the ball head received in a mounting component, and Figs. 8-9 illustrate the ball head coupled to the idler wheel support via the mounting component.
With respect to claims 2, 13, 22 and 24, hydraulic energy is applied to the ball head spindle 120 via an energy supply unit 210 (mislabeled in Fig. 1 using reference number 230) having a hydraulic pump 211 (in communication with hydraulic connections 113, 114) such that, depending on the amount of energy applied, the spindle 120 is retracted or extended to adjust a tension of the track. See Figs. 3-9; ¶¶ 0035, 0037, 0039, 0043-0046, 0050-0059.
With respect to claims 3, 22 and 24, the ball head spindle 120 is supported in a spindle housing 160 in a longitudinally movable manner, with the spindle housing 160 having structure (including bolt holes 163) for connection to the vehicle hull. See Figs. 2-4 and 7-9; ¶¶ 0035, 0037.
With respect to claims 7, 8, 22 and 24, the ball head spindle 120 is threadably engaged with a blocking spindle 140 via respective guide threads 124, 141, wherein on movement of the ball head spindle 120 in the longitudinal direction (via application of hydraulic energy) to extend or retract the ball head spindle 120 relative to the spindle housing 160, the blocking spindle 140 rotates about an axis. See Figs. 4-9; ¶¶ 0038-0039.
With respect to claims 7 and 24, the blocking spindle 140 is provided with a hex end 143, which allows the blocking spindle 140 to be rotated (using a wrench engaging the hex end 143), and such rotation of the blocking spindle 140 will cause the ball head spindle 120 to move longitudinally (due to the threaded engagement therebetween). See Figs. 2-4 and 14-15; ¶¶ 0038, 0042.
With respect to claims 9-11, the locking device 150 comprises a dog clutch 151 (with external teeth 153) configured to follow a rotational movement of the blocking spindle 140, a longitudinally movable clutch “piston” 154 (with internal teeth 155) configured to selectively positively engage with the dog clutch 151 (via the teeth 153, 155), a clutch actuating piston 158 to which hydraulic energy is applied to disengage the clutch “piston” 154 from the dog clutch 151, and a return spring 157 configured to apply a force to the clutch “piston” 154 in a direction of the dog clutch 151 to engage the clutch “piston” 154 with the dog clutch 151 when hydraulic energy is not applied to the clutch actuating piston 158. See Figs. 4 and 7-13; ¶¶ 0040-0041, 0050, 0053, 0057-0059, 0061.
With respect to claim 18, the locking device 150 is released by applying hydraulic energy to the locking device 150, the ball head spindle 120 is retracted or extended by applying hydraulic energy to the spindle 120, and the locking device 150 is locked when the hydraulic energy is not applied. See explanation with respect to claims 2, 9-11, 13, 22 and 24 above.
With respect to claim 19, track tension is measured by sensors 260. See Fig. 1; ¶ 0048.
With respect to claim 20, the hydraulic energy is turned off when a predetermined track tension is reached. See ¶¶ 0051, 0057-0059, 0061.
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.
GROUND 6: Claims 1-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wintjen in view of Hesse.
See the discussion of Wintjen in GROUND 4.
In an alternative interpretation, Wintjen’s spindle 2 is not considered to be a “ball head” spindle. Hesse establishes that such a ball head spindle was well-known.
Specifically, Hesse teaches a track tensioner 5 including a ball head spindle 11 having a ball head 12 at one end thereof, with the ball head received in a mounting component (see Fig. 1), and the ball head 12 coupled to an idler wheel support 3 via the mounting component. See Figs. 1-2; col. 2, ll. 11-24.
From the teachings of Hesse, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wintjen by providing the spindle with a ball head because such a construction allows for the spindle to connect with the idler wheel support in a pivotal manner that reduces stress and provides smooth operation of the track tensioner.
GROUND 7: Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wintjen.
See the discussion of Wintjen in GROUND 4. Wintjen does not discuss the particulars of the track vehicle and, thus, fails to explicitly disclose that the track vehicle has two tracks with each track including a respective track tensioner.
The skilled artisan would appreciate that a majority of tracked vehicles have at least two tracks, and would also appreciate, from the teachings of Wintjen, that it would be advantageous to provide each track with the track tensioner taught by Wintjen. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wintjen’s track tensioner on a track vehicle with two tracks, with each track having a respective tensioner.
GROUND 8: Claims 1-3, 7-11, 13, 18-20, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Collins et al. in view of Hesse.
See the discussion of Collins et al. in GROUND 5. As explained above, Figs. 8-9 of Collins et al. illustrate a conventional idler wheel support engaged with the idler wheel and configured to connect the idler wheel with the vehicle hull in a rotatable and eccentric manner.
In an alternative interpretation, Collins et al. is considered to fail to fully teach an idler wheel support that connects the idler wheel with the vehicle hull in a rotatable and eccentric manner. Hesse establishes that such an idler wheel support was well-known.
Specifically, Hesse teaches a track tensioner 5 including an idler wheel support 3 of conventional construction that connects an idler wheel 2 to a vehicle hull in a rotatable and eccentric manner. See Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 11-16.
From the teachings of Hesse, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Collins et al. by using an idler wheel support that connects the idler wheel to the vehicle hull in a rotatable and eccentric manner because such a construction allows for smooth and efficient adjustment of the idler wheel to adjust the track tension.
GROUND 9: Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Collins et al.
See the discussion of Collins et al. in GROUND 5.
With respect to claim 12, as explained above, Collins et al. teaches a locking device 150 comprising a spring-loaded dog clutch. Collins et al. fails to teach a locking device comprising a spring-loaded, multi-disc brake.
As evidenced by applicant’s failure to disclose any details of the structure or function of a spring-loaded, multi-disc brake, the skilled artisan would recognize that a spring-loaded, multi-disc brake is a well-known, art-recognized equivalent of a spring-loaded dog clutch. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Collins et al. by substituting a spring-loaded, multi-disc brake for the spring-loaded dog clutch, with such substituting yielding only a predictable result.
With respect to claim 16, Collins et al. does not discuss the particulars of the track vehicle and, thus, fails to explicitly disclose that the track vehicle has two tracks with each track including a respective track tensioner.
The skilled artisan would appreciate that a majority of tracked vehicles have at least two tracks, and would also appreciate, from the teachings of Collins et al., that it would be advantageous to provide each track with the track tensioner taught by Collins et al. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the track tensioner of Collins et al. on a track vehicle with two tracks, with each track having a respective tensioner.
GROUND 10: Claims 14, 15, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Collins et al. in view of West et al.
See the discussion of Collins et al. in GROUND 5. Collins et al. further discloses that the track tensioner is capable of automatic adjustment of track tension, can be operated remotely from inside the vehicle, and is capable of active adjustment of track tension in response to operating conditions. See ¶ 0061. The track tension sensed by the sensors 260 is one example of an operating condition. See Fig. 1; ¶ 0048.
With respect to claims 14, 15, 21 and 23, Collins et al. fail to teach that (i) the remote operation from inside the vehicle is implemented via an operating unit for generating track tension setpoints, and (ii) the automatic/active adjustment is implemented via an open-loop or closed-loop electric control unit.
West et al. teaches a track tensioning system wherein (i) remote operation from inside a vehicle is implemented via an operating unit 52 for generating track tension setpoints, and (ii) automatic/active adjustment is implemented via a closed-loop electric control unit 38. See Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶ 0028-0032, 0038, 0043-0050.
From the teachings of West et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Collins et al. by implementing:
The remote operation from inside the vehicle via an operating unit for generating track tension setpoints because this allows for more convenient operation by the driver (operator) and more precision in adjusting the track tension.
The automatic/active adjustment via a closed-loop electric control unit because this allows for more precise and accurate control.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Bümach teaches a track tensioner with a hydraulically-released, spring-loaded locking device that acts on a blocking spindle.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to because:
¶ 0023 improperly refers to claim 1 and claim 18. Claim numbers should not appear in the summary of the invention since the claims are subject to amendment during prosecution and may be renumbered upon allowance.
In ¶ 0072, “and a spindle housing 5, which transfers the applied force to a spindle housing 5” is inaccurate and confusing since a spindle housing is introduced twice. The spindle housing can’t apply force to itself.
In ¶ 0076, “the ball head spindle 6 as part of the locking device 4” is inaccurate and confusing since the ball head spindle 6 is not part of the locking device 4.
In ¶ 0085, “by means of the track tensioners” should read “by means of the left and right track tensioners 15, 16”.
¶¶ 0087 and 0096 refer to “open-loop or closed-loop control”, but ¶¶ 0088, 0094, 0095, 0098 and 0100 recite “open-loop and closed-loop control unit”. As explained above, the specification’s use of “open-loop and closed-loop” is not understood since it is well settled that open-loop control systems are distinct from closed-loop control systems.
In ¶ 0089, “applies the hydraulic pressure to the piston side of the ball head spindle 6” is inaccurate and confusing. The spindle 6 has a piston with two sides and hydraulic pressure can be applied to either side.
In ¶ 0091, “by means of the pressure on the piston side” is inaccurate and confusing. The spindle 6 has a piston with two sides and hydraulic pressure can be applied to either side.
¶ 0077 identifies element 9 as “ports”, but ¶ 0100 identifies element 9 as “Connection (connections)”.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed below must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
(Means for) applying an amount of electric energy to the ball head spindle (claims 2 and 18).
A spring-loaded multi-disc brake (claim 12).
A supply unit configured to supply electric energy (claim 13).
A first continuous track and a second continuous track, each of the first continuous track and the second continuous track including a respective track tensioner (claim 16).
(Means for) applying electric energy to the locking device (claim 18).
Track tension sensors (claim 19).
A method including the method steps recited in claims 18-21.
An operating unit positioned in an interior of a tracked vehicle having a driver’s seat (claim 23).
The drawings are also objected to because Fig. 4 shows black boxes without appropriate descriptive text. Nothing about the illustrated structure can be gleaned from the drawings when black boxes are used without descriptive text.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this application should be directed:
By Patent Center5: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail6 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 Fig. 3 illustrates a different embodiment in which hydraulic pressure is applied to the ball head spindle to move it longitudinally, with such movement producing rotation of the blocking spindle.
2 Fig. 3 illustrates a different embodiment comprising a dog clutch.
3 All citations are to the English translation.
4 Collins et al. qualifies as prior art based on its effectively-filed date of August 25, 2020, which is the filing date of AU Application No. 2020903039, to which Collins et al. claims priority. See 35 USC 102(d). The examiner has provided a certified copy of AU Application No. 2020903039.
5 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).
6 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.