DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
Applicant’s claim amendments filed on April 23, 2026 have been entered.
Applicant’s substitute specification filed on April 23, 2026 has not been entered for the following reasons:
The description in ¶ 0037 is inconsistent with, and appears to contradict, the description in ¶¶ 0026 and 0080. Is ¶ 0037 intended to describe an alternative embodiment to that of ¶¶ 0026 and 0080? If so, this is not made clear by the specification.
The description in ¶ 0053 is inconsistent with, and appears to contradict, the description in ¶¶ 0026 and 0080. Is ¶ 0053 intended to describe an alternative embodiment to that of ¶¶ 0026 and 0080? If so, this is not made clear by the specification.
¶ 0070 adds new matter to the disclosure because the original disclosure fails to provide support for “a schematic plan view of an example of a tracked vehicle…”
¶ 0071 adds new matter to the disclosure because the original disclosure fails to provide support for “a block diagram of an example of a method…”
In ¶ 0074, “a spindle housing 5” (l. 2) should read “the spindle housing 5”.
In ¶ 0078, “a spindle housing 5” (l. 2) should read “the spindle housing 5”.
¶ 0080 adds new matter to the disclosure because the original disclosure fails to provide support for “a non-self-locking movement thread (e.g., guide thread 21)” (ll. 2-3). The examiner suggests changing this to read “a non-self-locking movement guide thread 21”.
¶ 0080 adds new matter to the disclosure (based on its description of amended Fig. 3) because the original disclosure fails to provide support for the particular location of the second end 14B. The original specification and drawings do not identify the location of the second end of the blocking spindle 14.
The description in ¶ 0084 is inconsistent with, and appears to contradict, the description in ¶¶ 0026 and 0080. Is ¶ 0084 intended to describe an alternative embodiment to that of ¶¶ 0026 and 0080? If so, this is not made clear by the specification.
In ¶ 0087, “two tracks (e.g., a track tensioner left 15 and a track tensioner right 16)” (ll. 1-2) is inaccurate and adds new matter to the disclosure because the left and right track tensioners 15, 16 are not examples of the two tracks. The examiner suggests changing this to read “two tracks (see first track 2A and second track 2B in Fig. 5)”.
In ¶ 0087, “an exemplary tensioning process according to the invention is carried out for each track by the track tensioner left 15 and the track tensioner right 16 as described below and illustrated in FIG. 6 in example method 30” (ll. 2-4) is confusing and inaccurate because the left and right track tensioners 15, 16 are not “illustrated in FIG. 6 in example method 30”.
In ¶ 0091, “applies the hydraulic pressure to the piston side of the clutch piston 12” (ll. 1-2) is inaccurate and confusing. The clutch piston 12 has two sides and hydraulic pressure can be applied to either side. Thus, it is unclear which piston side is referred to by the phrase “the piston side of”.
¶ 0093 adds new matter to the disclosure because the original disclosure fails to provide support for “The ball head spindle 6 is supplied with energy at step 36 and is extended or retracted at step 38” (ll. 1-2). The original specification and drawings do not establish that two distinct method steps are performed in order to supply energy to the spindle 6 and extend or retract the spindle 6.
In ¶ 0093, “by means of the pressure on the piston side” (l. 2) is inaccurate and confusing. The spindle 6 has a piston with two sides and hydraulic pressure can be applied to either side. Thus, it is unclear which piston side is referred to by the phrase “the piston side of”.
¶ 0093 adds new matter to the disclosure because the original disclosure fails to provide support for “The ball head spindle 6 is supplied with energy…and is extended or retracted…by means of the pressure on the piston side or in an opposite direction toward the locking device 4”. According to ¶ 0052 of the original specification, the energy supply is reduced if the track tension is to be reduced. Such disclosure is not consistent with the new description of a supply o energy producing pressure in an opposite direction toward the locking device.
In ¶ 0100, the singular term “the continuous track” (l. 1) is inconsistent with the reference to two tracks in ¶ 0087.
¶ 0100 adds new matter to the disclosure because the original disclosure fails to provide support for “appropriate sensors or measurement devices (e.g., 24 and 25 in FIG. 5)” (ll. 1-2). The original specification and drawings do not specify the number of tension sensors used.
In ¶ 0100, “the open-loop and closed-loop control unit” (ll. 5-6) should read “the open-loop or closed-loop control unit” since every other occurrence of this terminology has been amended in this manner.
¶ 0102 adds new matter because the original disclosure fails to provide support for “14B Second end” and “24, 25 Sensor or measurement device”.
Applicant’s replacement drawing sheets filed on April 23, 2026 have not been entered for the following reasons:
The amendments to Fig. 3 add new matter to the disclosure because the original disclosure fails to provide support for the particular location of the second end 14B. The original specification and drawings do not identify the location of the second end of the blocking spindle 14.
New Fig. 5 adds new matter to the disclosure because the original disclosure fails to provide support for the particular configuration of the vehicle hull 1. The original specification and drawings do not identify the size, shape, etc. of the vehicle hull 1.
New Fig. 5 adds new matter to the disclosure because the original disclosure fails to provide support for the two tension sensors 24, 25 and their location. The original specification and drawings do not specify the number of tension sensors used or their particular location relative to the tracks 2A, 2B.
New Fig. 6 adds new matter to the disclosure because the original disclosure fails to provide support for the particular configuration of the method steps 32, 34, 36, 38, 40 and 42. vehicle hull 1. The original specification and drawings do not specify the particular number of method steps or their particular arrangement.
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 15, 16 and 18-24 of this application are subject to examination. Claims 4-6, 10-14 and 17 have been canceled.
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 (claims 1, 22 and 24)
Examiner’s Construction:
a locking device having the specific structure specified in claims 1, 22 and 24
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “locking device” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f) because the claims recite sufficient structure (blocking spindle, dog clutch, clutch piston, and return spring) for performing the claimed function.
Claim Limitation:
supply unit that functions to supply an amount of hydraulic or electric energy (claim 2), or supply unit used to perform the step of applying one of hydraulic or electric energy (claim 18), 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”. Therefore, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
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:
control unit (claim 15)
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. 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”. Therefore, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
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 original 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, 21 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”. Therefore, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
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 Amendments – 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 amendment filed on April 23, 2026 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 abstract has been amended to recite “chain tension” (l. 10) and “the…chassis” (ll. 11-12). This constitutes new matter because the original disclosure does not describe chain tension or a chassis. Instead, the original disclosure describes track tension and running gear.
Claims 1, 22 and 24 have been amended to recite “a dog clutch fixed to the second end of the blocking spindle, wherein the second end of the blocking spindle terminates at the dog clutch” (claim 1, ll. 14-15; claim 22, ll. 20-21; claim 24, ll. 20-21). The original specification and drawings do not (i) identify the location of the second end of the blocking spindle 14, (ii) establish that the dog clutch 11 is fixed to the second end of the spindle 14, or (iii) disclose that the second end of the spindle 14 terminates at the dog clutch 11.
Claims 1, 22 and 24 have been amended to recite “a clutch piston positioned longitudinally distant from the second end of the blocking spindle in a direction away from the ball head spindle” (claim 1, ll. 16-17; claim 22, ll. 22-23; claim 24, ll. 22-23). The original specification and drawings do not establish that the clutch piston 12 is positioned longitudinally distant from the second end of the blocking spindle 14 in a direction away from the ball head spindle 6. As shown in Fig. 2, the clutch piston 12 is located relatively near—not longitudinally distant from—the spindle 14.
Claims 1, 22 and 24 have been amended to recite “a return spring positioned longitudinally distant from the second end of the blocking spindle and the dog clutch in a direction away from the ball head spindle” (claim 1, ll. 19-21; claim 22, ll. 25-26; claim 24, ll. 25-26). The original specification and drawings do not establish that the return spring 13 is positioned longitudinally distant from the second end of the blocking spindle 14 and the dog clutch 11 in a direction away from the ball head spindle 6. As shown in Fig. 2, the clutch piston 12 is located relatively near—not longitudinally distant from—both the spindle 14 and the dog clutch 11.
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 1-3, 7-9, 15, 16 and 18-24 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 1, 22 and 24 recite new matter for the reasons explained above. Dependent claims are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
GROUND 2: Claims 2, 3, 7-9, 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 “a supply unit configured to supply 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 18 recites “applying by a supply unit at least one of hydraulic or electric energy to the locking device to release the locking device” (ll. 3-4). 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. 11-13). Claim 24 recites a similar “energy supply unit” (ll. 11-13). 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. 2-4). 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. 8-10) 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. 11-13). 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 15 recites “a 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 by an operating unit for setting the track tension”. Claim 23 recites “an operating unit in communication with the energy supply unit, the operating unit 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, 7-9, 15, 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.
Claims 1, 22 and 24 have been amended to recite “a dog clutch fixed to the second end of the blocking spindle, wherein the second end of the blocking spindle terminates at the dog clutch” (claim 1, ll. 14-15; claim 22, ll. 20-21; claim 24, ll. 20-21). Claims 1, 22 and 24 have also been amended to recite “a clutch piston positioned longitudinally distant from the second end of the blocking spindle in a direction away from the ball head spindle, the clutch piston configured to selectively positively engage the dog clutch” (claim 1, ll. 16-18; claim 22, ll. 22-24; claim 24, ll. 22-24). The claimed requirement that a clutch piston is positioned longitudinally distant from the second end of the blocking spindle contradicts the claimed requirements that the second end of the blocking spindle terminates at the dog clutch and the clutch piston is configured to selectively positively engage the dog clutch. The clutch piston has to be positioned adjacent (not longitudinally distant from) the blocking spindle that terminates at the dog clutch in order for the clutch piston to be able to selectively positively engage the dog clutch. Since inconsistency within the claim renders the claim indefinite.
In claim 2, “applied” (ll. 2 and 3) is inconsistent with “supply” (l. 2). Further, “to supply…energy applied” (l. 2) is confusing and unconventional language.
As explained more fully in GROUND 2, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claims 2, 3, 7-9, 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.
As explained in the Examiner’s Claim Construction section above, claims 2, 18, 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 2, 18, 22 and 24 is unknown and, thus, indefinite.
Claim 9 depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1. Claim 9 recites the broader limitation “the dog clutch is configured to follow a rotational movement of the blocking spindle” while claim 1 recites the narrower limitation “a dog clutch fixed to the second end of the blocking spindle, wherein the second end of the blocking spindle terminates at the dog clutch” (ll. 14-15). When a dependent recites a broader limitation than its independent claim, i.e., the dependent claim attempts to define the invention more broadly than its independent claim, the dependent claim is rendered indefinite since a dependent claim, by definition, includes all of the limitations of its independent claim.
As explained in the Examiner’s Claim Construction section above, claim 15 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, 21 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, 21 and 23 is unknown and, thus, indefinite.
Claim 15 introduces an “operating unit” and a “control unit”. However, claim 15 fails to identify any relationship between these units and the elements of the invention required by independent claim 1 or dependent claim 2. Merely listing elements, with reciting any interrelationships, renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the claim covers any and all possibilities and, thus, far exceeds the scope of the disclosure.
In claims 22 and 24, the recitation “a blocking spindle engaged with the ball head spindle” (l. 18) is indefinite because it merely repeats a limitation found earlier in the claim (l. 8). The re-introduction of a blocking spindle inaccurately suggests that the claimed invention includes more than one blocking spindle.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
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)
The prior art listed above is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim. See the detailed discussion of the teachings of this prior art in items 41-57, 59-82 and 84 (pp. 13-20) of the prior Office action mailed on January 26, 2026.
Specification Objections
The substitute specification filed on November 30, 2023 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.
The description in ¶ 0037 is inconsistent with, and appears to contradict, the description in ¶¶ 0026 and 0078. Is ¶ 0037 intended to describe an alternative embodiment to that of ¶¶ 0026 and 0078? If so, this is not made clear by the specification.
The description in ¶ 0053 is inconsistent with, and appears to contradict, the description in ¶¶ 0026 and 0078. Is ¶ 0053 intended to describe an alternative embodiment to that of ¶¶ 0026 and 0078? If so, this is not made clear by the specification.
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 ¶ 0076, “a spindle housing 5” (l. 2) should read “the spindle housing 5”.
The description in ¶ 0082 is inconsistent with, and appears to contradict, the description in ¶¶ 0026 and 0078. Is ¶ 0082 intended to describe an alternative embodiment to that of ¶¶ 0026 and 0078? If so, this is not made clear by the specification.
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 ¶¶ 0048, 0052, 0056-0058, 0061, 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. Thus, it is unclear which piston side is referred to by the phrase “the piston side of”.
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. Thus, it is unclear which piston side is referred to by the phrase “the piston side of”.
In ¶ 0098, the singular term “the continuous track” (l. 1) is inconsistent with the reference to two tracks in ¶ 0085.
¶ 0077 identifies element 9 as “ports”, but ¶ 0100 identifies element 9 as “Connection (connections)”.
Drawing Objections
The drawings filed on November 30, 2023 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.
A supply unit applying an amount of electric energy to the ball head spindle (claims 2 and 18).
An alternative embodiment in which “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” (claim 7).
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).
A method including the method steps recited in claims 18-21.
Track tension sensors (claim 19).
An alternative embodiment “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; …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” (claim 24, ll. 8-13).
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 to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 23, 2026 have been considered. Many of applicant’s arguments are not germane to the new grounds of rejection set forth above, which were necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
With respect to the objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a), applicant argues that Fig. 4 shows a supply unit applying an amount of electric energy to the ball head spindle (claims 2 and 18). This argument is not persuasive because the drawings fail to show a ball head spindle that is capable of being extended and retracted by electric energy. Thus, the black box in Fig. 4 does not constitute a showing of a supply unit applying an amount of electric energy to the ball head spindle.
With respect to GROUND 2, applicant argues that the disclosure satisfies the written description requirement. The examiner disagrees for the reasons detailed in GROUND 2.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 set forth in the prior Office action, applicant argues that the claims have been amended to define over the prior art. However, the amendments introduce new matter for the reasons given above. Further, the claims fail to comply with 35 USC 112(a) and (b) for the reasons given above.
Final Action
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this application should be directed:
By Patent Center2: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail3 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 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).
3 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.
Prosecution Insights