DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3. Claims 1, 7-14, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis et al. (US 2011/0074210 A1; hereinafter “Paradis”).
Regarding claim 1, Paradis, in the embodiment shown in Figs. 6-10, discloses a track 112 for traction of a vehicle 111, the track being movable around a track-engaging assembly (“wheels” described in paragraph [0037]) comprising a drive wheel (“drive sprocket” described in paragraph [0037]) to drive the track (paragraph [0037]), the track comprising: a carcass 136 comprising a ground-engaging outer surface 117 for engaging the ground and an inner surface 115 opposite to the ground-engaging outer surface (Figs. 6-10), the carcass comprising an elastomeric material (“elastomeric material” of carcass 136 described in paragraph [0039]) and a reinforcement (“transverse fibers” embedded in the rubber of the track per paragraphs [0035] and [0055] and/or “reinforcing cables” per paragraph [0039] and/or “reinforcing fabric” per paragraph [0039]) disposed within the elastomeric material; a plurality of traction projections 120 projecting from the ground-engaging outer surface (Fig. 6); a plurality of inner projections 118 projecting from the inner surface opposite to the ground-engaging outer surface (Fig. 7); wherein a thickness of the carcass from the ground-engaging outer surface to the inner surface is no more than 0.20 inches (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 1, Paradis fails to expressly disclose a ratio of a widthwise rigidity of the carcass over a longitudinal rigidity of the carcass is between 1.5 included and 2.0 excluded.
Nonetheless, inasmuch as the ratio of a widthwise rigidity of the carcass over a longitudinal rigidity of the carcass is recognized in the art as a result-effective variable (e.g., paragraph [0035] of Paradis discloses an endless belt with “a transverse rigidity much larger than its longitudinal rigidity allows fabricating a belt with a transverse rigidity high enough for allowing traction of the vehicle, while having a smaller longitudinal rigidity allowing the belt to be driven around the sprocket wheel, thereby reducing resistance to forward movements”; paragraph [0054] of Paradis further teaches the transverse rigidity of the endless track “may be imparted in various ways” including “in some embodiments, transverse fibers may be embedded in the rubber of the endless track” per paragraph [0055], “in some embodiments, the elastomeric material of the endless track 112 may be selected to create a stiffer and/or harder track” per paragraph [0056]), “in some embodiments, the elastomeric material of endless track 112 may contain two or more different elastomers which have different rigidities…” per paragraph [0059], and “in some embodiments, the traction projections 120 may rigidify the endless track 112 transversely” per paragraph [0060])), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the track of Paradis so that a ratio of a widthwise rigidity of the carcass over a longitudinal rigidity of the carcass is between 1.5 included and 2.0 excluded based upon on the intended use of the track to ensure the track has a widthwise rigidity high enough for allowing traction of the vehicle, while having a smaller longitudinal rigidity allowing the belt to be driven around the sprocket wheel, thereby reducing resistance to forward movements. Moreover, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any criticality for this claimed ratio (See paragraph [0071] of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding claims 1 and 23, although Paradis discloses the use of reinforcements in the form of reinforcing cables or reinforcing fabric, as noted above, which inherently have a modulus of elasticity in a longitudinal direction of the track and further expressly teaches “any material suitably flexible longitudinally” for the reinforcing cable in paragraph [0039], Paradis does not expressly disclose the modulus of elasticity in the longitudinal direction being between 200 MPa and 400 MPa.
Nonetheless, inasmuch as the modulus of elasticity of a reinforcement in a longitudinal direction of the track is recognized in the art as a result-effective variable (i.e., a higher modulus indicates a stiffer material in the longitudinal direction while a lower modulus indicates a more flexible material in the longitudinal direction), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the track of Paradis so that its reinforcement has a modulus of elasticity in the longitudinal direction between 200 MPa and 400 MPa with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a desired longitudinal rigidity of the track for the intended use of the track. Moreover, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any criticality for this claimed range.
Regarding claims 7-10, Paradis fails to expressly disclose a ratio of a bending stiffness of the reinforcement in the widthwise direction of the track over a bending stiffness of the reinforcement in the longitudinal direction of the track is at least 5.
Nonetheless, inasmuch as Paradis expressly teaches the desirability of the track to have a transversal rigidity (i.e., a rigidity in the widthwise direction) that is substantially greater than the longitudinal rigidity (paragraph [0053] teaches “in some cases at least five times the longitudinal rigidity of the endless track 122, and in some cases even more”) with such desired transversal rigidity being achieved via a reinforcement (note at least paragraphs [0035], [0039], [0054] and [0055]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of routine optimization, to have formed the reinforcement to have a ratio of a bending stiffness in a widthwise direction of the track over a bending stiffness of the reinforcement in a longitudinal direction of the track to be at least 5, with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the transversal rigidity of the track to be at least five times the longitudinal rigidity of the track so as to improve the stability and handling of the track during the intended use thereof. Moreover, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any criticality for the claimed ratios set forth in claims 7-10.
Regarding claim 11, Paradis further discloses the reinforcement comprises a layer of reinforcing cables (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 12, Paradis further discloses the reinforcement comprises a layer of reinforcing fabric (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 13, Paradis fails to expressly disclose the ratio of the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement in the longitudinal direction of the track over the thickness of the track being at least 1 GPa/in and the ratio of a modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement in the widthwise direction of the track over the thickness of the track being at least 5 GPa/in.
Nonetheless, inasmuch as Paradis expressly teaches the desirability of the track to have a transversal rigidity (i.e., a rigidity in the widthwise direction) that is substantially greater than the longitudinal rigidity (paragraph [0053] teaches “in some cases at least five times the longitudinal rigidity of the endless track 122, and in some cases even more”) with such desired transversal rigidity being achieved via a reinforcement (note at least paragraphs [0035], [0039], [0054] and [0055]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the track so that the ratio of a modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement in a longitudinal direction of the track over the thickness of the track is at least 1 GPa/in and a ratio of a modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement in the widthwise direction of the track over the thickness of the track is at least 5 GPa/in, based upon the intended use of the track with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the transversal rigidity of the track to be at least five times the longitudinal rigidity of the track so as to improve the stability and handling of the track while also permitting the track sufficient flexibility in the longitudinal direction to increase the track’s surface in contact with the surface (e.g., snow) on which the track engages to improve traction during the intended use of the track. Moreover, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any criticality for these claimed ratios (e.g., paragraph [0083] of Applicant’s specification states “These ratios may have any other suitable values in other embodiments”).
Regarding claim 14, Paradis fails to expressly disclose the elastomeric material has a Young's modulus at 300% elongation of at least 15 MPa.
Nonetheless, inasmuch as Paradis, in paragraph [0056], teaches “the elastomeric material of the endless track 112 may be selected to create a stiffer and/or harder track”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the track of Paradis by using an elastomeric material that has a Young's modulus at 300% elongation of at least 15 MPa to ensure the track has a desired stiffness and/or hardness for the intended use thereof. Moreover, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any criticality for this claimed value (e.g., paragraph [0084] of Applicant’s specification states “The modulus of elasticity of the elastomeric material 38 of the carcass 35 may have any other suitable value in other embodiments”).
Regarding claim 22, the claimed method to obtain the widthwise rigidity or the longitudinal rigidity of the carcass is not afforded full patentable weight in a product claim (See MPEP 2113).
4. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis in view Favre et al. (WO 2014/138938 A1; hereinafter “Favre”).
Regarding claim 15, although Paradis further discloses the carcass comprises at least two reinforcements disposed within the elastomeric material (paragraph [0039]), Paradis fails to expressly disclose a ratio of a spacing between adjacent ones of the at least two reinforcements in a thickness direction over the thickness of the carcass is at least 0.4.
Favre, however, teaches a track 22 comprising a carcass 36 comprising elastomeric material and at least two reinforcements 711, 712 disposed within the elastomeric material 38 (Fig. 22), wherein a ratio of a spacing between adjacent ones of the at least two reinforcements in a thickness direction over the thickness of the carcass can be at least 0.4 (clearly shown in Fig. 22; lines 6-8 of page 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track of Paradis so that a ratio of spacing between adjacent ones of the at least two reinforcements in a thickness direction over the thickness of the carcass is at least 0.4, such as taught by Favre, as a well-known track reinforcement arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success for providing a desired rigidity profile for the track. Moreover, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any criticality for this claimed ratio (e.g., paragraph [0087] of Applicant’s specification states “The ratio of the spacing…may have any other suitable value in other embodiments”).
5. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis in view of Lajoie et al. (US 2013/0162016 A1; hereinafter “Lajoie”).
Regarding claim 16, although Paradis further discloses the carcass can comprise two or more different elastomeric materials (paragraph [0059]), Paradis fails to expressly disclose a different elastomeric material being a lower-density elastomeric material that is away from a periphery of the track.
Lajoie, however, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 26, teaches a track 22 with a carcass 36 that comprises an elastomeric material 38 (“rubber” or “polyurethane elastomer” per paragraph [0042]) and a lower-density elastomeric material 80 (e.g., “foam rubber” per paragraph [0081]), wherein the lower-density elastomeric material is away from a periphery of the track (Fig. 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track of Paradis so that the carcass includes a lower-density elastomeric material that is away from a periphery of the track, such as taught by Lajoie, with a reasonable expectation of success for minimizing the weight of the carcass while also facilitating the elastic deformation of the carcass at portions when the track impacts an obstacle during use thereof.
Regarding claim 17, Lajoie further implicitly discloses a ratio of a density of the lower-density elastomeric material (i.e., foam rubber per paragraph [0081]) over a density of the elastomeric material (i.e., rubber) is less than or equal to 0.9.
Regarding claim 18, Lajoie further implicitly discloses a density of the lower density elastomeric material is less than or equal to 1.4 g/cm3 (i.e., foam rubber per paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 19, Lajoie further discloses the lower-density elastomeric material comprises at least 20% of the thickness of the carcass (clearly shown in Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 20, Lajoie further discloses the lower-density elastomeric material comprises cellular elastomeric material (i.e., foam rubber per paragraph [0081]).
Moreover, with respect to claims 17-19, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any criticality for these claimed ratios (e.g., paragraphs [0095], [0096] and [0099] of Applicant’s specification each state that each claimed ratio “may have any other suitable value in other embodiments”).
6. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis in view of Vanden et al. (CA 2042410 A1; hereinafter “Vanden”).
Although Paradis discloses the use of a reinforcement in the form of a reinforcing fabric, as noted above, which inherently has a modulus of elasticity in a widthwise direction of the track, Paradis does not expressly disclose the value of the modulus of elasticity in a widthwise direction for this reinforcement.
Vanden, however, teaches a composite material that includes a reinforcement in the form of a reinforcing fabric that has a modulus of elasticity in a widthwise direction of at least 1 GPa (lines 1-4 on page 8 of the English language machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track of Paradis so that its reinforcing fabric has a modulus of elasticity in a widthwise direction of at least 1 GPa, such as taught by Vanden, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a desired widthwise rigidity of the track for the intended use of the track. Moreover, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any criticality for this claimed range.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 22 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “the ratio of rigidity disclosure relied on by the Office includes rigidity contributed to by non-carcass elements (including, specifically, the traction projections) and from the track as a whole”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that it is clear from the disclosure of Paradis that the traction projections need not contribute to the rigidity of the track in all embodiments of the track. In such embodiments, the rigidity of the track would be solely dependent upon features of the carcass itself as evident from paragraphs [0054-0061]. As noted above, paragraph [0054] of Paradis discloses the transverse rigidity of the endless track “may be imparted in various ways” (emphasis added). Paradis then teaches “in some embodiments, transverse fibers may be embedded in the rubber of the endless track” (emphasis added) per paragraph [0055], “in some embodiments, the elastomeric material of the endless track 112 may be selected to create a stiffer and/or harder track” (emphasis added) per paragraph [0056]), “in some embodiments, the elastomeric material of endless track 112 may contain two or more different elastomers which have different rigidities…” (emphasis added) per paragraph [0059], and “in some embodiments, the traction projections 120 may rigidify the endless track 112 transversely” (emphasis added) per paragraph [0060])). In other words, Paradis teaches, depending upon the embodiment, different ways in which the rigidity may be imparted. As is clear from at least paragraphs [0054] and [0059], the disclosed rigidity of the track does not necessarily include rigidity contributed by the traction projections in all embodiments as appears to be alleged by Applicant. Applicant is reminded that "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nonetheless, it is well-recognized in the art that the ratio of a widthwise rigidity of the carcass over the longitudinal rigidity of the carcass is a result-effective variable and that to optimize such ratio based upon the intended use of the track would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure the track has a widthwise rigidity high enough for allowing traction of the vehicle, while having a smaller longitudinal rigidity allowing the belt to be driven around the sprocket wheel, thereby reducing resistance to forward movements.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Paradis “fails to identify the claimed longitudinal modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement as a parameter”, it is noted that the disclosed reinforcements of Paradis in the form of “reinforcing cables” per paragraph [0039] and/or “reinforcing fabric” per paragraph [0039] inherently have a modulus of elasticity in a longitudinal direction as would be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. This modulus of elasticity quantifies stiffness in the longitudinal direction. With respect to the reinforcing cables, Paradis expressly teaches the cables “may be made of any material suitably flexible longitudinally” (paragraph [0039]). In other words, Paradis expressly teaches the desirability of the cables to be “suitably flexible longitudinally” (i.e., have a suitable modulus of elasticity in the longitudinal direction). To have modified the track of Paradis so that its reinforcement has a modulus of elasticity in the longitudinal direction between 200 MPa and 400 MPa would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a desired longitudinal rigidity of the track for the intended use of the track. Moreover, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any criticality for this claimed range.
In response to Applicant’s statement that “changing the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement in the longitudinal direction will change longitudinal rigidity of the track, thus altering the ratio of the transversal rigidity of the track to the longitudinal rigidity of the track”, the Examiner agrees. As noted above, both the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement in the longitudinal direction and the ratio of the widthwise rigidity over the longitudinal rigidity are result-effective variables that can be optimized for a particular intended use of the track. Again, it is noted that Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any criticality for the claimed modulus of elasticity values or for the claimed ratio of rigidity values.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Samuel (Joe) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
