DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
· Reference characters “386a” and “386b” in para [00163] are not shown in the drawings.
3. The drawings are objected to because:
· Figs. 5A, 5B, 8A, and 8B appear to show inconsistent structures. For example, a square cross-section portion near the lower right side of the Figs. 8A and 8B does not appear in Figs. 5A and 5B. Applicant is required to amend the drawings to ensure consistency among the figures. The objection was made in the prior Office action, but Applicant neither addressed the objection in the Remarks nor corrected the identified issue. Refer to the circles noted by dash lines in the below annotated Fig. 5A.
PNG
media_image1.png
721
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 5A
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
· In para [00163], lines 3-4, “groove inclined walls 386a, 386b” should be amended to read “groove inclined walls 306a, 306b”. The objection is maintained. Although Applicant states in the Remarks that the reference characters were intended, the identified reference character does not appear in the drawings. Accordingly, the specification has not been brought into correspondence with the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. Claims 1-5 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juncker et al (US6074025A; hereinafter “Juncker”) in view of Phely (US6371579B1).
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 17, Juncker discloses a wheel (306 “idler wheel”; Fig. 21) for a track system (10 “track system”; Fig. 1), comprising: a hub portion (Inner central wheel region around inner surface 308; Fig. 21) and a tread portion (312 “outer surface”; Fig. 21) disposed about the hub portion (Figs. 14 and 21; Col. 10, lines 1-7), the tread portion 312 comprising: a first plurality of grooves extending laterally from a first sidewall of the tread portion towards a second sidewall of the tread portion (Refer to the groove, first sidewall, and second sidewall in the below annotated Fig. 21), the first plurality of grooves being circumferentially spaced along the tread portion (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 21); a third plurality of grooves (Refer to the third plurality of grooves in the below annotated Fig. 21) extending laterally from the second sidewall towards the first sidewall, the third plurality of grooves being circumferentially spaced along the tread portion (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 21) as recited in claim 16, but fails to clearly disclose a radial depth of a first groove from the first plurality of grooves being greater proximate to the first sidewall than proximate to the second sidewall as recited in claim 1; a radial depth of a third groove from the third plurality of grooves being greater proximate to the second sidewall than proximate to the first sidewall as recited in claim 16.
PNG
media_image2.png
660
1006
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 21 of Juncker et al
Phely, however, teaches providing a groove having a varying radial depth (Figs. 4 and 5) along the lateral direction of the rolling surface (36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the grooves of the tread pattern of the idler wheel of Juncker by including such a varying radial depth as taught by Phely, with the motivation to facilitate the evacuation of debris or foreign material from the groove during operation.
Juncker further fails to disclose grooves of the first plurality of grooves comprise a flexible ridge for expelling debris out of the grooves as recited in claim 1; the third groove being laterally aligned with a corresponding groove of the first plurality of grooves as recited in claim 16; the first and third grooves have an ellipsoidal shape as recited in claims 1 and 17.
Phely, however, teaches that the two sets of grooves (Refer to the first and third groove in the below annotated Figs. 4 and 5) on opposite sides of the wheel surface are laterally aligned with each other, i.e., they are circumferentially aligned around the wheel surface and the grooves having an ellipsoidal shape (Refer to the below annotated Figs. 4 and 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
480
827
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 of Phely
PNG
media_image4.png
277
875
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 5 of Phely
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the two sets of grooves on the tread portion of the idler wheel of Juncker by aligning the grooves laterally with one another and providing them with an ellipsoidal shape, as taught by Phely, with the motivation to improve traction and drainage performance of tread pattern and to provide a continuous lateral path that facilitates evacuation of debris trapped between the track and the wheel, thereby reducing debris accumulation and the associated mechanical overload on the track. Although the groove configuration is modified as taught by Phely, the modification does not alter the resilient nature of Juncker’s tread portion. Accordingly, the ridges (Refer to the ridge in the above annotated Fig. 4 of Phely) defined by the modified grooves would likewise remain flexible and inherently flex to expel debris.
Regarding claim 2, Juncker, as modified by Phely, discloses the groove has a groove surface, a slope of the groove surface having an elliptical profile (Refer to the below annotated Figs. 4 and 5 of Phely).
PNG
media_image3.png
480
827
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 of Phely
PNG
media_image4.png
277
875
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 5 of Phely
Regarding claim 3, Juncker, as modified by Phely, further discloses the groove surface is at least one of a bottom surface and a sidewall of the first groove (The groove surface corresponds to the bottom surface and sidewall of the first groove in the below annotated Fig. 4 of Phely).
PNG
media_image5.png
450
838
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 of Phely
Regarding claim 4, Juncker, as modified by Phely, further discloses the groove has a transversal axis that is parallel to an axis of rotation of the wheel (Although not explicitly labeled, the transversal axis of the groove is implicit from the orientation of the groove shown in Figs. 1, 4, and 5 of Phely and is parallel to the axis of rotation of the wheel).
Regarding claim 5, Juncker, as modified by Phely, further discloses the groove has an axial curvature for expelling debris from the first groove (Figs. 4 and 5 of Phely).
Regarding claim 11, Juncker further discloses the wheel 306 is an idler wheel (Col. 10) of the track system 10 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Juncker further discloses the wheel 306 is a support wheel of the track system 10 (The limitation merely states an intended use and does not impose additional structural limitations on the claimed wheel. The wheel disclosed by Juncker includes a hub and an outer tread portion capable of contacting and supporting a track or ground surface. Therefore, the wheel of Juncker is capable of being used as a support wheel in a track system).
Regarding claim 13, Juncker further discloses the wheel 306 is an idler-support wheel of the track system (The limitation merely describes an intended use of the wheel and does not structurally distinguish the claimed wheel from the wheel disclosed by Juncker. The wheel structure disclosed by Juncker is capable of being used in such a configuration. Accordingly, Juncker meets this limitation).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Juncker further discloses the tread portion is made of resilient material and the resilient material is an elastomer (“idler wheel 306 is non-pneumatic and is constructed from a rubber or rubber-like material” per Col. 10, lines 1-7).
7. Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN107187277A) in view of Phely (US6371579B1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 10, Chen discloses a wheel (Fig. 1) for a track system (The phrase “for a track system” is considered to be an intended use and does not structurally limit the claimed tread portion), comprising: a hub portion and a tread portion disposed about the hub portion (Chen discloses a tire having a tread pattern, which is mounted on a wheel and therefore disposed about the hub portion of the wheel), the tread portion (1 and 2 “tread pattern”; Fig. 2) comprising: a first plurality of grooves (11 “main grooves” and 21 “inner transverse secondary grooves”; Fig. 2) extending laterally from a first sidewall (Refer to the first sidewall in the below annotated Fig. 3) of the tread portion towards a second sidewall (Refer to the second sidewall in the below annotated Fig. 3) of the tread portion, the first plurality of grooves (11 and 21; Para [0011] and [0035]) being circumferentially spaced along the tread portion (Para [0033], [0037], and [0038]), a radial depth (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 3) of a first groove from the first plurality of grooves (11 and 21) being greater proximate to the first sidewall than proximate to the second sidewall (Fig. 2 shows that the grooves depth is decreasing from the first sidewall to the second sidewall), wherein the tread portion further comprises: a second plurality of grooves (22 “secondary groove”; Figs. 2 and 3) extending laterally from the second sidewall (Refer to the second sidewall in the below annotated Fig. 3) towards the first sidewall (Refer to the first sidewall in the below annotated Fig. 3), the second plurality of grooves (22) being circumferentially spaced along the tread portion (Para [0037] and [0038]), the second groove (22) having a length smaller than a length of the first groove (11 and 21; Fig. 2), a radial depth of a second groove from the second plurality of grooves (22) being greater proximate to the second sidewall than proximate the first sidewall (The below annotated Fig. 3 shows that the grooves depth is decreasing from the second sidewall to the first sidewall), but fails to disclose the first groove and the second groove having an ellipsoidal shape and grooves of the first plurality of grooves comprise a flexible ridge for expelling debris out of grooves.
PNG
media_image6.png
542
1008
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Chen
Phely, however, teaches grooves having an ellipsoidal shape (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the grooves of the tread portion of Chen by having an ellipsoidal shape, as taught by Phely, with the motivation to improve traction and drainage performance of the tread pattern. Although Chen is modified to incorporate the ellipsoidal groove configuration taught by Phely, the modification merely changes the configuration of the grooves. It is well understood in the art that tire treads for port machinery are conventionally formed of resilient elastomeric materials. Accordingly, the ridges defined between the modified grooves would be flexible and capable of flexing to expel debris from the grooves, thereby meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Chen further discloses the second groove (22) is disposed circumferentially between two adjacent grooves of the first plurality of grooves (11 and 21; Fig. 2).
8. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juncker in view of Phely.
Regarding claim 18, Juncker et al discloses a track system (10 “track system”; Fig. 1) for a vehicle, the track system (10) comprising: a frame (274 “frame”; Figs. 1 and 2), a drive wheel assembly (12 “drive wheel”; Figs. 1 and 2) rotationally connected to the frame (274) and operatively connectable to the vehicle (Col. 5 lines 16-23); a wheel assembly (276 “a leading idler assembly”; Fig. 5) rotationally connected to the frame (274; Col. 9 lines 24-32; Fig. 5); and an endless track surrounding the drive wheel assembly and the wheel assembly (Fig. 1), the endless track being drivingly engaged with the drive wheel assembly (Fig. 1), wherein the wheel assembly (276) comprises a wheel (306 “idler wheel”), the wheel (276) comprises a hub (Inner central wheel region around inner surface 308) and a tread portion (312 “outer surface”; Fig. 21) disposed about the hub (Figs. 14 and 21; Col. 10, lines 1-7), the tread portion (312) comprising: a first plurality of grooves extending laterally from a first sidewall of the tread portion towards a second sidewall of the tread portion (Refer to the groove, first sidewall, and second sidewall in the below annotated Fig. 21), the first plurality of grooves being circumferentially spaced along the tread portion (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 21), but fails to clearly disclose a radial depth of a first groove from the first plurality of grooves being greater proximate to the first sidewall than proximate to the second sidewall.
PNG
media_image7.png
771
857
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 21 of Juncker et al
Phely, however, teaches providing a groove having a varying radial depth (Figs. 4 and 5) along the lateral direction of the rolling surface (36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the grooves of the tread pattern of the idler wheel of Juncker et al by including such a varying radial depth as taught by Phely, with the motivation to facilitate the evacuation of debris or foreign material from the groove during operation.
Juncker et al further fails to disclose the first groove having an ellipsoidal shape.
Phely, however, teaches grooves having an ellipsoidal shape (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the tread portion of the idler wheel of Juncker et al by providing grooves having an ellipsoidal shape as taught by Phely with the motivation to improve traction and drainage performance of the tread pattern.
Regarding claim 19, Juncker et al, as modified by Phely, discloses the track system (10) of claim 18, wherein the wheel assembly is an idler wheel assembly (The limitation merely states an intended use and does not impose additional structural limitations on the claimed wheel assembly; 276; Figs. 3, 4, and 21).
Regarding claim 20, Juncker et al, as modified by Phely, discloses the track system of claim 18, wherein the wheel assembly is a support wheel assembly (The limitation merely states an intended use and does not impose additional structural limitations on the claimed wheel assembly; The wheel assembly 276 is capable of being used as a support wheel assembly)
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 6/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 11-13, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is set forth under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Juncker in view of Phely.
10. The following applicant’s arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
· In response to applicant’s argument on pages 10 and 11 that “Phely does not teach or suggest a flexible ridge” and “Juncker does not cure this deficiency”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the revised rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not rely on Juncker to expressly teach flexible ridges or debris evacuation. Rather, Juncker is relied upon for its resilient tread portion, while Phely is relied upon for its elliptical groove configuration. Although Juncker is not primarily directed to debris evacuation, this does not preclude one of ordinary skill in the art from modifying the resilient tread portion of Juncker to include the elliptical groove configuration taught by Phely. As shown, for example, in Fig. 21, Juncker discloses a resilient tread portion having grooves thereon. The revised rejection proposes modifying the grooves of Juncker to have the elliptical configuration taught by Phely. Such modification does not alter the resilient nature of Juncker’s tread portion. Accordingly, the ridges defined between the modified grooves remain flexible and inherently deform during operation, thereby being capable of expelling debris from the grooves.
· In response to applicant's arguments on page 11 (i.e., “Chen does not teach or suggest the claimed flexible ridge”) against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection does not rely on Chen alone to teach the claimed groove configuration or flexible ridge. Rather, Chen is relied upon for its resilient tread portion (Note that it is well understood in the art that tire treads for port machinery are conventionally formed of resilient elastomeric materials) including grooves, while Phely is relied upon for teaching the elliptical groove configuration. The proposed modification replaces the groove configuration of Chen with the elliptical groove configuration taught by Phely. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments directed to Chen’s original zigzag groove configuration are not responsive to the rejection. Further, the fact that Chen primarily discusses uneven wear does not preclude the proposed modification, nor is a reference required to disclose every possible advantage or intended use of its disclosed structure.
Further, Applicant has not provided any evidence in the form of an affidavit or declaration filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 to support this argument; and the claims do not recite any particular physical structure of the claimed flexible ridge. The phrase “for expelling debris out of grooves” merely states an intended use and does not further limit the claimed structure. Accordingly, Applicant is suggested to amend the claims to recite the structural features of the flexible ridges if such structural distinctions are intended.
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON (TAE) CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights