Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the track protrusion(s) “engaging respective slots in the first and second wheels” as set forth in claim 1; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "13" and "19" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The first paragraph lacks reference to the 371 status of the application.
The term “relief” should be replaced with the term - -flange- - through the specification, to more accurately define the invention using terminology common in the art.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: A comma - -,- - should be inserted between the terms “wheels” and “respectively”, for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 sets forth the limitation that the protrusions of the track are “engaging respective slots in the first and second wheels”. However, this feature is not present in the drawings, nor described in the specification. Therefore, this limitation is not enabled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the inner face of the track is “configured to be arranged in contact” with the first and second wheels. This phrase is generally narrative and indefinite, and does not describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what element of the invention includes “the cross section”.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the first and second wheels are “configured to guide” the protrusion. This phrase is generally narrative and indefinite, and does not describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 12 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what element of the invention includes the “one side” and “the other side”.
Claim 17 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to engage”. This phrase is generally narrative and indefinite, and does not describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the limitation "the cross section" in lines 10 and 2-3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the limitation "the path section" in lines 13 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the opposite ends" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the contact area" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the other side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the areas of mutual contact" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poetter (2002/0070606).
Per claim 1, Poetter shows a track undercarriage 10 having an elongated structure 14, a first wheel 18 rotatably mounted at a first end of the elongated structure 14, and a second wheel 23 rotatably mounted at a second end of the elongated structure 14. A track 12 is looped around the first 18 and second 23 wheels, and includes an inner face having at least one protrusion 29 for engaging the wheels (18, 23). The protrusions engage “slots” in the wheels inasmuch as the Applicant’s invention. A track guide 28 extends between the first 18 and second 23 wheels, and guides the protrusion 29 as the track 12 travels.
Per claim 6, the track 12 includes two parallel protrusions 29 extending from the inner face thereof.
Per claim 7, the two protrusions 29 define a recess therebetween in which the track guide 28 is slidably and dimensionally housed.
Per claim 10, the distance between the first 18 and second 23 wheels is selectively adjustable along the elongated structure 14 (see the adjustment slot of second wheel 23 in Figure 2).
Per claim 12, as best understood, the track 12 has an at least partly complementary shape with respect to the first 18 and second 23 wheels along areas of mutual contact.
Per claim 13, the first wheel 18 is a driving wheel, while the second wheel 23 is a “deflection” wheel.
Per claim 14, a plurality of third wheels are movably connected to the support structure 14 (see Figure 2) and contact the inner face of the track 12.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poetter. Poetter shows a mechanical transmission 21 that drives the first wheel 18. However, Poetter does not show the transmission being housed within the elongated structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to mount the transmission within the elongated structure, for the purpose reducing the amount of lateral space required from the track assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8-9, 11, 15, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show tracks assemblies having track guides therein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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) 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615