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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1516 (Fig. 10) and 1518 (Fig. 10).
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. No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 1-19 and 23 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.
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the connection of the first inner coupler connector with the first inner section connector”, “the connection of the second inner coupler connector with the second inner section connector”, “the connection of the first outer coupler connector with the first outer section connector” and “the connection of the second outer coupler connector with the second outer section connector”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-14, 17, 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by St. Pierre et al. (US 2014/0028085 A1; hereinafter “St. Pierre”).
Regarding claim 1, St. Pierre discloses a track segment 200 for a segmented track 100, the track segment comprising: a first track section (a first 200) comprising: a section body 205; a first connecting portion at 254 disposed at a first longitudinal end 207 of the section body, the first connecting portion having; a first inner connecting surface (unlabeled inner facing surface of 254 that engages inner plate assembly 450 as evident from Figs. 5, 8 and 9) defining a first inner section connector (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 9 below), a first outer connecting surface (unlabeled outer facing surface of 254 that engages outer plate assembly 350 as evident from Figs. 5, 8 and 9) opposite to the first inner connecting surface (Fig. 5), the first outer connecting surface defining a first outer section connector (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 9 below), and a first engaging surface (unlabeled surfaces of dovetail configuration of 254 shown in Figs. 5 and 10) extending between the first inner and outer connecting surfaces and configured to abut on a second engaging surface (unlabeled surfaces of dovetail configuration of 274 shown in Figs. 5 and 10) of a second connecting portion at 274 of a second track section (a second 200); and an inner coupler 450 having a first inner coupler connector (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 9 below) and a second inner coupler connector (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 9 below), the first and second inner coupler connectors being longitudinally spaced from one another (Fig. 9), the first inner coupler connector being configured to connect to the first inner section connector of the first connecting portion of the first track section (Fig. 9), the second inner coupler connector being configured to connect to a second inner section connector of the second connecting portion of the second track section (Fig. 9); the connection of the first inner coupler connector with the first inner section connector and the connection of the second inner coupler connector with the second inner section connector being configured to limit movement of the first track section relative to the second track section (note the claimed “connections” that are configured to limit movement of the first track section relative to the second track section include the use of fasteners 370 as described in paragraph [0066]); and an outer coupler 350 having a first outer coupler connector (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 9 below) and a second outer coupler connector (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 9 below), the first and second outer coupler connectors being longitudinally spaced from one another (Fig. 9), the first outer coupler connector being configured to connect to the first outer section connector of the first connecting portion of the first track section (Fig. 9), the second outer coupler connector being configured to connect to a second outer section connector of the second connecting portion of the second track section (Fig. 9), the connection of the first outer coupler connector with the first outer section connector and the connection of the second outer coupler connector with the second outer section connector being configured to limit movement of the first track section relative to the second track section (note the claimed “connections” that are configured to limit movement of the first track section relative to the second track section include the use of fasteners 470 as described in paragraph [0066]).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, St. Pierre further discloses the second track section (a second 200; paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 3, St. Pierre further discloses the first track section comprises an additional connecting portion (at 274) at a second longitudinal end 209 of the section body opposite from the first longitudinal end (Fig. 3), the additional connecting portion being configured to be connected to a third track section (a third 200; paragraph [0043]) using a supplementary inner coupler 450 and a supplementary outer coupler 350 (Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, St. Pierre further discloses the track segment is reinforced with longitudinal reinforcing cables 220 (Fig. 8; paragraph [0047]); the first track section comprises a cable attachment section (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 8) at a second longitudinal end of the section body opposite from the first longitudinal end (Fig. 8), the cable attachment section being configured to receive first ends of the longitudinal reinforcing cables (Fig. 8); and the longitudinal reinforcing cables have second ends configured for attachment to another track segment (evident from Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, St. Pierre further discloses the section body is made of elastomeric material (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, St. Pierre further discloses the section body includes: an inner surface 400 having at least one inner body lug 410, 420, 430 (Fig. 3), and an outer surface 300 opposite to the inner surface, the outer surface having at least one outer body lug 310 (Fig. 2); the inner coupler includes at least one inner coupler lug 465, 466, 467 (Fig. 5), and the outer coupler includes at least one outer coupler lug 361 (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, St. Pierre further discloses the at least one inner body lug comprises at least one driving lug 420, 430 and at least one guiding lug 410; and the at least one inner coupler lug comprises at least one driving lug 466, 467 and at least one guiding lug 465.
Regarding claim 8, St. Pierre further discloses the at least one outer body lug comprises at least one ground-engaging lug 310; and the at least one outer coupler lug comprises at least one ground-engaging lug 361.
Regarding claim 9, St. Pierre further discloses the at least one inner body lug and the at least one inner coupler lug are longitudinally spaced (Figs. 4 and 5); and the at least one outer body lug and the at least one outer coupler lug are longitudinally spaced (Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 10, St. Pierre further discloses the first and second connecting portions extend laterally along at least 70% of a width of the first track section (evident from Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, St. Pierre further discloses each of the first and second inner section connectors forms one of an inner mortise and an inner tenon (an inner tenon as evident from reproduced and annotated Fig. 9 provided above), each of the first and second inner coupler connectors forms another one of the inner mortise and the inner tenon (an inner mortise as evident from reproduced and annotated Fig. 9 provided above), and wherein each respective pair including one of the inner mortises and one of the inner tenons is configured to form an inner dovetail joint when the inner coupler is assembled with the first and second track sections (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, St. Pierre further discloses each of the first and second outer section connectors forms one of an outer mortise and an outer tenon (an outer tenon as evident from reproduced and annotated Fig. 9 provided above), each of the first and second outer coupler connectors forms another one of the outer mortise and the outer tenon (an outer mortise as evident from reproduced and annotated Fig. 9 provided above); and wherein each respective pair including one of the outer mortises and one of the outer tenons is configured to form an outer dovetail joint when the outer coupler is assembled with the first and second track sections (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 13, St. Pierre further discloses the first engaging surface has a first anchoring portion 252, and the second engaging surface has a second anchoring portion 272 (paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, St. Pierre further discloses one of the first and second anchoring portions includes a plurality of laterally distributed tenons 256; another one of the first and second anchoring portions includes a plurality of laterally distributed mortises 278; and the plurality of laterally distributed mortises and the plurality of laterally distributed tenons are configured to form a plurality of laterally distributed dovetail joints when the first and second track sections are assembled (Fig. 10; paragraphs [0060-0062]).
Regarding claim 17, St. Pierre further discloses at least one of the first track and second sections further includes a securing means 370, 470 for locking the inner and outer couplers to the first and second track sections (Figs. 4 and 5; paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 18, St. Pierre further discloses the inner and outer couplers are configured to form a rigid connection at 290 between the first and second track sections (paragraphs [0018] and [0057]).
Regarding claim 23, St. Pierre further discloses a segmented track 100 for a track system comprising a plurality of the track segments 200 (Fig. 1; paragraph [0043]).
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.
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.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over St. Pierre in view of Lynch (US 2,803,504).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, St. Pierre fails to disclose the first connecting portion has a first hook portion and the second connecting portion has a second hook portion, wherein the first hook portion and the second hook portion are configured to align and temporarily hold the first connecting portion of the first track section relative to the second connecting portion of the second track section before the inner and outer couplers connect to the first and second track sections. Instead, St. Pierre discloses the first and second connecting portions having a dovetail configuration for temporarily holding the first connecting portion of the first track section relative to the second connecting portion of the second track section before the inner and outer couplers connect to the first and second track sections (paragraph [0063]).
Lynch, however, teaches a track segment A, B, C for a segmented track 10, wherein the first connecting portion at 40 of the first track section has a first hook portion 44 and the second connecting portion at 41 of the second track section has a second hook portion 46, wherein the first hook portion and the second hook portion are configured to align and temporarily hold the first connecting portion of the first track section relative to the second connecting portion of the second track section before the inner and outer couplers 42, 15a connect to the first and second track sections (Fig. 7; line 63 of col. 2 through line 2 of col. 3).
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 segment of St. Pierre by forming the first and second connecting portions with the claimed hook portions instead of a dovetail configuration, such as taught by Lynch, as a well-known alternative connecting arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing predictable results for providing an adequate connection between the first and second connecting portions before the connection of the inner and outer couplers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 17 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that amended claim 1 “recites the first inner connecting surface and the first inner section connector as two distinct elements”, the Examiner respectively disagrees. Instead, claim 1 recites “a first inner connecting surface defining a first inner section connector” which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (note the term “define” is defined as “to determine or fix the boundaries or extent thereof” per https:www.dictionary.com/browse/define), merely requires the first inner section connector to be a property or part of the first inner connecting surface. In the instant case, the first inner connecting surface (unlabeled inner facing surface of 254 that engages inner plate assembly 450 as evident from Figs. 5, 8 and 9) of St. Pierre defines (i.e., determines or fixes the boundaries or extent thereof) the first inner section connector (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 9 above).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the engagement between what the Examiner alleges to be the first inner section connector and the first inner coupler connector…is not configured to limit movement of the first track section relative to the second track section…”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead, amended claim 1 requires “the connection of the first inner coupler connector with the first inner section connector and the connection of the second inner coupler connector with the second inner section connector being configured to limit movement of the first track section relative to the second track section” (emphasis added). As noted above, these claimed connections of St. Pierre that are configured to limit movement of the first track section relative to the second track section include the use of fasteners 470 as described in paragraph [0066]). The claims fail to preclude the use of fasteners for helping achieve these claimed connections.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the first and second inner coupler connectors are not longitudinally spaced from one another and the first and second outer coupler connectors are not longitudinally spaced from one another, the Examiner respectively disagrees and notes such longitudinal spacing is clearly shown in reproduced and annotated Fig. 9 of St. Pierre provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
610
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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). 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.
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
Prosecution Insights