DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
Claims 1-15 and 17-22 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Manning does not teach or suggest the claimed two-part split sprocket configuration in which the mating flange/recess locking features are provided directly on the first and second hub portions themselves because, "by contrast [Manning], uses a separate locking ring 25 positioned between wheel structures".
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 applicant argues that modifying Soucy in view of Manning requires more than applying a known flange/recess shape to Soucy because the modification, "requires relocating Manning's locking features from a separate intermediate locking ring onto the two hub portions of Soucy".
The examiner contends that relocating Manning's locking features from a separate intermediate locking ring onto the two hub portions of Soucy is applying a known flange/recess shape to Soucy. Further, the examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
The applicant argues that Manning would not have led a person of ordinary skill to the claimed direct flange/recess locking interface because Manning's arrangement serves a different structural purpose than the claimed arrangement.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.
The applicant argues that, “neither Soucy nor Manning, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests [the claimed] arrangement” and further argues, “Broten cannot remedy the deficiencies of Soucy or Manning, alone or in combination”.
The argument above amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/12/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-10, 12-14, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soucy (US 7416266 B2) in view of Manning (US 2288474 A).
With respect to claim 1, Soucy discloses a split sprocket wheel (20, Fig. 1; also see "two wheel portions", Col. 7, LL. 43-44) for use with an endless track (100), comprising a first hub portion (see annotated figure below) defining a plurality of first wheel stud holes (see annotated figure below) spaced around a circumference of the first hub portion corresponding to a vehicle wheel hub pattern, and a second hub portion (see annotated figure below) defining a plurality of second wheel stud holes (see note below) spaced around a circumference of the second hub portion to match the pattern defined by the first wheel stud holes.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the "plurality of second wheel stud holes", it is readily evident from Figure 7 that these features exist on the second wheel hub portion as the fasteners from Fig. 6 are shown passing through the second wheel hub portion in Fig. 7 (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
692
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Soucy is silent in teaching: each of the plurality of first wheel stud holes surrounded by a flange projecting outwardly from an axial surface of the first hub portion; and each of the plurality of second wheel stud holes surrounded by a recess countersunk into an axial surface of the second hub portion, wherein the first hub portion is configured to mate with the second hub portion, with each of the flanges defined by the first hub portion configured to be received within each of the corresponding recesses defined by the second hub portion to lock the first hub portion to the second hub portion.
Manning teaches the use of flanges (29, Fig. 3) and countersunk recesses ("conical seats"), with the flanges being configured to be received by the corresponding recesses to provide centering and support means for coupling circular features of a wheel together (see Col. 2, LL. 22-33).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Soucy in view of Manning by applying the flanges and countersunk recesses to the wheel stud holes disclosed by Manning to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide centering means for aligning the first and second wheel stud holes.
With respect to claim 3, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above teaches the split sprocket wheel of claim 1 but is silent in teaching that an interior of the second wheel stud holes defined by the second hub portion include a tapered portion configured to receive a portion of a lug nut.
Manning further teaches the use of a tapered portion (19, Fig. 2) configured to receive a portion of a lug nut (14) in order to center a wheel relative to the corresponding bolt (see Col. 2, LL. 8-15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Soucy in view of Manning by applying the tapered portions to the second wheel stud holes to provide means for centering the sprocket wheels.
With respect to claim 4, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above teaches the split sprocket wheel of claim 1, wherein the first hub portion includes a first drop center portion (see annotated figure below) defining the first wheel stud holes, and a first flange portion (see annotated figure below) positioned radially outward from the first drop center portion and extending radially outward from the first drop center portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
548
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above discloses the split sprocket wheel of claim 4, wherein the first hub portion defines a plurality of first spokes (see annotated figure below) connecting the first drop center portion to the first flange portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
514
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above teaches the split sprocket wheel of claim 5, but is silent in teaching that the number of first spokes corresponds to the number of first wheel stud holes.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Soucy in view of Manning to arrive at the claimed invention either by increasing the number of spokes or decreasing the number of wheel stud holes. Increasing the number of spokes would be an obvious modification because it is a mere duplication of parts. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.). Such a person would have been motivated to provide additional spokes to reduce the weight of the sprocket wheel. Such a person would have been motivated to reduce the number of wheel stud holes to simplify the assembly process of the sprocket wheel.
With respect to claim 7, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above teaches the split sprocket wheel of claim 1, wherein the second hub portion includes a second drop center portion (see annotated figure below) defining the second wheel stud holes, and a second flange portion (see annotated figure below) positioned radially outward from the second drop center portion and extending radially outward from the second drop center portion.
PNG
media_image5.png
600
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above teaches the split sprocket wheel of claim 7, wherein the second hub portion defines a plurality of second spokes (see annotated figure below) connecting the second drop center portion to the first flange portion.
PNG
media_image6.png
556
572
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above teaches the split sprocket wheel of claim 8, but is silent in teaching that the number of second spokes corresponds to the number of second wheel stud holes.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Soucy in view of Manning to arrive at the claimed invention either by increasing the number of spokes or decreasing the number of wheel stud holes. Increasing the number of spokes would be an obvious modification because it is a mere duplication of parts. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.). Such a person would have been motivated to provide additional spokes to reduce the weight of the sprocket wheel. Such a person would have been motivated to reduce the number of wheel stud holes to simplify the assembly process of the sprocket wheel.
With respect to claim 10, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above discloses the split sprocket wheel of claim 1, wherein each of the first hub portion and the second hub portion defines a plurality of sprocket teeth (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image7.png
514
562
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above teaches the split sprocket wheel of claim 10, wherein the plurality of sprocket teeth associated with the first hub portion are aligned with the plurality of sprocket teeth associated with the second hub portion (see annotated figure above).
With respect to claim 13, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above teaches the split sprocket wheel of claim 1, but is silent in teaching a plurality of lug nuts corresponding to the number of first and second wheel stud holes.
Soucy further discloses a guide wheel (40, Fig. 8) comprising a first hub portion (see annotated figure below) having a plurality of first wheel stud holes (see annotated figure below) and a second hub portion (see annotated figure below) having a plurality of second wheel stud holes, and a plurality of lug nuts (see annotated figure below) corresponding to the number of first and second wheel stud holes.
PNG
media_image8.png
798
585
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Soucy in view of Manning to also include lug nuts for the sprocket wheel to prevent the two halves of the sprocket wheel from separating during operation.
With respect to claim 14, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above teaches the split sprocket wheel of claim 1, but is silent in teaching each of the first hub portion and the second hub portion are machined from a generic casting.
Regarding claim 14, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see MPEP 2113 I.).
Claim 14 is considered to be a product-by-process claim because it claims a process through which the split sprocket wheel is made and does not further limit the structure of the split sprocket wheel. Accordingly, claim 14 is unpatentable in view of the cited prior art even if the prior art products are made by different processes.
With respect to claim 21, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above teaches the split sprocket wheel of claim 1, wherein the split sprocket wheel is a two-part assembly formed by the first hub portion (see annotated figure above) and the second hub portion (see annotated figure above).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soucy (US 7416266 B2) in view of Manning (US 2288474 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Broten (CA 2237458 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above teaches the split sprocket wheel of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second hub portions is provided with an alignment feature that provides a visual reference point for a single rotational orientation of the second hub portion with respect to the first hub portion.
Broten discloses a vehicle wheel (see Fig. 2) having an alignment feature (1) that provides a visual reference point for rotation of the wheel (see claim 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Soucy in view of Manning in further view of Broten to arrive at the claimed invention and to allow a user to visually check if the sprocket wheel is rotating.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation, “for a single rotational orientation of the second hub portion with respect to the first hub portion” is considered functional language because it describes a manner in which the alignment feature is intended to be used and does not further limit the structure of the alignment feature. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114 II).
Claims 15 and 18-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sewell (US 20070017713 A1) in view of Soucy (US 7416266 B2) and Manning (US 2288474 A).
With respect to claim 15, Sewell discloses: a light industrial vehicle (1, Fig. 1) comprising a chassis ("main frame", paragraph [0014]) supporting a motor ("engine", paragraph [0013]); an implement (30); and at least one track (12) operably coupled to the chassis. Sewell is silent in teaching that the track is operably coupled to the chassis by a split sprocket wheel and the claimed details of the split sprocket wheel.
Soucy teaches a split sprocket wheel (20, Fig. 1; also see "two wheel portions", Col. 7, LL. 43-44) for use with an endless track (100), comprising a first hub portion (see annotated figure below) defining a plurality of first wheel stud holes (see annotated figure below) spaced around a circumference of the first hub portion corresponding to a vehicle wheel hub pattern, and a second hub portion (see annotated figure below) defining a plurality of second wheel stud holes (see note below) spaced around a circumference of the second hub portion to match the pattern defined by the first wheel stud holes.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the "plurality of second wheel stud holes", it is readily evident from Figure 7 that these features exist on the second wheel hub portion as the fasteners from Fig. 6 are shown passing through the second wheel hub portion in Fig. 7 (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
692
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sewell in view of Soucy to arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to make the modification in view of Soucy because such a modification would be a simple substitution of one known element (the sprocket wheel disclosed by Sewell) for another known element (the split sprocket wheel taught by Soucy) to achieve predictable results. Since both sprocket wheels are used with vehicles having tracked drive assemblies, such a person would predict that the modification would result in a substantially similar vehicle capable of performing all of the functions of the original vehicle.
Sewell in view of Soucy as modified above is silent in teaching: each of the plurality of first wheel stud holes surrounded by a flange projecting outwardly from an axial surface of the first hub portion; and each of the plurality of second wheel stud holes surrounded by a recess countersunk into an axial surface of the second hub portion, wherein the first hub portion is configured to mate with the second hub portion, with each of the flanges defined by the first hub portion configured to be received within each of the corresponding recesses defined by the second hub portion to lock the first hub portion to the second hub portion.
Manning teaches the use of flanges (29, Fig. 3) and countersunk recesses ("conical seats"), with the flanges being configured to be received by the corresponding recesses to provide centering and support means for coupling circular features of a wheel together (see Col. 1, LL. 22-33).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Sewell Soucy in view of Manning in view of Manning to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide alignment means for aligning the first and second wheel stud holes.
With respect to claim 18, Sewell in view of Soucy and Manning as modified above teaches the light industrial vehicle of claim 15, but is silent in teaching an interior of the second wheel stud holes defined by the second hub portion include a tapered portion configured to receive a portion of a lug nut.
Manning further teaches the use of a tapered portion (19, Fig. 2) configured to receive a portion of a lug nut (14) in order to center a wheel relative to the corresponding bolt (see Col. 2, LL. 8-15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Sewell in view of Soucy and Manning by applying the tapered portions taught by Manning to the second wheel stud holes to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide means for centering the sprocket wheels.
With respect to claim 19, Sewell in view of Soucy and Manning as modified above teaches the light industrial vehicle of claim 15, wherein the first hub portion defines a plurality of first sprocket teeth and the second hub portion defines a plurality of second sprocket teeth (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image7.png
514
562
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 22, Soucy in view of Manning as modified above teaches the split sprocket wheel of claim 1, wherein the split sprocket wheel is a two-part assembly formed by the first hub portion (see annotated figure above) and the second hub portion (see annotated figure above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 17, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 2, 17, and 20, the closet prior art made of record is Soucy (US 20030047996 A1) in view of Manning (US 2288474 A).
Soucy discloses a split sprocket wheel (20, Fig. 1; also see "two wheel portions", Col. 7, LL. 43-44) for use with an endless track (100), comprising a first hub portion (see annotated figure above) defining a plurality of first wheel stud holes (see annotated figure above) spaced around a circumference of the first hub portion corresponding to a vehicle wheel hub pattern, and a second hub portion (see annotated figure above) defining a plurality of second wheel stud holes spaced around a circumference of the second hub portion to match the pattern defined by the first wheel stud holes.
Manning teaches the use of flanges (29, Fig. 3) and countersunk recesses ("conical seats"), with the flanges being configured to be received by the corresponding recesses to provide centering and support means for coupling circular features of a wheel together (see Col. 1, LL. 22-33).
Soucy and Manning alone or in combination do not teach the flange projecting outwardly from a second axial surface of the second hub portion opposite to the recesses claimed in claims 2 and 17. Soucy and Manning alone or in combination do not teach the method of installing a track on a tracked vehicle claimed in claim 20. Suggestions to further modify Soucy and Manning to arrive at the inventions as claimed in claims 2, 17, and 20 were not reasonably found in the prior art.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6087. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (7:30 - 5:00 EST).
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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571) 272-2706. 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.
/MATTHEW D LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/DREW J BROWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights