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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: lines 10-13 should be reworded such that the “first window” of lines 12-13 is claimed before the “second window” of lines 10-11, while maintaining proper antecedence regarding “the first window” and “the second window”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: lines 4 and 6 state “a first frame section” and “a second frame section”, but then line 11 states “the first frame” and “the second frame”. The Examiner notes that consistent language needs to be used throughout the claims and notes that claims 10, 11, and 13 also omit the term “section”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 16 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 16 recites the limitation "a second window". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a first window” was not previously claimed.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stellman (US 10,435,092).
In re claim 15, Stellman discloses a track frame (26), comprising: a first frame (86); a second frame (84), nested within the first frame and slidable relative to the first frame along a longitudinal axis (as shown in Figure 4); a track (22), disposed about the first frame and the second frame (as shown in Figure 3); and a tensioning assembly (76. 80, as shown in Figure 6), disposed between the first frame and the second frame, and comprises a cylinder (linear actuator 76 may be a cylinder assembly, see column 4, lines 44-46) configured to applying tension between the first frame and the second frame and an indicator plate (138); wherein: a position of the indicator plate relative to the second frame is indicative of a tension provided to the track (as shown in Figures 8-9); and a position of the indicator plate relative to the first frame is indicative of a stroke of the cylinder (as shown in Figures 8-9).
In re claim 17, Stellman further discloses wherein the first frame is defined by a first window (112), wherein the position of the indicator plate relative to the first frame aligns with the first window at a predetermined acceptable cylinder stroke (as shown in Figure 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed (pending minor claim objection above).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “a first frame structure; a first roller attached to the first frame structure; a second frame structure, slidably supported on the first frame structure; a tensioning member, disposed between the first frame structure and the second frame structure; a second roller attached to the second frame structure; and a tension indicator, comprising: a frame element disposed on the tensioning member; a second window, formed in the second frame structure, wherein the frame element is configured to be visible within the second window; and a first window, formed in the first frame structure, wherein the second window is configured to be visible within the first window” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a track frame having a tension indicator comprising two windows, one formed in each frame structure, through which a frame element disposed on the tensioning member can be viewed.
Claims 9-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “a first frame section having a first window formed therein; a first roller attached to the first frame section; a second frame section having a second window disposed therein; a second roller attached to the second frame section; a cylinder; a coil spring; and an indicator plate disposed at an end of the coil spring; wherein the first frame, the second frame, and the indicator plate are configurable in a first configuration, wherein the first configuration is defined by:the indicator plate being disposed within the second frame section; the second frame section being disposed within the first frame section; and the indicator plate being visible on an outside of the first frame section through the first window and the second window” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose two track frames each having a window through which an indicator plate disposed at the end of a coil spring can be viewed when the second frame section is within the first frame section.
Claim 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the second frame is defined by a second window, wherein the position of the indicator plate relative to the second frame aligns with the second window at a predetermined tension provided to the track” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a track frame having a tension indicator comprising two windows through which a an indicator plate can be viewed. The Examiner notes that it is the combination of two windows that makes claim 16 allowable, however, as noted above, each must be claimed.
Claim 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the second frame is defined by a second window, wherein the position of the indicator plate relative to the second frame aligns with the second window at a predetermined tension provided to the track” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a track frame having a tension indicator comprising two windows, one formed in each frame structure, through which a an indicator plate can be viewed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach track devices of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights