DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “48i” has been used to designate multiple distinct embodiments of the drive/guide lug throughout the drawings. Each distinct part, including modified parts, are required to be labeled with a distinct reference character to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). It is further noted that the zones represented by reference characters 1405, 1411, 1412 and 1413 in the embodiment shown in Fig. 15 are distinct (i.e., modified) from the zones represented by these same reference characters in the embodiment shown in Fig. 14.
The leader for reference character 1410 in both Figs. 14 and 15 should include a freestanding arrow directed to the “area” as described instead of a lead line contacting zone 1412.
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 “second zone has a circular or U-shaped form” as set forth in claim 11 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 5 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, there is no support in the original disclosure for a single embodiment of Applicant’s track in which each of the plurality of drive/guide lugs further comprises a third zone having a third modulus of elasticity and located on the drive/guide lug symmetrically to the second zone, wherein the third modulus of elasticity is different from the second modulus of elasticity.
Regarding claim 12, there is no support in the original disclosure for a single embodiment of Applicant’s track in which “an area comprising a plurality of zones each having a different modulus of elasticity and substantially only located where the drive/guide lug is configured to engage with a respective one of the plurality of wheels” (emphasis added). Specifically, at least the zones 1411 and 1412 of the area 1410 in the embodiments of Figs. 14 and 15 do not engage with a respective one of the plurality of wheels. Further, there is no support in the original disclosure for a single embodiment of Applicant’s track in which “the values of the moduli of elasticity of the plurality of zones successively decrease in a direction from the first zone to an engagement point or engagement surface between the drive/guide lug and the respective one of the plurality of wheels” as set forth in claim 13 in combination with the “plurality of zones each having a different modulus of elasticity and substantially only located where the drive/guide lug is configured to engage with a respective one of the plurality of wheels” (emphasis added) as required by claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, there is no support in the original disclosure for a single embodiment of Applicant’s track in which “an area comprising a second, third, and fourth zones substantially only located on a periphery of the drive/guide lug where the drive/guide lug is configured to engage with a respective one of the plurality of wheels”. (emphasis added). Specifically, at least the zones 1411 and 1412 of the area 1410 in the embodiments of Figs. 14 and 15 do not engage with a respective one of the plurality of wheels. Further, there is no support in the original disclosure for a single embodiment of Applicant’s track in which “values of coefficients of friction between the zones of the area and the respective one of the plurality of wheels decrease from the second zone in the direction of the fourth zone” as set forth in claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, there is no support in the original disclosure for “modulus of elasticity of the third zone is equal to the modulus of elasticity of the second zone and the coefficient of friction of the third zone with the respective one of the plurality of wheels is equal to the coefficient of friction of the second zone with the respective one of the plurality of wheels”.
Regarding claim 20, there is no support in the original disclosure for “the values of the coefficients of friction between the zones of the area and the respective one of the plurality of wheels is between 0.1 and 0.9” (emphasis added). Instead paragraph [0126] of Applicant’s specification only provides support for zone 1415 having a coefficient of friction within this claimed range.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 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.
The term “substantially” in the limitation “substantially only located” of claims 1, 12 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear what would be encompassed by the limitation “substantially only located where the drive/guide lug is configured to engage with a respective one of the plurality of wheels” as set forth in claims 1 and 12, and the limitation “substantially only located on a periphery of the drive/guide lug where the drive/guide lug is configured to engage with a respective one of the plurality of wheels” as set forth in claim 18. Such indefiniteness is further compounded by various dependent claims which require the respective claimed zone or area to also be located on non-drive/guide lug structure. For example, while claim 1 requires the “second zone” to be “substantially only located where the drive/guide lug is configured to engage with a respective one of the plurality of wheels”, dependent claims 6-8 further require the second zone to further extend “on the inner side of the carcass” (claim 6) such that the second zone “covers at least part of a rolling path of the plurality of wheels on the inner side of the carcass” (claim 7) and “a force applied by the respective one of the plurality of wheels on the rolling path is substantially absorbed by the second zone” (claim 8). Likewise, while claim 12 requires the “area” to be “substantially only located where the drive/guide lug is configured to engage with a respective one of the plurality of wheels”, dependent claim 14 further requires the area to further extend “on the inner side of the carcass”.
Regarding claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the inner side of the carcass”.
Regarding claim 14, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the inner side of the carcass”.
Regarding claim 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the closest lower and higher value of modulus of elasticity”.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “wherein modulus of elasticity of the third zone is equal to the modulus of elasticity of the second zone and the coefficient of friction of the third zone with the respective one of the plurality of wheels is equal to the coefficient of friction of the second zone with the respective one of the plurality of wheels” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the modulus of elasticity of the third zone can be equal to the modulus of elasticity of the second zone when “the values of the moduli of elasticity decrease from the fourth zone in the direction of the second zone” as required by claim 18. Further, it is unclear how the coefficient of friction of the third zone with the respective one of the plurality of wheels can be equal to the coefficient of friction of the second zone with the respective one of the plurality of wheels when “values of coefficients of friction between the zones of the area and the respective one of the plurality of wheels decrease from the second zone in the direction of the fourth zone” as required by claim 18.
Priority
8. The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
9. The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/983,307, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claims 5 and 12-20 of the current application are not adequately supported by the disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/983,307 (note Section 4 regarding the limitations which are not supported).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
12. Claims 1-4 and 6-14, as best understood in light of the numerous Section 112 issues noted above, are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Ishibashi (JP 2007022304A).
Regarding claim 1, Ishibashi, in the embodiment shown in Figs. 3 and 4, discloses a track for traction of a vehicle (not shown, but implicit from the disclosure), the track being mountable around a plurality of wheels for driving and guiding the track around the wheels (note at least paragraph [0011]), the track being elastomeric to flex as the track moves around the wheels (paragraph [0014]), the track comprising: a carcass (“crawler base” per paragraph [0014]) comprising a ground-engaging outer surface and an inner surface opposite to the ground-engaging outer surface (evident from Figs. 3 and 4); and a plurality of drive/guide lugs B projecting from the inner surface of the carcass, spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the track and configured to engage respective ones of the plurality of wheels (evident from Figs. 3 and 4; paragraph [0011]), each of the plurality of drive/guide lugs comprising: a first zone 1 having a first modulus of elasticity (paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0016] and [0018]); and a second zone 2 having a second modulus of elasticity different from the first modulus of elasticity (paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0016] and [0018]) and substantially only located where the drive/guide lug is configured to engage with a respective one of the plurality of wheels (evident from Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 2, Ishibashi further discloses the plurality of wheels includes a drive wheel (“sprocket” per paragraph [0011]) configured to drive the track, the drive wheel comprising a plurality of drive members (not shown, but implicit from at least paragraph [0011]) distributed around the drive wheel, and wherein the drive/guide lug is configured to engage with a respective one of the drive members of the drive wheel (paragraph [0011]), wherein the respective one of the drive members of the drive wheel engages a front or rear surface of the drive/guide lug in the longitudinal direction of the track (evident from paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 3, Ishibashi further discloses the plurality of wheels includes a mid-roller wheel (“track rollers” per paragraph [0011]),wherein the mid-roller wheel is configured to engage a respective one of the plurality of drive/guide lugs and the inner surface of the carcass, and wherein the mid-roller engages a side surface of the respective one of the plurality of drive/guide lugs (evident from Figs. 3 and 4; paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Ishibashi further discloses the second modulus of elasticity is lower than the first modulus of elasticity (paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0016] and [0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Ishibashi further discloses the second zone further extends on the inner side of the carcass (the second zone can be considered to include portions on the inner side of the carcass inasmuch as it can be made of the same rubber composition as the carcass per paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 7, Ishibashi further discloses the second zone covers at least part of a rolling path of the plurality of wheels on the inner side of the carcass (evident from paragraph [0014] where the second zone is considered to include portions on the inner side of the carcass that engages track rollers during use).
Regarding claim 8, Ishibashi further discloses a force applied by the respective one of the plurality of wheels on the rolling path is substantially absorbed by the second zone (evident from paragraph [0014] where the second zone is considered to include portions on the inner side of the carcass that engages the track rollers during use).
Regarding claim 9, Ishibashi further discloses a force applied by the respective one of the plurality of wheels on the respective one of the plurality of drive/guide lugs is substantially absorbed by the second zone (evident from paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 10, Ishibashi further discloses the first zone makes up a majority of the drive/guide lug (Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, Ishibashi further discloses the second zone has a circular or U-shaped form (Fig. 3 shows an upside down U-shaped form for the second zone).
Regarding claim 12, Ishibashi, in the embodiment shown in Figs. 3 and 4, discloses a track for traction of a vehicle (not shown, but implicit from the disclosure), the track being mountable around a plurality of wheels for driving and guiding the track around the wheels (note at least paragraph [0011]), the track being elastomeric to flex as the track moves around the wheels (paragraph [0014]), the track comprising: a carcass (“crawler base” per paragraph [0014]) comprising a ground-engaging outer surface and an inner surface opposite to the ground-engaging outer surface (evident from Figs. 3 and 4); and a plurality of drive/guide lugs B projecting from the inner surface of the carcass, spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the track and configured to engage respective ones of the plurality of wheels (evident from Figs. 3 and 4; paragraph [0011]), each of the plurality of drive/guide lugs comprising: a first zone 1 having a first modulus of elasticity (paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0016] and [0018]); and an area comprising a plurality of zones 2, 5 each having a different modulus of elasticity and substantially only located where the drive/guide lug is configured to engage with a respective one of the plurality of wheels (Figs. 3 and 4; paragraphs [0004], [0011], [0012], [0016], [0018] and [0019]), wherein the first modulus of elasticity is different from the moduli of elasticity of the plurality of zones (evident from paragraphs [0004], [0011], [0012], [0016], [0018] and [0019]).
Regarding claim 13, Ishibashi further discloses the values of the moduli of elasticity of the plurality of zones successively decrease in a direction from the first zone 1 to an engagement point or engagement surface at 2 between the drive/guide lug and the respective one of the plurality of wheels (Fig. 4; paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0016] and [0018]).
Regarding claim 14, Ishibashi further discloses the area comprising the plurality of zones further extends on the inner side of the carcass (the zone 2 can be considered to include portions on the inner side of the carcass inasmuch as it can be made of the same rubber composition as the carcass per paragraph [0014]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
14. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
15. Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishibashi.
Although Ishibashi further discloses having a zone with a low coefficient of friction when engaged with the respective one of the plurality of wheels being located on a periphery of the drive/guide lug (paragraphs [0017] and [0020]), Ishibashi fails to expressly disclose the value of the coefficient of friction.
Nonetheless, to have modified the track of Ishibashi so that the low coefficient of friction zone located on a periphery of the drive/guide lug has a coefficient of friction between 0.1 and 0.9 when engaged with the respective one of the plurality of wheels would have been obvious, as a matter of routine optimization, to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the sliding properties and reducing the friction with the road wheels.
16. Claim 17 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishibashi in view of Edwards et al. (US 4,906,054; hereinafter “Edwards”).
Ishibashi fails to expressly disclose one of the plurality of zones being made of polyurethane.
Edwards, however, teaches a track in which one of the zones of drive/guide lug 11 can be made of polyurethane (lines 45-55 of col. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the track of Ishibashi so that one of the plurality of zones is made of polyurethane, such as taught by Edwards, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing desired and predictable properties such as a suitable drive surface with limited operational noise.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ueno (JP 2002211455A) discloses a track with drive/guide lugs 4 comprising a second zone at 26 located where the drive/guide is configured to engage with a respective one of the plurality of wheels having a second modulus of elasticity different from a first modulus of elasticity of a first zone at 14 (Fig. 11; paragraph [0030]).
18. 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