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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: A comma should be inserted between the phrase “configured to receive hydraulic fluid” and “the hydraulic cylinder being coupled to the track-engaging assembly” for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an indicator configured to indicate a load in the tensioner and convey information related to a static pressure of the tensioner based on a measurement that is different from a measurement of the static pressure of the tensioner” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the generic placeholder “indicator” that performs the recited function of “to indicate a load in the tensioner and convey information related to a static pressure of the tensioner based on a measurement that is different from a measurement of the static pressure of the tensioner” is considered to be one of the following: a body comprising a bolt coupling a given one of a first anchor and a second anchor of the tensioner to a corresponding part of the track-engaging assembly and comprising a surface that is visible from an exterior of the bolt and that is configured to change color depending on a load of the bolt (note at least paragraphs [0008-0012] of the specification); a gap between a first portion of the frame attached to a first anchor of the tensioner at a first end of the hydraulic cylinder and resiliently deformable and a second portion of the frame, wherein the indicator comprises a spring in the gap (note at least paragraphs [0014-0016]); a resilient portion configured to resiliently deform when a pressure, a load, or a moment is applied on the resilient portion, wherein the resilient portion is provided on a channel connecting the hydraulic cylinder with the hydraulic cylinder and filled with hydraulic fluid, and the resilient portion comprises a resilient material (note at least paragraphs [0034], [0047] and [0144-0147]); a light device configured to emit light depending on the sense parameter of the monitoring device (note at least paragraph [0157]); and a communication device that comprises an indication of a sensed parameter of the monitoring device and/or notification related to the static pressure of the hydraulic fluid (note at least paragraphs [0158-0164]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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 3 and 4 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 3, the phrase “the indicator comprises one of:” in line 1 renders the claim indefinite inasmuch as the body of the claim does not recite alternative indicators. Instead, claim 3 only recites a single type of indicator (i.e., a body, wherein the body comprising a bolt).
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 1, 6, 7, 10, 18, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (WO 2017/075652 A1) in view of Smith et al. (US 2022/0049726 A1; hereinafter “Smith”) and Richard et al. (US 2018/0190045 A1; newly cited; hereinafter “Richard”).
Regarding claim 1, Scott discloses a track system 100 for a vehicle (paragraph [0018]), the track system comprising: a track 140 that comprises a ground-engaging outer surface (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 1) and an inner surface (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 1) opposite to the ground-engaging outer surface (Fig. 1); a track-engaging assembly comprising a plurality of track-contacting wheels 110, 120, 130, 135 configured to drive and guide the track around the track-engaging assembly (Fig. 1); a tensioner (unlabeled tensioner that includes adjusting hydraulic cylinder 150 shown in Fig. 1) configured to control a tension of the track (paragraph [0020]), the tensioner comprising a hydraulic cylinder 150 and configured to receive hydraulic fluid, the hydraulic cylinder being coupled to the track-engaging assembly (Fig. 1); and an indicator (communication device comprised of indicator 180) configured to indicate a load of the tensioner (paragraph [0023]) and convey information related to a static pressure of the tensioner based on a measurement that is different from a measurement of the static pressure of the tensioner (paragraph [0021] which states, in part, “…other tension detectors may be used in accordance with the present invention. For example, the tension detector may comprise a strain gauge or a load cell, or could measure compression of a tensioning spring associated with the track”).
Scott fails to expressly disclose the tensioner comprises a hydraulic accumulator in fluid communication with the hydraulic cylinder.
Smith, however, teaches a track system 10 in which a tensioner 12 is configured to control a tension of the track, the tensioner comprising a hydraulic cylinder 32 and a hydraulic accumulator 30 in fluid communication with the hydraulic cylinder and configured to receive hydraulic fluid (paragraph [0017]; Fig. 2).
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 tensioner of Scott by including a hydraulic accumulator in fluid communication with the hydraulic cylinder, such as taught by Smith, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the reliability, durability and efficiency of the tensioner during the regulation of the tension on the track.
Although Scott, as noted above, discloses that the measurement (e.g., measured strain from a “strain gauge” per paragraph [0021]) can be different from the measurement of the static pressure of the tensioner, Scott fails to expressly disclose the measurement being a parameter of the track.
Richard, however, teaches a track system for a vehicle, wherein the track system comprises a strain sensor 84x embedded in the track to measure a parameter of the track (i.e., strain within the track 22 per paragraph [0208]; Figs. 11, 25 and 26).
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 system of Scott by utilizing its strain gauge for the measurement of a parameter of the track, such as taught by Richard, with a reasonable expectation of success in determining the amount of strain within the track.
Regarding claim 6, Scott further discloses the hydraulic cylinder comprises: a first anchor (unlabeled anchor at the “left” side of cylinder 150 in Fig. 1) at a first end of the hydraulic cylinder and being coupled to a first part of the track-engaging assembly (Fig. 1); and a second anchor (unlabeled anchor connected to the front wheel 110) at a second end of the hydraulic cylinder and being coupled to a second part of the track-engaging assembly (Fig. 1), the second part of the track-engaging assembly being moveable relative to the first part of the track-engaging assembly (evident from paragraph [0018] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Scott further discloses the indicator is located at the first anchor of the tensioner (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Scott further discloses the indicator is a communication device (communication device comprised of indicator 180) configured to receive a signal from a monitoring device 170 relating to the static pressure of the tensioner, the monitoring device comprising at least one sensor (“strain gauge” per paragraph [0021]) configured to sense a parameter of the track system (paragraphs [0021] and [0023]).
Regarding claims 18, 19 and 23, Scott fails to disclose the at least one sensor is an accelerometer configured to measure an acceleration parameter of the track and the measurement that is different from the measurement of the static pressure is the parameter of the track, wherein the accelerometer is embedded in the track.
Richard, however, teaches the use of an accelerometer 84x configured to measure an acceleration parameter of the track and the measurement that is different from the measurement of the static pressure is the parameter of the track (paragraph [0210]), wherein the accelerometer is embedded in the track (paragraph [0210]; Figs. 11, 25 and 26.)
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 system of Scott by utilizing an accelerometer embedded in the track to measure an acceleration parameter of the track, such as taught by Richard, with a reasonable expectation of success in determining the acceleration of the track.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Smith and Richard, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmit et al. (US 2008/0224535 A1; hereinafter “Schmit”).
Scott, as modified by Smith and Richard, fails to expressly disclose the tensioner is configured to apply the tension on the track at a nominal tension value of at least 1500 psi, at least 2000 psi, or at least 2500 psi.
Schmit, however, teaches a tensioner that is configured to apply the tension on the track at a nominal tension value of at least 1500 psi, at least 2000 psi, or at least 2500 psi (paragraph [0024]).
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 system of Scott, as modified by Smith and Richard, so that the tensioner is configured to apply the tension on the track at a nominal tension value of at least 1500 psi, at least 2000 psi, or at least 2500 psi, such as taught by Schmit, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the track has an appropriate tension for its intended use to promote traction and efficiency of the track while preventing de-tracking of the track and accelerated wear on the track-contacting wheels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 20-22 and 24 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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