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 because element 20a in Figure 2 should be moved because it intersects lines of structural elements.
The drawings are objected to because element W14-1b in Figure 10 should be moved because it intersects lines of structural elements.
The drawings are objected to because element 214-23b in Figure 10 should be moved because it intersects lines of structural elements.
The drawings are objected to because element W14-2a in Figure 10 should be moved because it intersects lines of structural elements.
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 Objections
Claims 8-17, 24, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 9, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 8, lines 9-10, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 9, lines 1-2, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 9, line 2, recites “said toot member” which should be changed to --said at least one tooth member-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 9, lines 3-4, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 9, line 4, recites “said support member” which should be changed to --said ring-shaped support member-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 9, line 7, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 10, lines 1-2, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 10, line 4, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 11, lines 1-2, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 12, line 2, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 12, line 5, recites “said toot member” which should be changed to --said at least one tooth member-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 13, lines 1-2, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 13, line 3, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 13, line 5, recites “said toot member” which should be changed to --said at least one tooth member-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 14, line 5, recites “said tooth member” which should be changed to --said at least one tooth member-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 14, line 3, recites “said support member” which should be changed to --said ring-shaped support member-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 14, line 5, recites “said tooth member” which should be changed to --said at least one tooth member-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 14, line 7, recites “said support member” which should be changed to --said ring-shaped support member-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 14, lines 7-8, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 14, line 8, recites “said tooth member” which should be changed to --said at least one tooth member-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 15, line 2, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 15, line 3, recites “said tooth member” which should be changed to --said at least one tooth member-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 15, line 6, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 16, lines 3, 5, 8, and 10, recites “said tooth member” which should be changed to --said at least one tooth member-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 16, line 11, recites “said at least one object” which should be changed to --said one or more objects-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 17, line 8, recites “said toot member” which should be changed to --said at least one tooth member-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 24, line 4, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 25, line 4, recites “said support portion” which should be changed to --said resilient support portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
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.
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 1-28 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the radial direction" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2, line 5, recites “a tooth member” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the tooth member from line 5 is related to the set of tooth members from claim 1, lines 4-5. Should line 5 be amended to recite --a tooth member of said tooth members--?
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the respective tooth member" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Applicant has not previously singled out one tooth member of the set of tooth members.
Claim 3, line 2, recites “main extension” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the main extension from claim 3 is related to or different from the main direction from claim 1, line 8.
The term “high” in claim 3, line 4, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. What one person considers as high may not be the same as what another person considers as high thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the tangential direction" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3, line 6, recites “a tooth member” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the tooth member from line 6 is related to the set of tooth members from claim 1, lines 4-5. Should line 6 be amended to recite --a tooth member of said tooth members--? Is the tooth member from line 6 the same tooth member as the respective tooth member from lines 1-2 of claim 3?
Claim 5, lines 5-6, recites “a second threshold” which is indefinite because it is unclear how there can be a second threshold without a previously claimed first threshold. What is the first threshold?
The phrase “essentially remain” in claim 5, line 9, is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “essentially remain” 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. What one person considers as “essentially remain” may not be the same as what another person considers as “essentially remain” thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the axial direction" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said tooth member" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Applicant has not previously singled out one tooth member of the set of tooth members.
Claim 7, lines 5-11, recites “wherein said tooth member is configured such that if one or more objects, during operation of said tracked vehicle is introduced between said radial inner side of said endless track and said radial outer side of said tooth member so that said tooth member is subjected to a radial force, in the direction towards said centre axis, exceeding a certain threshold, said tooth member is configured to deform relative to its operation position so that said one or more objects are allowed to escape” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the limitation is dependent on the size and/or number of objects that are introduced between said radial inner side of said endless track and said radial outer side of said tooth member. For example, is the tooth member designed such that a 2mm in diameter pebble or a 2 meter in diameter rock would both allow the tooth member to meet the claim limitations? The metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determine in light of the variability of what is to be considered an object.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said tooth member" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Applicant has not previously singled out one tooth member of the set of tooth members. Is the Applicant trying to refer to the at least one tooth member from line 2 of claim 8?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the axial direction" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said radial direction" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the radial thickness" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the radial thickness" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “long” in claim 11, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long” 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. What one person considers as long may not be the same as what another person considers as long thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
The term “long” in claim 11, line 4, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long” 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. What one person considers as long may not be the same as what another person considers as long thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said tapering shape" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the outer circumference" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the tangential direction" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The phrase “relatively shallow” in claim 14, line 6, is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “relatively shallow” 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. What one person considers as relatively shallow may not be the same as what another person considers as relatively shallow thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
The phrase “essentially transversal end side” in claim 14, lines 6-7, is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “essentially transversal end side” 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. What one person considers as an essentially transversal end side may not be the same as what another person considers as an essentially transversal end side thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said second portion" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A second portion is claimed in claim 13, but claim 15 does not depend from claim 13.
Claim 16, lines 5-1, recites “wherein said tooth member is configured such that if one or more objects, during operation of said tracked vehicle, are introduced between said radial inner side of said endless track and said radial outer side of said engagement portion so that said tooth member is subjected to a radial force, in the direction towards said centre axis, exceeding a certain threshold, said tooth member is configured to deform relative to its operation position so that said at least one object is allowed to escape” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the limitation is dependent on the size and/or number of objects that are introduced between said radial inner side of said endless track and said radial outer side of said tooth member. For example, is the tooth member designed such that a 2mm in diameter pebble or a 2 meter in diameter rock would both allow the tooth member to meet the claim limitations? The metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determine in light of the variability of what is to be considered an object.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the axial main extension" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the inner surface" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said U-shaped engagement portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A U-shaped engagement portion is claimed in claim 18, but claim 19 does not depend from claim 18.
The term “thin” in claim 19, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” 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. What one person considers as thin may not be the same as what another person considers as thin thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the spring force" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27, line 7, recites “a vehicle” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the vehicle from claim 27 is related to or different from the tracked vehicle from claim 1, line 2.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the transversal direction" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the opposite transversal direction" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-16, 20-23, and 26-28, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deckler et al. (US 7,198,337 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Deckler et al. discloses a drive sprocket member for a drive wheel member (17) for an endless track (22) of a tracked vehicle (10), the drive wheel member being rotatable about a centre axis (the axial centerline of 17) for rotating said endless track, said drive wheel member comprising said drive sprocket member, said drive sprocket member comprising a set of tooth members (39A-39C, 40A-40C; 38 in Figure 6) arranged around the circumference of said drive sprocket member, and a ring-shaped support member (34) for said tooth members, said tooth members being configured to project from the ring-shaped support member in a main direction (a direction that is offset and parallel from the axial centerline of 17; see Figure 3) essentially parallel to the axial direction of said centre axis so that said tooth members are in an operation position for engaging with said endless track for facilitating said rotation of said endless track (see Figure 3), wherein said tooth members are arranged in connection to said ring-shaped support member (see Figures 2 and 3) and shaped so as **[to provide resilient properties in the radial direction such that, if a tooth member of said set of tooth members is subjected to a radial force, in the direction towards said centre axis, exceeding a certain threshold, deformation of said tooth member relative to its operation position is facilitated]** (each tooth member is cast metal thus has elastic properties up to a certain limit thus is viewed as meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 2, Deckler et al. discloses that said tooth members comprise a material (cast metal) having a predetermined modulus of elasticity (metals have some degree of elasticity), wherein said shape of said tooth members, comprising radial, axial and tangential extension and configuration, in combination with said predetermined modulus of elasticity of the material of said tooth members, **[provides said resilient properties, so that, if a tooth member is subjected to said radial force, deformation of said tooth member in the direction towards said centre axis is facilitated]**.
Regarding claim 3, Deckler et al. discloses that the respective tooth member has a varying shape (see Figure 7) along its main extension, said varying shape comprising portions (38 tapers as shown in Figure 7) tapering from said ring-shaped support member in its main direction so as **[to facilitate high stiffness of the respective tooth member in the tangential direction of said ring-shaped support member and resilient properties for facilitating deformation of a tooth member in the radial direction if subjected to a radial force exceeding said certain threshold]**.
Regarding claim 4, Deckler et al. discloses that said tooth members are arranged in connection to said ring-shaped support member and shaped so as **[to provide resilient properties in the radial direction such that, if a tooth member of said set of tooth members is subjected to a radial force, in the direction towards said centre axis, exceeding a first threshold and up to a second threshold, said tooth member is configured to elastically deform relative to its operation position so that, when said tooth member is no longer subjected to said radial force, said tooth member is configured to return to its operation position]** (the thresholds can be set such that the material of the teeth meet the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Deckler et al. discloses that said tooth members are arranged in connection to said ring-shaped support member and shaped so as **[to provide resilient properties in the radial direction such that, if a tooth member of said set of tooth members is subjected to a radial force, in the direction towards said centre axis, exceeding a second threshold, said tooth member is configured to plastically deform relative to its operation position so that, when said tooth member is no longer subjected to said radial force, said tooth member is configured to essentially remain in its deformed position]** (the thresholds can be set such that the material of the teeth meet the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Deckler et al. discloses that said tooth members are arranged in connection to said ring-shaped support member and shaped so as **[to provide resilient properties in the radial direction such that, if a tooth member of said set of tooth members is subjected to a radial force, in the direction towards said centre axis, so that said tooth member deforms relative to its operation position, said deformation will correspond to said tooth member projecting from the ring-shaped support member in a main direction with an angle relative to and towards the axial direction of said centre axis]** (the material of Deckler et al. has some degree of resilient properties thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Deckler et al. discloses that said tooth member has a radial outer side (the top surface of 38 as shown in Figure 6) which, when said tooth member is in the operation position, in connection to engagement with said endless track is configured to face a radial inner side (a bottom side of 22) of said endless track, wherein said tooth member is **[configured such that if one or more objects, during operation of said tracked vehicle is introduced between said radial inner side of said endless track and said radial outer side of said tooth member so that said tooth member is subjected to a radial force, in the direction towards said centre axis, exceeding a certain threshold, said tooth member is configured to deform relative to its operation position so that said one or more objects are allowed to escape]**.
Regarding claim 8, Deckler et al. discloses that at least one tooth member of said set of tooth members, comprises a resilient support portion (51) having said resilient properties (metal materials have resilient properties thus meeting the claim limitation), and an engagement portion (52) for engagement with said endless track, wherein said resilient support portion is **[configured to be arranged in connection to said ring-shaped support member and, in the operation position of said tooth member, project from said ring-shaped support member in said main direction essentially parallel to the axial direction of said centre axis, and wherein said engagement portion is configured to be supported by said support portion and project from said support portion so as to engage with said endless track in said operation position]**.
Regarding claim 9, Deckler et al. discloses that said support portion of said tooth member has a tapering configuration (see Figure 3) from said ring-shaped support member to said engagement portion, where said support portion has a first width (the width of 51 as shown in Figures 3 and 6) at said support member extending essentially orthogonal to said radial direction and its axial direction, and a correspondingly extending second width (the width of 52 as shown in Figures 3 and 6) at said engagement portion, said first width being wider than said second width of said support portion (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Deckler et al. discloses that said support portion is configured to radially taper in its extension from said ring-shaped support member to said engagement portion (see Figure 3) so that the radial thickness of said support portion at said support member is thicker than the radial thickness at said engagement portion (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, Deckler et al. discloses that said support portion has a first portion (the portion of 51 that attaches to 34) arranged at said ring-shaped support member, said first portion being **[configured to radially extend from a radial outer portion of said ring-shaped support member and extend along the outer circumference of said support member so as to provide stiffness of said tooth member in the tangential direction of said support member]**.
Regarding claim 13, Deckler et al. discloses that said support portion has a second portion (the left portion of 51 in Figure 6) arranged at and providing a transition to said engagement portion, said support portion further comprising an intermediate portion (the portion of 51 between the viewed first and second portions) arranged between said first portion and second portion, wherein, in said operation position of said tooth member, said intermediate portion is **[configured to taper in its extension from said ring-shaped support member to said engagement portion in a plane essentially orthogonal to the axial and radial extension]** (tapering of the support portion is shown in Figures 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 14, Deckler et al. discloses that said tooth member comprises a topographic geometric configuration (see the recessed area between 61 and 62 in Figure 9) arranged in connection to the transition from said support member to said resilient support portion **[so as to even out stiffness differences and/or optimize elastic properties of said tooth member]**, said topographic geometric configuration being configured to be provided by means of a relatively shallow recess (the recessed area between 61 and 62 in Figure 9) running from an essentially transversal end side of said support member centrally into the radial inner side of said support portion of said tooth member.
Regarding claim 15, Deckler et al. discloses that said second portion of said support portion is configured to provide said transition to said engagement portion so that, when said tooth member is in the operation position, a radial outer side (the top surface of 38 in Figure 6) of said engagement portion is radially further away from said centre axis than a radial outer side of said support portion (as shown in Figures 4 and 6, the radial outer side of 38 is the furthest structure away from the axial centerline of the drive wheel thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 16, Deckler et al. discloses that said engagement portion has a radial outer side (the top surface of 38 as shown in Figure 6) which, when said tooth member is in the operation position, in connection to engagement with said endless track is configured to face a radial inner side (a bottom side of 22) of said endless track, wherein said tooth member is **[configured such that if one or more objects, during operation of said tracked vehicle, are introduced between said radial inner side of said endless track and said radial outer side of said engagement portion so that said tooth member is subjected to a radial force, in the direction towards said centre axis, exceeding a certain threshold, said tooth member is configured to deform relative to its operation position so that said at least one object is allowed to escape]**.
Regarding claim 20, Deckler et al. discloses that one or more tooth members of said set of tooth members are configured to be an integrated portion of said ring-shaped support member (a bolted connection; Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding.)
Regarding claim 21, Deckler et al. discloses that said resilient support portion is configured to be an integrated portion of said ring-shaped support member (a bolted connection; Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding.).
Regarding claim 22, Deckler et al. discloses that said engagement portion is configured to be an integrated portion of said resilient support portion (see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 23, Deckler et al. discloses that said engagement portion is configured to be attached to said resilient support portion (see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 26, Deckler et al. discloses a drive wheel member (17) comprising at least one drive sprocket member of claim 1.
Regarding claim 27, Deckler et al. discloses that said drive wheel member comprises a hub member (31) for facilitating said rotation of said drive wheel member, wherein said drive wheel member comprises a transversal outer drive sprocket member (26) arranged in connection to a transversal outer side of the hub member and a transversal inner drive sprocket member (27) arranged in connection to a transversal inner side of the hub member, the transversal outer side facing out from a vehicle in the transversal direction of the tracked vehicle and the transversal inner side facing in the opposite transversal direction of the tracked vehicle to which the drive wheel member is mounted.
Regarding claim 28, Deckler et al. discloses a tracked vehicle (10) comprising a drive sprocket member of claim 1.
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.
Claims 17 and 18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deckler et al. (US 7,198,337 B2) in view of Girard et al. (US 6,976,742 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Deckler et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that said engagement portion has an U-shaped configuration, said engagement portion having wall portions configured to extend in the axial main extension of said tooth member, and a bottom portion from which said wall portions are configured to protrude, said bottom portion having a radial outer side facing away from said centre axis.
Girard et al. teaches an engagement portion (90) that has an U-shaped configuration (see Figure 2), said engagement portion having wall portions (the radial walls to the left and right of 90a as shown in Figure 2) configured to extend in a axial main extension of said tooth member, and a bottom portion (90c) from which said wall portions are configured to protrude, said bottom portion having a radial outer side (90a) facing away from a centre axis (85).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engagement portion of Deckler et al. to have an U-shaped configuration, to have said engagement portion have wall portions configured to extend in the axial main extension of said tooth member, to have a bottom portion from which said wall portions are configured to protrude, and to have said bottom portion having a radial outer side facing away from said centre axis, as taught by Girard et al., for the purpose of providing a reduction in weight.
Regarding claim 18, Deckler et al. in view of Girard et al. discloses that the inner surface of said engagement portion, having a U-shaped configuration, is formed such that there is a variation of the thickness of the U-shaped engagement portion, so as to increase the elastic properties of said engagement portion (as shown in Figure 2 of Girard et al., the portion where 90a is formed is thicker than the side walls of the engagement portions thus meeting the claim limitation).
**The above statements in brackets are instances of intended use and functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, see MPEP 2114. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 19, 24, and 25 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rowa (US 12,654,789 B2) discloses a sprocket wheel for a tracked vehicle, the sprocket wheel being formed of two wheel portions that each have a ring-shaped support member and a plurality of teeth, and the teeth are configured to deform when a force is applied to it as shown in Figure 10b.
Girard et al. (US 2004/0061378 A1) cited by the Applicant discloses a sprocket wheel having sprocket teeth, and the sprocket being made of steel, aluminum, or carbon fiber.
Soucy et al. (US 7,416,266 B2) discloses a sprocket wheel for a tracked vehicle, the sprocket wheel being formed of two wheel portions that each have a ring-shaped support member and a plurality of teeth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights