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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "100" and "100’ " have both been used to designate the same element.
Reference characters "A2’ " and "A1" have both been used to designate the same element.
Reference characters "A2" and "A1’ " have both been used to designate the same element.
Reference characters cannot share the same leader line.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: P0.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: PO.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal terms (see section 6 below). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprising”, “means”, and “said,” should be avoided.
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 3, 5-6, 10, 13, 15, and 17-18 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 5 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to form”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 9 below) and fails to describe any physical structure of the invention.
Claim 13 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the limitation that the end portions of two links are inserted into each other “so as to be criss-crossed”. This limitation appears to be the result of a literal translation of a foreign document (see section 9 below). It is believed that this phrase should be replaced with the phrase - -to intermesh- - or - -to overlap- - or an equivalent.
Claim 15 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrases “a support carriage”, “a machine”, and “a railway line” are all double recitations. These limitations have been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the aforementioned phrases set forth in lines 1, 2, and 2, respectively, are the same elements of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or are additional elements of the invention.
Claim 18 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrases “a machine” and “a railway line” are triple recitations. These limitations have been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the aforementioned phrases set forth in lines 1, 2, and 2, respectively, are the same elements of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or are additional elements of the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The term “flat” in claims 3 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “flat” 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. No quantitative or qualitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “some” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “some” 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. No quantitative or qualitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the criss-crossed fingers" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
The term “strictly” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strictly” 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. No quantitative or qualitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, 13-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zepf (5,056,306).
Per claim 1, Zepf shows a crawler track link 1 is formed as a one-piece metal part having two axes of articulation (at bore 4) parallel and spaced apart from one another. A central portion is located between the axes of articulation, with two end portions on either side of thereof. The end portions are associated with the axes of articulation, and comprise a plurality of parallel fingers 2 with free spaces 3 therebetween. Through holes 4 pass through the fingers 2. The metal part of the link 1 includes a rolling surface (Figure 2A) and an opposing surface (Figures 2B) that is covered with a layer of elastomeric material 20 (including the central portion and at least part of each finger 2). The limitation that the machine is “for laying or renovating a railway line” is merely an intended use of the tracked machine, and therefore receives no patentable weight.
Per claim 2, the layer of elastomeric material 20 completely covers a main portion of the opposing surface (Figure 2B), and covers at least part of each fingers 2 beyond the main portion.
Per claim 3, the main portion of the opposing surface (Figure 2B) is “flat” (i.e. planar).
Per claim 5, the end of each finger 2 is rounded (Figures 7 and 8B), and delimited by a rounded connecting face that forms a junction between a face of the rolling surface and a face of the opposing surface.
Per claim 6, the layer of elastomeric material 20 has curved portions covering a rounded portion of the end of each finger 2.
Per claim 7, the layer of elastomeric material 20 is continuous.
Per claim 10, the fingers 2 on each end include a “flat” (i.e. planar) transverse guide side faces perpendicular to the axes of articulation, which delimit the free spaces 3.
Per claim 11, the fingers 2 of one end portion are each positioned between two planes perpendicular to the axes of articulation, and delimiting the free spaces 3 (i.e. spaced without fingers) of the other of the two end portions.
Per claim 13, the fingers 2 of an end portion of a first link 1 are inserted into the free spaces 3 of an end portion of a second link 1 to intermesh, with a hinge pin inserted into through holes 4 of the two link 1.
Per claim 14, the links 1 are identical.
Per claim 15, the links 1 form a crawler mounted on a support carriage, including a frame supporting rollers 30 thereon, of the running gear of a machine. The limitation that the machine is “for laying or renovating a railway line” is merely an intended use of the tracked machine, and therefore receives no patentable weight.
Per claim 19, the layer of elastomeric material 20 has a constant thickness.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 8-9, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zepf.
Regarding claims 4 and 8-9, Zepf does not disclose the thickness, hardness, and center-to-center distance between the axes of articulation, respectively, of the elastomeric material and the links. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the elastomeric material of the links of Zepf with a thickness and hardness suitable to protect both the track links and surface over which the track moves, without unduly wearing, during use. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the links of Zepf with a center-to-center distance suitable dependent upon the size of the vehicle/machine on which the track will be used. In other words, the size of the track links are a result effective variable dependent upon the scale of the vehicle (which determines the scale of the track to be mounted thereon).
Regarding claim 16, the center-to-center distance between adjacent rollers of a running gear of a machine is a result effective variable dependent upon the scale/size of the machine, for the purpose of preventing failure of the running gear components during use and to allow the running gear components to support the weight of the machine.
Regarding claim 17, Zepf shows the rollers 30 (which are located at opposing ends of the track frame) have a center-to-center distance greater than the center-to-center distance of the axes of articulation of the links 1. Zepf does not disclose that the rollers of the running gear have a center-to-center distance less than the value of twice the center-to-center distance between the axes of articulation of the links. However, as stated above, the center-to-center distance of both the rollers and the track links is a result effective variable, dependent upon the scale/size of the machine, for the purpose of preventing failure of the running gear components during use and to allow the running gear components to support the weight of the machine.
Per claims 18, the machine on which the track links of Zepf would be used includes at least two running gears.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zepf as applied to claims 1-11, and 13-19 above, and further in view of Drumm et al (2019/0337580). Zepf does not show the rolling surface of the link 1 including two rolling tracks separated by a guide rib.
However, Drumm et al teaches the use of a track formed of links having these features. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the links of Zepf such that the rolling surface includes two rolling tracks separated by a guide rib, as a substitute equivalent configuration, for the predictable purpose of preventing the track from coming off the machine when contacting an obstacle during use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show track link configurations having interlacing fingers on the ends thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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) 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights