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
Figure 1A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the first outer lug length”, “the second outer lug length”, “the third outer lug length”, “the first reinforcing member length”, “the second reinforcing member length” and “the third reinforcing member length” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawing (fig 2A) is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “118" and "188" have both been used to designate the “flexible portion”.
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.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 4 and 5 include dashed lines within the body of the outer lugs 106. However, these dashed lines are not identified in the drawings, nor described in the specification. If these dashed lines represent essential structure of the track, it is required that they be identified and described; otherwise, these dashed lines should be removed from the drawings.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "106" and "122" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 3.
Reference characters "122" and "126b" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 4.
Reference characters "130" and "130a" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 4.
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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second lug portion being “made of stacked layers” as set forth in claim 25; 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
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 9-12 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationship is: it is unclear where on lug the first outer lug length is measured, also where the first outer lug reinforcing member length is measured. The lug has 3 different lengths shown over the height of the reinforcing member, and the reinforcing member has 2 different lengths shown in the cross-section.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationship is: it is unclear where on lug the second outer lug length is measured, also where the second outer lug reinforcing member length is measured.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationship is: it is unclear where on lug the third outer lug length is measured, also where the third outer lug reinforcing member length is measured.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted element is: it is unclear where the outer lug reinforcing member length is measured.
The term “some” in claim 30 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 qualitative or quantitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term.
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 1, 9-12, 17-18, 21-24, 28, 30, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210078656A1, Jules Dandurand et al., (hereinafter Dandurand) further-in-view-of (hereinafter FIV) JP2009274596A, Yasuo Hayashi, (hereinafter Hayashi).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 44 of Dandurand shows: An endless track for a track system of a vehicle, the endless track comprising: a carcass 35 having an inner surface and an outer surface opposite to the inner surface; a plurality of inner lugs 34 extending from the inner surface and being longitudinally spaced along a longitudinal center plane of the endless track; and a plurality of outer lugs 58 extending from the outer surface and being longitudinally spaced along the outer surface, each one of the plurality of outer lugs comprising: a first outer lug portion 41 extending from the outer surface to a junction height, the first outer lug portion 41 defining a base radius (see annotated Figure 44, below) the first outer lug portion 41 being made of a first material, and including an outer lug reinforcing member (see below); a second outer lug portion 116, the second outer lug portion 116 having an engaging surface at the outer lug height, the second outer lug portion 116 being made of a second material different from the first material; and a draft angle (see below) defined by a longitudinal side of the one of the plurality of outer lugs 58 and a projection of the engaging surface of the one of the plurality of outer lugs 58. A junction interface, having a junction height, is defined between the first outer lug portion 41 and the second outer lug portion 116.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
146
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dandurand fails to teach the second outer lug portion “extending from the junction interface of the first outer lug portion to an outer lug height”. However, Hayashi teaches the use of an outer lug including a first outer lug portion and a second outer lug portion of two different materials, having a junction interface at the junction height, such that the second outer lug portion extends from the junction interface to an outer lug height (see annotated fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
293
257
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the lugs of Dandurand in the manner taught by Hayashi, as a substitute equivalent configuration. Doing so would increase the durability of the track lugs, while maintaining the flexibility of the carcass of the belt.
Regarding claim 9, Dandurand shows the outer lugs 58 with a vertical center at the outer lug reinforcing member, such that a first outer lug length may be measured generally parallel to the longitudinal center plane of the track . The outer lug reinforcing member, at the vertical center thereof, has a first outer lug reinforcing member length measured generally parallel to the longitudinal center plane of the track. Dandurand does not disclose the ratio of these lengths being “about” (defined as being within 5-20%) 0.47. 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 form the outer lug reinforcing member with a longitudinal length with respect to the longitudinal length of the outer lug with a value suitable to provide the desired amount of stiffness to the base of the lug, dependent upon the desired resiliency thereof, to provide sufficient traction to the vehicle on which the track is mounted.
Regarding claim 10, Dandurand shows the outer lugs 58 having a second outer lug length measured at a first end in the same manner as set forth for claim 9 above, and the reinforcing member also has a second length measured at a first end in the same manner as set forth for claim 9 above; but does not disclose the ratio of those measurements. 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 form the outer lug reinforcing member with a longitudinal length with respect to the longitudinal length of the outer lug with a value suitable to provide the desired amount of stiffness to the base of the lug, dependent upon the desired resiliency thereof, to provide sufficient traction to the vehicle on which the track is mounted.
Regarding claim 11, Dandurand shows the outer lugs 58 having a third outer lug length measured at a first end in the same manner as set forth for claim 9 above, and the reinforcing member also has a third length measured at a first end in the same manner as set forth for claim 9 above; but does not disclose the ratio of those measurements. 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 form the outer lug reinforcing member with a longitudinal length with respect to the longitudinal length of the outer lug with a value suitable to provide the desired amount of stiffness to the base of the lug, dependent upon the desired resiliency thereof, to provide sufficient traction to the vehicle on which the track is mounted.
Regarding claim 12, Dandurand does not disclose the length of the outer lug reinforcing member. 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 form the outer lug reinforcing member with a length suitable for providing the desired amount of longitudinal and/or transversal stiffness to the track at the outer lugs, to prevent undue wear of the intersection of the outer lugs with the carcass during use.
Regarding claim 17, Dandurand shows the cross-sectional profile of the outer lug reinforcing member taken along the longitudinal center plane of the track having an oblong shape.
Regarding claim 18, Dandurand shows the draft angle greater than 6 degrees (see below).
[AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image2.png
462
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Dandurand shows a virtual center of the base radius of one of the plurality of outer lugs 58 is coincident with a virtual center of the base radius of another one of the plurality of outer lugs 58 adjacent thereto.
Regarding claim 22, Dandurand discloses that the first material 41 has a first modulus of elasticity, the second material 114 has a second modulus of elasticity, and the first modulus of elasticity is smaller than the second modulus of elasticity.
Regarding claim 23, Dandurand discloses the first material 41 has a first hardness value, the second material 114 has a second hardness value, and the second hardness value is greater than the first hardness value.
Regarding claim 24, Dandurand shows the first outer lug portion 41 is an underlying outer lug portion and the second outer lug portion 116 is an overlying outer lug portion.
Regarding claims 26-27, it should be noted that the limitations that the second lug portion is “pre-molded” or “extruded” are method steps in a product claims, and therefore do not receive any patentable weight (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 28, Dandurand shows the longitudinal side is a first longitudinal side and a second longitudinal side, and at least one of the first and second longitudinal sides defines an at least partially arcuate profile.
Regarding claim 30, Dandurand shows the plurality of outer lugs 58 are longitudinally aligned with the plurality of inner lugs 34.
Regarding claim 36, Dandurand shows a track system for a heavy vehicle, the track system comprising: a frame; a plurality of wheel assemblies connected to the frame; the endless track surrounding the plurality of wheel assemblies.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dandurand FIV Hayashi as applied to claims 1, 9-12, 17-18, 21-28, 30, and 36 above, and further in view of US12208844, Dandurand et al (hereafter Dandurand ‘844). Dandurand FIV Hayashi does not show the outer lug reinforcing members having a generally hexagonal cross-section profile shape.
Dandurand ‘844 teaches the use of outer lug reinforcing members 36 that may have any “generally circular, square, oblong rectangle, etc.” cross-sectional shape (column 19, lines 21-24). The cross-sectional shape of the reinforcing members 36 affect noise generation, weight reduction, controlled transverse rigidity, etc. (column 17, lines 23-27). Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the outer lug reinforcing members of Dandurand FIV Hayashi with a hexagonal cross-sectional profile, dependent upon the desired transverse and/or longitudinal rigidity of the track.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US20230132626A1, Aube et. al), (WO2014138938A1, Favre et. al), (US7784884B2, Soucy et. al).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD BINNS whose telephone number is (571)272-9456. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, 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.
/HOWARD PATRICK BINNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights