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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para [001102], lines 1 and 3, applicant refers to “reinforcing element 192”, however, reference numeral 192 does not appear in applicant’s drawings. Applicant’s drawings, including clam 8, use the numeral “92”, even though applicant indicates the engaging portions of reinforcing element 192 are different from those of reinforcing element 92.
In para [00112], lines 2, 4, and 6, applicant refers to “engaging portions 198a, 198b”, but the drawings lack reference numerals 198a and 198b.
In para [00127], line 2, “outer face 272” is referenced, but is not shown in the drawings (it should appear in figure 11).
In para [00127], line 4, “inner face 74” is referenced, but is not shown in the drawings (it should appear in figure 11).
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 1-19 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.
In claim 1, line 12, “the first lateral side” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim.
In claim 17, line 8, “the second lateral side” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 15-17, and 20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breton (CA2566225).
Regarding claim 1, Breton teaches track assembly 200 for a track vehicle (para [0003]); Figure 8), the track assembly comprising: a wheel 300 having a rim (310 in Figure 5) and a plurality of engaging elements (sprocket teeth, shown in Figure 5) extending radially outwardly from the rim (Figure 6), and the wheel defining a plurality of grooves (shown in Figures 5 and 6) therebetween; and an endless track 200 engageable with the wheel 300, the endless track having a reinforced elastomeric construction (para 0004]), and the endless track comprising: a body 250 having a longitudinal plane, and including: an outer face 202 for contacting a ground, an inner face 204 opposite to the outer face, a first lateral face extending between the inner and outer faces, and a second lateral face opposite to the first lateral face (see Figure 3), and extending between the inner and outer faces, and a plurality of lugs (drive lugs 220) extending outwardly from the first lateral side (the term “outwardly” is interpreted broadly as any direction away from the body and at the lateral side), the plurality of lugs 220 being longitudinally spaced from one another along the first lateral face (Figure 3),wherein, each lug of the plurality of lugs 200 is sized and shaped to be received in a respective groove of the plurality of grooves (spaces between sprocket teeth of sprocket wheel 300, seen in Figures 5 and 6) such that, a given one lug of the plurality of lugs extends across the rim of the wheel to be received in the respective groove (lugs 220 are tapered such that they overlap or extend across a portion of the rim).
Regarding claim 2, Breton teaches that the endless track includes a plurality of guide lugs 230 (Figure 3) extending from the inner surface.
Regarding claim 3, Breton teaches the plurality of guide lugs is generally positioned parallel to a direction of the longitudinal plane of the body (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, the plurality of lugs 220 defines a plurality of gaps, and when the wheel and the endless track are engaged to one another, one of the plurality of engaging elements is received in one of the plurality of gaps (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 16, the rim has a first annular rim portion and a second annular rim portion (two rim portions 310 shown in Figure 5 of Breton), the plurality of engaging elements (sprocket teeth) extend from the second annular rim portion, and when the wheel 300 is operatively connected to the endless track, a portion of the inner face of the endless track is supported on the first annular rim portion, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, the wheel includes first and second engaging elements on the wheel 300 (see Figure 5) and first and second set of lugs, arranged as discussed above.
Regarding claim 20, Breton teaches a replacement wheel 300 (Figure 5) for replacing a wheel adapted for a metallic track (this is an intended use; the wheel taught by Breton is capable of replacing a conventional metal track wheel) and, the replacement wheel being configured to be in driving engagement with an endless track 200 (Figure 5), the replacement wheel comprising: a rim 310 having a first annular rim portion and a second annular rim portion (Figure 5); and a plurality of engaging elements (teeth on sprocket wheel 300) disposed circumferentially around the second annular rim portion (Figure 6), the plurality of engaging elements extending radially outwardly from the second annular rim portion and defining a plurality of grooves therebetween (Figures 5 and 6).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breton in view of Soucy et al. (PGPub 2008/0100134).
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 9, Breton teaches that the endless track further comprises a plurality of reinforcing elements (para [0003]), but fails to specify each one of the plurality of reinforcing elements extending across a width of the endless track, and having a central reinforcing portion reinforcing a respective one of the plurality of guide lugs.
Soucy teaches an elastomeric endless track having central guide lugs 125 (Figure 5), drive lugs 121, 122, and ground engaging lugs 127 (Figure 5; para [0046]-[0048], [0052]). Soucy also teaches a plurality of reinforcing elements 160 (Figure 5; para [0052]); where each one of a plurality of reinforcing elements 160 extends across a width of the endless track 124, and has a central reinforcing portion 166 reinforcing a respective one of the plurality of guide lugs 125.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Breton track with reinforcing elements extending across a width of the endless track and having a central reinforcing portion, in view of Soucy, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to stiffen and reinforce the central guide lug, thereby fortifying the track to prevent lateral shift of the track on the frack frame, prevent failure and extend the life of the track system.
Regarding claim 7, Soucy teaches that each one of the plurality of reinforcing elements is generally flat (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 8, Soucy teaches each one of the plurality of reinforcing elements has an engaging portion for reinforcing a respective one of the plurality of lugs (Figure 9, for example), and for engaging with the wheel (via the lugs).
Regarding claim 9, Soucy teaches a central reinforcing feature (A-shaped reinforcing portion 116 having planar areas 161, 162; Figures 5, 5A; para [0053]).
Regarding claim 10, the reinforcing elements of Soucy include an interlocking feature for interlocking with the body (reinforcing elements 560, 580, include raised portions that are embedded in and interlock with the elastomeric belt). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Breton track with reinforcing elements with interlocking features, in view of Soucy, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent movement of the elastomeric belt body relative to the reinforcement elements.
Regarding claims 11-13, Breton teaches “reinforcing elements now used come in a variety of forms such [as] a reinforcing web or fabric, reinforcing cables or strips and stiffening rods just to name a few” (para [0004]), but does not specify that a reinforcing member extends longitudinally along the length of the endless track and forms a layer of reinforcing members. Soucy teaches a reinforcing member (for example, cables 123; Figure 5; para [0047]) that extends longitudinally along the length of the endless track and forms a layer of reinforcing members. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Breton track with reinforcing elements formed as a layer of longitudinally arranged cables or cords, in view of Soucy, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to strengthen and prevent elongation of the elastomeric track.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breton in view of Caravito (USPN 4,057,302).
Regarding claim 6, the combination fails to teach that each one of the plurality of reinforcing elements extends from a first laterally outermost segment of the endless track to a second laterally outermost segment of the endless track.
Caravito teaches an elastomeric endless track (track 22 made from a rubber belt matrix 28; Figure 1) having a plurality of reinforcing elements (metal bars 10; Figures 3 and 4; col, 3, lines 32-46) where each one of a plurality of reinforcing elements 10 extends across a width of the endless track 22 where each one of the plurality of reinforcing elements extends from a first laterally outermost segment of the endless track to a second laterally outermost segment of the endless track (col. 3, lines 44-46; axially outer surfaces of the belt matrix 28 are aligned with those of the bars). The “bars strengthen the tread axially, ensuring that the entire axial direction of the tread is kept flat, thus maximizing the axial dimension of the footprint upon the ground” (col. 2, lines 12-15) and “the presence of the metal bars also a barrier to penetration of the belt” (col. 2, lines 34-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the axial reinforcements in the endless track of the combination to the outermost side segments of the track, as taught by Caravito, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to strengthen the belt axially and prevent penetration.
Claim(s) 14, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breton.
Regarding claim 14, it is not clear whether, when one of the plurality of lugs is received in one of the plurality of grooves, an inner surface of the one of the plurality of lugs is spaced from a bottom of the groove. However, it would have been obvious to support the lugs within the grooves with some spacing with the bottom of the groove, providing a looseness in the engagement in order to prevent the engaging elements that define the grooves from becoming wedged between the lugs.
Regarding claim 18, Breton teaches a vehicle (Figure 8) comprising: a body 600; a powered drive sprocket 300 supported by the body; and at least two track systems 200, discussed above. Breton fails to specify that the two track systems being operatively connected to an engine. However, the drive sprockets of heavy tracked vehicles are conventionally powered using an engine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to power the drive sprockets of Breton using an engine mounted to the vehicle body, as is old and well known, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide reliable drive power to the track.
Regarding claim 19, Breton teaches the vehicle is a military vehicle (para [0003], lines 14-15)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwamoto and Ayres show elastomeric belts having lugs that extend laterally outwardly from longitudinal left and right lateral side edges of the belt to be engaged by sprocket teeth.
Doyle shows a metal reinforcement for a track belt.
Lajoie teaches notches in sides on a track.
Katoh and Mai teach metal reinforcements for elastomeric tracks.
Katayama and Smith show lugs on inner and outer surfaces of a track that are longitudinally offset relative to each other.
Yovichin teaches a track with drive lugs along outermost lateral edges of the track.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights