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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2-3 are improperly labelled. Namely, each figure should have its own distinct label (i.e. Figure 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b).
Reference character “24” should have an arrowhead at the end of its leader line in Figure 4, given the fact that an overall element is being denoted.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference to the claims should be removed from paragraphs {0008] through [0015] of the specification.
Reference character “39” is used to denote “rolled material” in paragraph [0047] and the “bottom portion” throughout the remainder of the specification.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “a hole portion” in lines 5-6 is a double recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “hole portion” set forth in lines 5-6 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are indefinite due to the fact that the term “via” is generally narrative and indefinite (see section 7 below), and further fails to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “is capable of” renders it unclear whether or not the end portion of the bush is actually “supported by a support member”.
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.
For example, the last 3 lines of claim 1 are narratively written and generally indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other link" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the one link" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
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) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al (3,838,896) in view of Cho (8,420,972).
Per claim 1, Figure 7 of Kawamura et al shows a link device including a plurality of links (2,4) having a plurality of hole portions. A bush 3 is press fit into a hole portion of a second link 4, while a pin 1 is press fit into a hole of a first link 2 to couple the links together. An annular seal member 7 is interposed between the pin 1 and the bush 3 to seal a lubricant therebetween. A fitting portion 5 is formed on an end portion of the bush 3 into which the seal 7 is located to fill a gap 6. The seal 7 is axially deformed into the fitting portion 5 such that the end portion of the bush 3 is supported by a support member (i.e. the pin 1) which is harder than the seal 7.
Per claim 2, the fitting portion 5 forms a groove at one end of the bush 3.
Per claim 4, the plurality of links (2,4) are interconnected to form an endless track, and a shoe may be attached thereto for engaging the ground.
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura et al does not disclose that the links are formed of a “rolled material”. Cho teaches the use of a track link 1 that is formed of a rolled material (see at least column 3, lines 37-39). 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 track links of Kawamura et al from a rolled material, dependent upon the desired chemical and physical characteristics such that the links do not unduly wear and/or fail during use.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura et al in view of Cho as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, and further in view of Ketting (5,374,115).
Kawamura et al as modified by Cho does not show the fitting portion being a chamfered portion formed on at least one of a hole edge of the bush and a hole edge of the link. Figure 2 of Ketting teaches the use of a link device having a hole edge of a bush 4 with a chamfer for receiving an annular sealing member 34. 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 fitting portion of Kawamura et al as modified by Cho as a chamfered portion, as a substitute equivalent seal-holding surface, which achieves the same predictable result of retaining the position of a seal between the bushing, pin, and track links.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show sealing arrangements for track chain links.
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