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 of the following informalities:
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: 522, 1471 and 5571.
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: 544 (Fig. 16), DE (Fig. 16), 552 (Fig. 19) and 5302 (Fig. 19).
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 “surface of the wing is an inner surface of the wing oriented towards the ground-engaging outer side of the track” as set forth in claim 8 in combination with “the delamination inhibitor comprises an unevenness of a surface of the wing” as set forth in claim 4 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: All occurrences of the use of reference character 44i for denoting the core (note at least pages 28 and 29 of the specification) in the embodiment shown in Figs. 16-19 should be replaced with reference character 544i for consistency with the drawings
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, there is no support in the original disclosure for an embodiment of the track in which “surface of the wing is an inner surface of the wing oriented towards the ground-engaging outer side of the track” in combination with “the delamination inhibitor comprises an unevenness of a surface of the wing” as required by claim 4. Instead, it is clear from Figs. 16-19 that the claimed “surface” is an inner surface of the wing oriented towards the inner side of the track.
6. 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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the projections and recesses”.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurokawa (JP 2001080552 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kurokawa, in the embodiment shown in Figs. 1(A) and 1(B), discloses a track 1 for traction of a vehicle (implicit from paragraph [0002] of the machine translation), the track being mountable (i.e., capable of being mounted around) around a plurality of wheels that includes a plurality of roller wheels for rolling on a bottom run of the track along a rolling path of the track (evident from at least Fig. 5(a) and page 4 of the machine translation), the track comprising: a ground-engaging outer side (unlabeled side of 1 that includes lug 1C shown in Fig. 1(B)); an inner side (unlabeled but shown in Fig. 1(B)) opposite to the ground-engaging outer side (Fig. 1(B); elastomeric material allowing the track to flex around the wheels (“rubber” per the Abstract); and a plurality of cores 2 at least partially embedded in the elastomeric material (Fig. 1(B)), distributed in a longitudinal direction of the track (paragraph [0005] of the machine translation), and extending transversally to the longitudinal direction of the track (paragraph [0005] of the machine translation), each of the plurality of cores comprising: a pair of wings 2L, 2R extending in a longitudinal direction of the core (Fig. 1(A), each wing of the pair comprising a delamination inhibitor (e.g., ridges 6, 7 and unlabeled recesses therebetween as shown in Fig. 1(A)) configured to (i.e., capable of) inhibit delamination of the elastomeric material from the wing (Abstract); and a wheel engager 4 disposed between the wings to engage (i.e., capable of engaging) the roller wheels.
Regarding claim 2, Kurokawa further discloses the delamination inhibitor is configured to impede (i.e., capable of impeding) passage of grit between a surface of the wing and a portion of the elastomeric material contiguous to the surface of the wing (evident from Figs. 1(A) and 1(B) that such function would be presumed to be present; note MPEP 2112.01 which states, in part, “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that the of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”.).
Regarding claim 3, Kurokawa further discloses the core comprises a wheel guide 3L, 3R configured to (i.e., capable of) contact the roller wheels to guide the track (evident from Fig. 1(A) and paragraph [0006] of the machine translation); and at least part of the delamination inhibitor (i.e., the closest ridge 7 to wheel guide 3L) is located closer to the wheel guide than to a longitudinal end of the core in a longitudinal direction of the core (Fig. 1(A)).
Regarding claim 4, Kurokawa further discloses the delamination inhibitor comprises an unevenness of a surface of the wing (Figs. 1(A) and 1(B)).
Regarding claim 5, Kurokawa further discloses the unevenness of the surface of the wing comprises projections 7 that are spaced apart in the longitudinal direction of the core.
Regarding claim 6, Kurokawa further discloses each of the projections (note the claimed “recesses” is an alternatively claimed limitation per claim 5 and is thus not required for claim 6) extend over at least a majority of a width of the wing (Fig. 1(A)).
Regarding claim 7, Kurokawa further discloses the delamination inhibitor is configured (i.e., is capable of) to oppose shearing of a portion of the elastomeric material contiguous to a surface of the wing relative to the surface of the wing under loading from respective ones of the roller wheels (evident from at least the Abstract and Figs. 1(A) and 1(B)).
Regarding claim 8, Kurokawa further discloses the surface of the wing is an inner surface of the wing oriented towards the ground-engaging outer side of the track (note Fig. 1(B) discloses the surface can either be the surface oriented towards the ground-engaging outer side of the track OR the surface oriented towards the inner side of the track).
Regarding claim 9, Kurokawa further discloses when there is a combination of the projections and recesses, each of the recesses is located between two of the projections (Fig. 1(A)).
Regarding claim 10 under an alternative interpretation of Kurokawa where the projections set forth in claim 5 are considered to only comprise the two most outboard ridges 7, Kurokawa further discloses each of the projections is entirely located between a longitudinal end of the wing and a midpoint of the wing (Fig. 1(A)).
Regarding claim 11, Kurokawa further discloses the projections and recesses are straight, curved or a combination thereof (Fig. 1(A)).
Regarding claim 12, Kurokawa further discloses the unevenness has a height or depth of at least 1% of a thickness of the wing where the unevenness is located (clearly shown in Figs. 1(A) and 1(B)).
Regarding claim 13, Kurokawa further discloses the unevenness has a height or depth of no more than 20% of a thickness of the wing where the unevenness is located (clearly shown in Figs. 1(A) and 1(B)).
Regarding claim 14, Kurokawa further discloses the delamination inhibitor comprises grit-blocking projections 7 and grit-blocking recesses (unlabeled recesses defined by ridges 6, 7 shown in Fig. 1(A)) that are spaced apart in the longitudinal direction of the core (Fig. 1(A)).
Regarding claim 15, Kurokawa further discloses the grit is one or more of: sand, rocks, dirt, other granular abrasive objects, and grit-containing liquid media (evident from Figs. 1(A) and 1(B) that the delamination inhibitor is configured to impede (i.e., capable of impeding) passage of grit being one or more the elements set forth in this claim).
Regarding claim 16, Kurokawa further discloses the delamination inhibitor comprises a shear limiter (i.e., the most outboard ridge 7 and portions of ridges 6 at the longitudinal end of the core as shown in Fig. 1(A)) on the surface of the wing located at or close to a longitudinal end of the core (Fig. 1(A)).
Regarding claim 17, Kurokawa further discloses the shear limiter comprises one or a combination of projections and recesses configured to abut against the portion of the elastomeric material (Fig. 1(A)).
Regarding claim 18, Kurokawa further discloses when the shear limiter comprises projections, at least one of the projections (i.e., the most outboard ridge 7) is a shear-limiting projection having a projection surface (i.e., the inboard facing surface of the most outboard ridge 7 shown in Fig. 1(A)) facing towards the wheel engager and configured to abut against the portion of the elastomeric material when the wheel engager is engaged with the roller wheels (evident from Fig. 1(B) and paragraph [0005] of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 19, Kurokawa further discloses when the shear limiter comprises projections, at least one of the projections (i.e., a ridge 6 extending between the most outboard ridge 7 and the longitudinal end of the core as shown in Fig. 1(A)) is a stiffening projection extending longitudinally to the core and configured to stiffen the longitudinal end of the core (Fig. 1(A)).
Regarding claim 20, Kurokawa further discloses when the shear limiter comprises projections, at least one of the projections (i.e., the most outboard ridge 7) is an end projection located at or close to the longitudinal end of the core and configured to (i.e., capable of) protect the track against edge-cutting (evident from Fig. 1(A)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art shows other examples of tracks with cores having wings comprising delamination inhibitors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights