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
1. 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 limitation “the radial offset of the concave valleys from the generally cylindrical carrier roller body is sufficient to prevent the first and second rows of links from resting on the generally cylindrical carrier roller body” as recited in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings merely appear to show that the links 26a/26b rest on the cylindrical carrier roller body 23.
2. Fig. 8 is not consistent with Fig. 9 with respect to the location of the valley indicated by reference character 44. Additionally, the radial offset indicated by reference character 46 appears to be longer than Fig. 8 and should be shown as shorter. Refer to the circle noted by dash lines in the below annotated Fig. 9.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
411
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 9
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 Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
· “the chain” should be replaced with --the endless linked chain-- for clarity and consistency in line 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 7 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.
· The term “sufficient” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” 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. Specifically, the term “sufficient” renders the required magnitude of the radial offset unclear because the claim does not provide objective boundaries for determining what amount of radial offset is sufficient to prevent the first and second rows of links from resting on the generally cylindrical carrier roller body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderton et al (US6726293B2; hereinafter “Anderton”) in view of Ritter, Jr. et al (US3912336A; hereinafter “Ritter”).
Regarding claim 1, Anderton discloses a crawler track assembly (12 “undercarriage”; Fig. 2) for use with a tracked vehicle (Fig. 1), the crawler track assembly 12 comprising: a track frame (15 “support frame”); a drive sprocket 16 (Fig. 2) mounted on the track frame 15 (Fig. 2); an idler sprocket 17 (Fig. 2) mounted on the track frame 15 (Lines 63-65 of col. 3); an endless linked chain 14 including first and second rows of links 22 (“A link assembly 22 preferably includes a right link and a left link” per lines 40-41 of col. 4; Fig. 2) joined by cylindrical bushings 24 (Fig. 2) extending between the first and second rows of links (“A bushing 24 is attached to the right link and the left link, and extends perpendicularly between the links” per lines 41-42 of col. 4), the chain 14 extending around the drive sprocket 16 and the idler sprocket 17 (Fig. 2); a plurality of lower rollers 19 (Fig. 2) mounted on the track frame 15 and engaging a lower strand (As shown in Fig. 2, the rollers 19 are engaging a lower strand of the chain 14) of the endless linked chain 14; and at least one carrier roller (18 “star carrier roller assembly”; Fig. 2) mounted on the track frame 15 (Lines 6-9 of col. 4) and supporting an upper strand of the endless linked chain (Fig. 2), the carrier roller 18 including a generally cylindrical carrier roller body 29 (Fig. 3a) having an axis of rotation (The axis of rotation is implicitly shown in Figs. 2 and 3a) and a carrier sprocket 21 (Figs. 3a and 3b) extending radially relative to the axis of rotation (Fig. 3b) so that the carrier sprocket 21 is concentric with the generally cylindrical carrier roller body 29 (Figs. 3a and 3b), the carrier sprocket 21 including a plurality of teeth 23 (Fig. 2) separated by concave valleys (Refer to the concave valleys in the below annotated Fig. 3b) configured to receive the cylindrical bushings 24 of the endless linked chain 14 in the concave valleys between the teeth 23 (Fig. 2),
PNG
media_image2.png
617
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3b of Anderton
the concave valleys between the teeth 23 being radially offset (Figs. 3a and 3b; Fig. 3b appears to show the concave valley at 32 being radially offset from the roller body 29. Further, since the sprocket 21 is described as being attached to the radially outer surface of roller body 29, the concave valleys of the sprocket 21 would necessarily be radially offset from the roller body 29) from the generally cylindrical carrier roller body 29, but fails to disclose a weight of the upper strand of the endless linked chain is primarily carried by the engagement of the concave valleys with the cylindrical bushings of the endless linked chain.
Ritter, however, teaches a drive and support arrangement (Figs. 1 and 2) in which sprocket teeth (18 “teeth”; Figs. 1 and 2) engage cylindrical bushings 26 of an upper strand of a track assembly 16 (Figs. 1 and 2) such that the upper strand is supported through the engagement between the sprocket teeth 18 and the bushings 26 (Figs. 1 and 2), without relying on engagement of the links 23 with a hub 21 (Note that the Examiner interprets the hub as corresponding to the claimed “generally cylindrical roller body”; Lines 3-10 of col. 2; Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having 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 carrier roller assembly of Anderton by employing the bushing-engagement arrangement, as taught by Ritter, as an alternative known arrangement for supporting and positively engaging the upper strand of the track chain without relying on engagement of the links with the carrier roller body.
Anderton further fails to disclose the radial offset of the concave valleys from the generally cylindrical carrier roller body is sufficient to prevent the first and second rows of links from resting on the generally cylindrical carrier roller body as recited in claim 7.
Ritter, however, teaches bushing-receiving spaces between adjacent teeth 18 are radially offset from a cylindrical hub 21 by a distance sufficient to position bushings 26 radially outward of the hub 21, thereby preventing laterally spaced links 23 from resting on the hub 21 (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having 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 carrier roller assembly of Anderton by employing the radially offset bushing-engagement arrangement, as taught by Ritter, with the motivation to employ an alternative known arrangement for supporting the upper strand of the track chain, thereby reducing reliance on the carrier roller body.
Regarding claim 2, Anderton discloses the plurality of teeth 23 of the carrier sprocket 21 is an odd number (Figs. 2 and 3b), but fails to disclose a pitch between adjacent teeth of the carrier sprocket is one-half a pitch between adjacent bushings of the endless linked chain.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have selected an appropriate number of teeth for the carrier sprocket such that the resulting pitch between adjacent teeth corresponds to one-half the pitch between adjacent bushings, because Anderton expressly teaches that the number of teeth may vary depending on the diameter of the carrier roller and other factors in the art (Lines 16-20 of col. 4), thereby recognizing the spacing between adjacent teeth as a design parameter affecting the engagement relationship between the carrier sprocket and the endless linked chain. It is well understood in the art that routine optimization of such a recognized result-effective variable to satisfy desired track requirements and operating characteristics would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Anderton further fails to disclose the plurality of teeth of the carrier sprocket includes at least 11 teeth.
Anderton, however, teaches that the number of sprocket teeth may vary depending upon the diameter of the carrier roller and other factors known in the art (lines 16-20 of col. 4).
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have selected eleven or more teeth for the carrier sprocket because the number of sprocket teeth is a recognized result-effective variable that may be selected depending upon the diameter of the carrier roller and other design factors to achieve the desired operating characteristics and track requirements.
Although Anderton fails to disclose the concave valleys of the carrier sprocket have a width parallel to the axis of rotation of at least 3.0 inches as recited in claim 4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have selected a width of the concave valleys parallel to the axis of rotation of at least 3.0 inches, because the width of the concave valleys is a recognized result-effective variable that may be selected to satisfy the desired operating characteristics of the carrier sprocket.
Although Anderton fails to disclose the radial offset of the concave valleys from the generally cylindrical carrier roller body is at least 2.0 inches and 2.5 inches as recited in claims 5 and 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have selected a radial offset of the concave valleys from the generally cylindrical carrier roller body of at least 2.0 inches and/or 2.5 inches, because the radial offset is a recognized result-effective variable that may be selected to satisfy the desired operating characteristics of the carrier sprocket.
Regarding claim 8, Anderton fails to disclose the carrier roller is formed as an integrally forged part including the generally cylindrical carrier roller body and the carrier sprocket, Anderton, however, teaches manufacturing the carrier roller and sprocket as one component by casting (Lines 65-67 of col. 4).
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having 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 carrier roller of Anderton by a forging process because forging is a well-known manufacturing technique for producing one-piece metallic components having improved strength, durability, and structural integrity while reducing the number of assembled parts.
Regarding claim 10, Anderton discloses the at least one carrier roller 18 includes a forward carrier roller and a rearward carrier roller (As shown in Fig. 2, the carrier roller 18 may correspond to either the forward carrier roller or the rearward carrier roller).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose a sprocket drive for endless track top rollers.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON (TAE) CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights