Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9 January 2026. These drawings are approved.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal terms (see section 4 below). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprising”, “means”, and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The first paragraph of the specification fails to denote that the parent application has matured into a US Patent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “a” should be replaced with the term - -the- - prior to the term “widthwise in line 3.
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.
Claim 37 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.
Claim 37 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured for engaging”. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 9 below) and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 21-23, 26-28, 31-32, 36-37, and 40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al (6,709,077).
Per claim 21, Watanabe et al shows a track for a vehicle mounted about a track-engaging assembly comprising a drive wheel and idler wheel. the track comprises elastomeric material to be flexible around the track-engaging assembly. The track includes an inner surface that faces the track-engaging assembly, and defining an idler wheel path, and a ground-engaging outer surface. The track further includes a plurality of traction projections extending from the ground-engaging outer surface, and a plurality of stiffening rods 10 extending transversely to the longitudinal direction of the track. Each stiffening rod 10 has a dimension (at 1a,1b) in the thickness direction of the track that is less where the rod 10 overlaps the idler wheel path in the widthwise direction of the track than where the rod 10 does not overlap the idler wheel path.
Per claim 22, the idler wheel is a roller wheel, such that the idler wheel path is a rolling path on the bottom run of the track.
Per claim 23, the idler wheel includes first and second idler wheels engaging first and second idler wheel paths, both being spaced apart from one another in the widthwise direction of the track. The dimension of the rod 10 in the thickness direction of the track is less where the rod 10 overlaps the first and second idler wheel paths than where the rod 10 does not overlap the idler wheel paths.
Per claims 26-27, the stiffening rod 10 includes a surface that faces the inner surface of the track and recedes toward the ground-engaging outer surface, where the rod 10 overlaps the first and second idler wheel paths.
Per claim 28, the receding surface (and the lesser thickness) of the stiffening rod 10 are formed by a recess (1a, 1b) where the rod 10 overlaps the first and second idler wheel paths.
Per claims 31-32, a first longitudinal end portion of the stiffening rod 10 overlaps the first idler wheel path, while a second longitudinal end portion of the stiffening rod 10 overlaps the second idler wheel path.
Per claims 36-37, a plurality of drive/guide projections (7a & 7b, or 9) extend from the inner surface, to engage the drive wheel.
Per claim 40, a shock absorbency of the track is greater where the idler wheel path(s) are located in the widthwise direction of the track than where the wheel paths are not located.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 24-25, 29-30, and 38 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al.
Regarding claims 24 and 30, Watanabe et al does not disclose the ratio of the depth of the recess (1a, 1b) (i.e. difference between the thickness of the stiffening rod 10 not overlapping the wheel paths and the dimension of the stiffening rod that overlaps the wheel paths) over the total thickness (i.e. the dimension of the stiffening rod at locations not overlapping the wheel paths in the thickness direction of the track) of the stiffening rod 10. 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, that such a ratio is dependent upon the thickness dimensions of the overall stiffening rods and the recesses formed therein, which are dependent upon the desired weight and stiffness of the rods, which dictate the flexibility and durability of the track in which the rods are embedded.
Regarding claims 25 and 29, Watanabe et al does not disclose the depth of the recesses in the stiffening rods. However, as set forth above, one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention) would realize that this dimension is a result effective variable, dependent upon the desired weight and stiffness of the reinforcing rods, which in turn dictates the flexibility and durability of the track in which the rods are embedded.
Regarding claim 38, Watanabe et al does not disclose the thickness of the track between the inner and outer surfaces. 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 thickness of the track between the inner and outer surfaces such that the track does not fail during use, dependent upon the desired weight, flexibility, and load handling capacity of the track.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al as applied to claims 21-32, 36-38, and 40 above, and further in view of Soucy et al (2008/0100134).
Watanabe et al does not show the track including a plurality of longitudinally extending reinforcing cables therein, nor those reinforcing cable being disposed between stiffening rods and the inner surface of the track.
Soucy et al teaches the use of an endless track including a plurality of longitudinally extending reinforcing cables 123 disposed between an inner surface of the track and stiffening rods 180 disposed therein. Therefore, 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 provide the track of Watanabe et al with a plurality of longitudinally extending reinforcing cables disposed between the inner surface and the stiffening rods, for the purpose of reinforcing the track against stretching forces in the direction of travel of the track.
Claim 35 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al in view of Soucy et al as applied to claims 33-34 above, and further in view of Katoh et al (7,201,457).
Watanabe et al as modified by Soucy et al does not show the reinforcing cables being disposed between the stiffening rods and the outer surface of the track.
Katoh et al teaches the use of a track including a plurality of longitudinally extending reinforcing cables 2b disposed between the outer surface and stiffening rods 5. Therefore, 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 provide the track of Watanabe et al as modified by Soucy et al with a plurality of longitudinally extending reinforcing cables disposed between the outer surface and the stiffening rods, as a substitute equivalent configuration, for the purpose of reinforcing the track against stretching forces in the direction of travel of the track.
Claim 39 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al as applied to claims 21-32, 36-38, and 40 above, and further in view of Courtemanche (6,109,705).
Watanabe et al does not disclose the track being a snowmobile track used on a snowmobile.
Courtemanche teaches the use of a snowmobile track mounted on a snowmobile. Therefore, 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 of Watanabe et al as a snowmobile track to be mounted on a snowmobile, as a substitute equivalent intended use, to achieve the predictable result of propelling the vehicle over snowy terrain.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show tracks including reinforcing cables and/or stiffening rods embedded therein.
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