DETAILED ACTION
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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the arcuate interface” 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.
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 30 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 30 recites the limitation "each arcuate interface" in lines 1 – 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 16, 18 – 21, and 24 – 27, and 31 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okawa et al. (US 7,040,080 B2) in view of Steiner et al. (US 2015/0008730 A1).
For claim 16, Okawa et al. discloses a method of processing a track link 10 for extended service life comprising:
[selectively tempering a track link including an upper rail surface 11, a lower shoe-mounting surface 12, [a first link strap, a second link strap] (drawing 1 below), a first track pin bore 14 and a bushing hole 13 each extending through the track link;
[softening [previously hardened material of the track link] (col. 4, lines 45 – 61) by way of the selective tempering such that softened material forms the first track pin bore and at least a portion of the first link strap;
softening previously hardened material of the track link by way of the selective tempering such that softened material forms the bushing hole and at least a portion of the second link strap] (fig. 3, col. 4, lines 63 – 67 and col. 5, lines 1 – 4); and
[limiting driving heat during the selective tempering into the previously hardened material such that at least a majority of the upper rail surface remains formed of the previously hardened material] (fig. 3, col. 5, lines 10 – 22); but does not explicitly disclose
the bushing hole is a second track pin bore.
Steiner et al. discloses a track link 24 comprising [an elongate link body 24 having a lower shoe-mounting surface 26 and an upper rail surface 30] (page 2, paragraph [0017]), and further comprising [a first track pin bore 40 and a second track pin bore 42] (fig. 3, page 2, paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the second track pin bore of Steiner et al. in place of the bushing hole of Okawa et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for an alternative link for a track system, thus increasing overall track service life and ride quality.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing 1
For claim 18, Okawa et al. modified as above discloses the method further comprising [receiving the track link prior to the selectively tempering formed throughout of the previously hardened material] (the track link would be received when taken out of the quenching of the whole material).
For claim 19, Okawa et al. modified as above discloses the method further comprising [heat treating the track link to form the track link of the previously hardened material] (col. 4, lines 45 – 61), and [advancing the track link to final machining (step 7) after a total of one heat treating stage (steps 4 and 5) and a total of one selective tempering stage (step 6)] (col. 5, lines 10 – 14).
For claim 20, Okawa et al. modified as above discloses the method [wherein the previously hardened material has a hardness of about 55 HRC or greater] (col. 4, lines 56 – 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
For claim 21, Okawa et al. discloses a method of processing a track link 10 for extended service life comprising:
[selectively tempering a track link 10] (col. 4, lines 63 – 67 and col. 5, lines 1 – 4);
[softening [previously hardened material of the track link] (col. 4, lines 45 – 61) by way of the selective tempering such that softened material forms a first track pin bore 14 and a bushing hole 13] (fig. 3, col. 4, lines 63 – 67 and col. 5, lines 1 – 4); and
[limiting driving heat during the selective tempering into the previously hardened material such that at least a majority of an upper rail surface of the track link remains formed of the previously hardened material] (fig. 3, col. 5, lines 10 – 22); but does not explicitly disclose
the bushing hole is a second track pin bore.
Steiner et al. discloses a track link 24 comprising [an elongate link body 24 having a lower shoe-mounting surface 26 and an upper rail surface 30] (page 2, paragraph [0017]), and further comprising [a first track pin bore 40 and a second track pin bore 42] (fig. 3, page 2, paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the second track pin bore of Steiner et al. in place of the bushing hole of Okawa et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for an alternative link for a track system, thus increasing overall track service life and ride quality.
For claim 24, Okawa et al. modified as above discloses the method wherein the limiting driving heat includes [limiting driving heat so as to form a first lower hardness zone of the softened material forming the first track pin bore, a second lower hardness zone of the softened material forming the second track pin bore, and a higher hardness zone of the previously hardened material forming the upper rail surface] (col. 4, lines 63 – 67 and col. 5, lines 1 – 4).
For claim 25, Okawa et al. modified as above discloses the method [wherein the first lower hardness zone and the second lower hardness zone together form a negative image of a higher hardness zone] (in view of the modification above, fig. 3 of Okawa et al. and fig. 5 of Steiner et al.).
For claim 26, Okawa et al. modified as above discloses the method [wherein a greater depth of the higher hardness zone extends downward from the upper rail surface at a location longitudinally between the first track pin bore and the second track pin bore, and a lesser depth of the higher hardness zone extends downward from the upper rail surface at locations of the first track pin bore and the second track pin bore] (in view of the modification above, fig. 3 of Okawa et al. and fig. 5 of Steiner et al.).
Regarding claim 27, Okawa et al. modified as above does not explicitly teach that the less depth is about 20 millimeters or less. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified less depth to be about 20 millimeters or less with a reasonable expectation of success because improved overall accuracy and strength of the required areas based on specified dimensional values., since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
For claim 31, Okawa et al. modified as above discloses the method further comprising [receiving the track link prior to the selectively tempering formed throughout of the previously hardened material] (the track link would be received when taken out of the quenching of the whole material).
For claim 32, Okawa et al. modified as above discloses the method [wherein the previously hardened material has a hardness of about HRC 55 or greater] (col. 4, lines 58 – 61), and [the softened material has a hardness of about 45 HRC or less] (col. 5, lines 3 – 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
For claim 33, Okawa et al. modified as above discloses the method further comprising [heat treating the track link to form the track link of the previously hardened material] (col. 4, lines 45 – 61), and [advancing the track link to final machining (step 7) after a total of one heat treating stage (step 5), [a total of one cooling stage] (step 4), and [a total of one selective tempering stage (step 6)] (col. 5, lines 10 – 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 22, 23, 28, and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose:
For claim 17: limiting driving heat such that an entirety of the upper rail surface and at least a portion of the lower shoe-mounting surface remains formed of the previously hardened material;
For claims 22 and 23: limiting driving heat such that a full length of the upper rail remains formed of the previously hardened material; and
For claims 28 – 30: an arcuate interface is formed between each respective one of the first lower hardness zone and the second lower hardness zone and the higher hardness zone.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20150361534 – comprising a method of producing a track link;
US-20080174175 – comprising a track link having straps;
WO-2007108486 – comprising a method of manufacturing a track link; and
US-5500058 – comprising a method for producing a vehicular endless track link.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacob D. Knutson whose telephone number is (571)270-5576. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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.
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights