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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 2, recites “the widthwise direction” which should be changed to --the width direction-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
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 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22, and 24 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.
The phrase “substantially along an entirety of a thickness” in claim 3, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “substantially along an entirety of a thickness” 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. What one person considers as “substantially along an entirety of a thickness” may not be the same as what another person considers as “substantially along an entirety of a thickness” thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 4, lines 4-5, recites “defines a local apex of the carcass considered in the width direction” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the Applicant means by “considered”. How is an element viewed as being “considered”? Is the Applicant trying to claim --defines a local apex of the carcass viewed in the width direction--?
Claim 6, lines 2-3, recites “wherein, considered in the width direction” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the Applicant means by “considered”. How is an element viewed as being “considered”? Is the Applicant trying to claim --wherein, viewed in the width direction--?
Claim 9, lines 4-5, recites “wherein, considered in the longitudinal direction” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the Applicant means by “considered”. How is an element viewed as being “considered”? Is the Applicant trying to claim --wherein, viewed in the longitudinal direction--?
Claim 11, lines 4-5, recites “the first and second ground-receiving recesses are in register with each other” which is indefinite because what structure must be present for the first and second ground-receiving recesses to be viewed as being “in register” with each other. What exactly does Applicant mean by “in register”?
Claim 12, lines 2-3, recites “a surface texture at least partially delimiting at least one of the ground-receiving recesses formed therein” which is indefinite because it is unclear how a surface texture performs the function of at least partially delimiting at least one of the ground-receiving recesses formed therein. What does Applicant mean by “at least partially delimiting”? Does the mere presence of a surface texture meet this claim limitation?
Claim 14, lines 5-6, recites “said layer recesses being substantially in register in the longitudinal direction” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the Applicant mean by “in register”? What structure of said layer recesses must be present to meet this claim limitation?
Claim 14, line 6, recites “ground-receiving recesses” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the ground-receiving recesses from claim 14 are related to or different from the ground-receiving recesses from claim 1, line 8. Is the Applicant trying to claim two separate sets of ground-receiving recesses?
Claim 19, lines 4-5, recites “defining a local apex of the carcass considered in the width direction” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the Applicant means by “considered”. How is an element viewed as being “considered”? Is the Applicant trying to claim --defines a local apex of the carcass viewed in the width direction--?
Claim 20, lines 4-5, recites “wherein, considered in the longitudinal direction” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the Applicant means by “considered”. How is an element viewed as being “considered”? Is the Applicant trying to claim --wherein, viewed in the longitudinal direction--?
Claim 20, lines 5-6, recites “at least one of the ground-engaging protrusions is substantially in register with one of the traction projections” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the Applicant mean by “in register”? What structure of at least one of the ground-engaging protrusions in relation to one of the traction projections must be present to meet this claim limitation?
Claim 22, line 3, recites “wherein, considered in the width direction” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the Applicant means by “considered”. How is an element viewed as being “considered”? Is the Applicant trying to claim --wherein, viewed in the width direction--?
Claim 22, lines 5-6, recites “at least one of the ground-engaging protrusions is substantially in register with one of the wheel-engaging projections” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the Applicant mean by “in register”? What structure of at least one of the ground-engaging protrusions in relation to one of the wheel-engaging projections must be present to meet this claim limitation?
Claim 24, line 2, recites “at least first and second ground-engaging protrusions” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the at least first and second ground-engaging protrusions from claim 24 are related to or different from the ground-engaging protrusions from claim 16, lines 8-9. Is the Applicant trying to claim two separate sets of ground-engaging protrusions?
Claim 24, lines 4-5, recites “the first and second ground-engaging protrusions are in register with each other” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the Applicant mean by “in register”? What structure of the first and second ground-engaging protrusions must be present to meet this claim limitation?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 11-13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 24, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nam et al. (US 11,001,318 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Nam et al. discloses a track for traction of a vehicle (Column 1 / Lines 15-16), the track being mountable around a track-engaging assembly of the vehicle, the track-engaging assembly comprising a plurality of wheels (the wheels of the track loader), the track having a longitudinal direction (the horizontal direction in Figure 3) and comprising:
a carcass (see the figures) comprising an outer ground-engaging side (2; Column 3 / Lines 32-34), an opposed inner wheel-facing side (4; Column 4 / Lines 34-36), and first and second lateral edges (the outer edge and the inner edge of the track; the surface that each 40 is formed on in Figure 1) extending along the longitudinal direction between the outer and inner sides, the first and second lateral edges being spaced apart from each other in a width direction (the vertical direction in Figure 3) of the track;
wherein ground-receiving recesses (the recesses formed between each adjacent 40 as shown in Figure 1) are formed on at least one of the first and second lateral edges.
Regarding claim 2, Nam et al. discloses that the ground-receiving recesses are spaced-apart from each other in the longitudinal direction of the track (each 40 is spaced from each other along the horizontal direction as shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Nam et al. discloses that at least one of the ground-receiving recesses extends substantially along an entirety of a thickness (the thickness of the edge that 40 is formed on as shown in Figure 1) of the corresponding one of the first and second lateral edges (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Nam et al. discloses traction projections (10, 20) projecting from the outer side of the carcass, wherein, considered in the width direction of the track, at least one of the ground-receiving recesses is spaced from said traction projections (the recesses are spaced between 10 and 20 as shown in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Nam et al. discloses that considered in the longitudinal direction of the track, at least one of the ground-receiving recesses is disposed between longitudinally adjacent ones of the traction projections (see Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Nam et al. discloses wheel-engaging projections (the central projections in Figure 2) projecting from the inner side of the carcass, wherein, considered in the width direction of the track, at least one of the ground-receiving recesses is spaced from said wheel-engaging projections (see Figure 2), wherein, considered in the longitudinal direction of the track, at least one of the ground-receiving recesses is disposed between longitudinally adjacent ones of the wheel-engaging projections.
Regarding claim 11, Nam et al. discloses that the ground-receiving recesses comprise at least first and second ground-receiving recesses (recesses between at least three consecutive 40; see Figure 1) formed respectively in the first and second lateral edges, wherein, considered in the longitudinal direction of the track, the first and second ground-receiving recesses are in register with each other (as best understood, the consecutive first and second ground-receiving recesses meet this claim limitation as shown in Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 12, Nam et al. discloses that at least one of the first and second lateral edges comprises a surface texture (all surfaces have a surface texture) at least partially delimiting at least one of the ground-receiving recesses formed therein.
Regarding claim 13, Nam et al. discloses that considered in a thickness direction (the up-and-down direction in Figure 1) of the track, at least one of the ground-receiving recesses has one of a curved profile and an angled profile (the viewed ground-receiving recesses are viewed to have an angled profile because they are formed of at least one angle thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 16, Nam et al. discloses a track for traction of a vehicle (Column 1 / Lines 15-16), the track being mountable around a track-engaging assembly of the vehicle, the track-engaging assembly comprising a plurality of wheels (the wheels of the track loader), the track having a longitudinal direction (the horizontal direction in Figure 3) and comprising:
a carcass (see the figures) comprising an outer ground-engaging side (2; Column 3 / Lines 32-34) and an opposed inner wheel-facing side (4; Column 4 / Lines 34-36), first and second lateral edges (the outer edge and the inner edge of the track; the surface that each 40 is formed on in Figure 1) extending between the outer and inner sides, the first and second lateral edges being spaced apart from each other in a width direction (the vertical direction in Figure 3) of the track; and
wherein at least one of the first and second lateral edges comprises ground-engaging protrusions (40).
Regarding claim 17, Nam et al. discloses that at least one of the ground-engaging protrusions is at least partially made integral with at least one of the outer and inner sides of the carcass (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Nam et al. discloses that at least one of the ground-engaging protrusions is at least partially surrounded by a ground-receiving recess (a recess formed between each adjacent 40 as shown in Figure 1) formed in the corresponding one of the first and second lateral edges, said at least one of the ground-engaging protrusions defining a local apex of the carcass considered in the width direction of the track (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 20, Nam et al. discloses traction projections (10, 20) projecting from the outer side of the carcass, wherein, considered in the width direction of the track, at least one of the ground-engaging protrusions is spaced from said traction projections (the recesses are spaced between 10 and 20 as shown in Figure 1), wherein, considered in the longitudinal direction of the track, at least one of the ground-engaging protrusions is substantially in register with one of the traction projections (as best understood, see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 22, Nam et al. discloses wheel-engaging projections (the central projections in Figure 2) projecting from the inner side of the carcass, wherein, considered in the width direction of the track, at least one of the ground-engaging protrusions is spaced from said wheel-engaging projections (see Figure 2), wherein, considered in the longitudinal direction of the track, at least one of the ground-engaging protrusions is substantially in register with one of the wheel-engaging projections (as best understood, see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, Nam et al. discloses at least first and second ground-engaging protrusions (40) protruding respectively from the first and second lateral edges, wherein, considered in the longitudinal direction of the track, the first and second ground-engaging protrusions are in register with each other (as best understood, see Figure 1).
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haydon et al. (WO 9605917 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haydon et al. discloses a track for traction of a vehicle (Page 26 / Lines 10-11), the track being mountable around a track-engaging assembly of the vehicle, the track-engaging assembly comprising a plurality of wheels (143, 145, 147; see Figure 40), the track having a longitudinal direction (the horizontal direction in Figure 40) and comprising:
a carcass (see Figures 40-42) comprising an outer ground-engaging side (the surface that 141 extends from in Figure 40), an opposed inner wheel-facing side (the surface that 145 directly contacts in Figure 40), and first and second lateral edges (the sides of the track between the outer and inner sides) extending along the longitudinal direction between the outer and inner sides, the first and second lateral edges being spaced apart from each other in a width direction (left-to-right direction in Figure 42) of the track;
wherein ground-receiving recesses (167, 169) are formed on at least one of the first and second lateral edges.
Regarding claim 2, Haydon et al. discloses that the ground-receiving recesses are spaced-apart from each other in the longitudinal direction of the track (see Figures 41 and 42).
Regarding claim 3, Haydon et al. discloses that at least one of the ground-receiving recesses extends substantially along an entirety of a thickness of the corresponding one of the first and second lateral edges (as best understood, 169 is viewed as meeting this claim limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Haydon et al. discloses traction projections (the V-shaped projections that extend outward from the track which are configured to engage the ground) projecting from the outer side of the carcass, wherein, considered in the width direction of the track, at least one of the ground-receiving recesses is spaced from said traction projections (see Figure 42).
Regarding claim 7, Haydon et al. discloses that considered in the longitudinal direction of the track, at least one of the ground-receiving recesses is disposed between longitudinally adjacent ones of the traction projections (see Figures 41 and 42).
Regarding claim 8, Haydon et al. discloses that the traction projections are arranged in traction projection rows (the lines of V-shaped projections) extending in the widthwise direction of the track and disposed along the longitudinal direction thereof, wherein a plurality of said ground-receiving recesses (167) are formed between longitudinally adjacent ones of the traction projection rows (two 167 are located between each V-shaped projection as shown in Figure 42 thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Haydon et al. discloses that the ground-receiving recesses comprise at least first (167) and second (169) ground-receiving recesses formed respectively in the first and second lateral edges, wherein, considered in the longitudinal direction of the track, the first and second ground-receiving recesses are in register with each other (as best understood, 167 and 169 meet this claim limitation given their structural relationship shown in Figure 42).
Regarding claim 12, Haydon et al. discloses that at least one of the first and second lateral edges comprises a surface texture (all surfaces have a surface texture) at least partially delimiting at least one of the ground-receiving recesses formed therein.
Regarding claim 13, Haydon et al. discloses that considered in a thickness direction (the up-and-down direction in Figure 1) of the track, at least one of the ground-receiving recesses has one of a curved profile and an angled profile (169 is viewed as having an angled profile because it is formed of at least one angle thus meeting the claim limitation).
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 11,001,318 B2) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 6,568,769 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Nam et al. discloses a reinforcing layer (36) embedded in the carcass, the reinforcing layer comprising first and second edges (the left and right ends of 36 in Figure 2) facing respectively the first and second lateral edges of the carcass.
Nam et al. does not disclose that at least a portion of one of the first and second lateral edges of the reinforcing layer extends in at least one of the ground-engaging protrusions of the corresponding one of the first and second lateral edges.
Watanabe et al. teaches a reinforcing layer (1) embedded in a carcass (1, 2), the reinforcing layer comprising first and second edges (1a, 1b) facing respectively the first and second lateral edges of the carcass, at least a portion of one of the first and second lateral edges of the reinforcing layer extends to an outermost lateral edge (see Figure 1) of the corresponding one of the first and second lateral edges (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reinforcing layer of Nam et al. to extend to an outermost lateral edge of the corresponding one of the first and second lateral edges, as taught by Watanabe et al., for the purpose of providing increased strength to the tack. Once Nam et al. is modified by Watanabe et al., the first and second lateral edges of the reinforcing layer would extend in at least one of the ground-engaging protrusions of the corresponding one of the first and second lateral edges because both elements 1a and 1b extend to the outermost lateral edges of Watanabe et al. and the ground-engaging protrusions of Nam et al. are the outermost lateral edges of the track.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Claims 4 and 14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dandurand (US 7,618,102 B2) discloses a track that has treads, and the treads have a plurality of recesses and protrusions on each lateral side.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
