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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
the outer portion having a first driving zone and a second driving zone from claim 1 (Note: Paragraph 00131 discloses “the inner surface 402 can be said to have a plurality of zones, including a first driving zone 502, a first wheel path zone 504, a guiding zone 506, a second wheel path zone 508, and a second driving zone 510” and the inner surface is a part of the inner portion thus it appears that claim 1, line 6, should be changed to --the inner portion of the inner portion having a first driving zone--? Claim 1 is examined as if the first driving zone is a part of the inner surface of the inner portion.)
the at least one linear section from claim 25
the first linear section from claim 26
the second linear section from claim 26
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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the phrases “a first width”, “a second width”, “a third width”, and “a fourth width” from claim 9 does not appear to have proper antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 23 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23, line 1, recites “The endless track of claim 22, the plurality of non-linear lugs” which is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to -- The endless track of claim 22, wherein the plurality of non-linear lugs--.
Claim 27, lines 1-2, recites “the plurality of non-linear lugs” which should be changed to --the plurality of non-linear outer lugs-- 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 1-9, 12, 15-19, 22, 23, and 25-27 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first driving lug" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second driving lug" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, lines 23-24, recites “and being zone being half or less than half a width of the second driving zone” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what the Applicant is trying to claim. Is the Applicant trying to claim --and the guiding zone being half or less than half a width of the second driving zone--?
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the first and second lateral surfaces" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-9, 12, 15, 18, and 19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soucy et al. (US 7,784,884 B2) in view of Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter referred to as AAPA).
Regarding claim 1, Soucy et al. discloses an endless track for a track system, the endless track engageable with a wheel of the track system, the endless track comprising:
a polymeric carcass (see Figure 5) including:
an outer portion (the bottom of the structure in Figure 5) with an outer surface (126) for contacting a ground surface (126 is an outer ground-engaging surface); and
an inner portion (the top portion of the carcass where 121, 122, and 125 are formed) with an inner surface (128) opposite to the outer surface,
the inner portion having a first driving zone (the zone where 122 is located in Figure 5) adjacent a first wheel path zone (the space between 122 and 125 in Figure 5), the first wheel path zone adjacent a guiding zone (the zone where 125 is located in Figure 5), the guiding zone adjacent a second wheel path zone (the space between 121 and 125 in Figure 5), the second wheel path zone adjacent a second driving zone (the zone where 121 is located in Figure 5);
a plurality of driving lugs (121, 122) configured to engage the wheel and disposed in the first and the second driving zones; the plurality of driving lugs extending radially inwardly from the inner surface and being longitudinally spaced from one another along the inner surface (see Figure 5), the guiding zone comprising a plurality of members (160; 160 is in each 125 and a plurality of 125 are shown in Figure 5C) disposed in the carcass, the plurality of members extending laterally in the inner portion of the carcass and being longitudinally spaced from one another along the carcass (see Figures 5 and 5C),
a given member from the plurality of members having:
a guiding portion (the vertical extending portion of 125) configured to engage the wheel and extending radially inwardly from the inner surface of the inner portion of the carcass, and
a reinforcing portion (165, 168) located in the inner portion of the carcass and extending laterally between at least the first driving lug and at least the second driving lug, the reinforcing portion **[configured to reinforce the inner portion of the carcass and support weight of the wheel]**; and
the guiding zone having a width (the horizontal width of 125 in Figure 5), the first driving zone having a width (the width of 122 in Figure 5), and the second driving zone having a width (the width of 121 in Figure 5).
Soucy et al. does not explicitly disclose the width of the guiding zone being half or less than half the width of the first driving zone and the width of the guiding zone being half or less than half the width of the second driving zone.
AAPA teaches, in Figure 5C of Applicant’s Figures, a guiding zone (the zone dimensioned by 573’) have a width (573’; Paragraph 00139 discloses that 573’ is 65mm), a width (Paragraph 00139 discloses that 571’ is 124mm) of a first driving zone (the zone dimensioned by 571’), and a width (Paragraph 00139 discloses that 571’ is 124mm) of a second driving zone (the driving zone that is on the bottom side of Figure 5C).
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 widths of the guiding zone, the first driving zone, and the second driving zone to have the dimensions of AAPA, as taught by AAPA, for the purpose of providing a structure be such that allows for a large area of engagement between a wheel and the first and second driving lugs.
Soucy et al. in view of AAPA does not disclose the width of the guiding zone being half or less than half the width of the first driving zone, and the width of the guiding zone being half or less than half the width of the second driving zone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soucy et al. in view of AAPA to have the width of the guiding zone be half or less than half the width of the first driving zone and to have the width of the guiding zone be half or less than half the width of the second driving zone because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The guiding zone is 3 mm larger than required to meet the current claim limitation, and a difference of 3 mm is viewed as being close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. A rejection under 35 USC §103 is proper if one skilled in the art would have expected the claimed range and the prior art range to have the same or similar properties. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
Regarding claim 2, Soucy et al. discloses that the given member is a T-shaped member (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Soucy et al. discloses that the guiding portion and the reinforcing portion are integrally formed (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Soucy et al. discloses that the given member is made from a rigid material (steel; Column 5 / Lines 44-49).
Regarding claim 5, Soucy et al. discloses that the plurality of members is a plurality of first members (see Figure 5C), the endless track further including:
at least one second member (123) configured to reinforce the carcass, the at least one second member extending in the inner portion of the carcass longitudinally along a length of the carcass and about the plurality of first members, such that the reinforcing portion is located between the inner surface of the inner portion and the at least one second member (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Soucy et al. discloses that the at least one second member is a plurality of second members (there are a plurality of 123) arranged into at least one layer of second members.
Regarding claim 7, Soucy et al. discloses that the at least one layer of second members is a layer of reinforcing cords (123 are cables).
Regarding claim 8, Soucy et al. discloses that the carcass further includes a guiding lug (125) for guiding the wheel and disposed on the inner surface between the first driving lug and the second driving lug, the guiding portion extending into the guiding lug.
Regarding claim 9, Soucy et al. discloses that the inner surface defines a wheel path (the space between 222 and 125 in Figure 5) located laterally between the first driving lug and the guiding lug, the wheel path configured to engage the wheel, the wheel path has a first width (the width of the space between 222 and 125 in Figure 5) on the inner surface of the inner portion, the guiding lug having a second width (the width of 125) on the inner surface of the inner portion, the first driving lug having a third width (the width of 222), and the carcass having a fourth width (the entire width of the structure in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 12, Soucy et al. in view of AAPA discloses that the first width is between 120 mm and 155 mm (AAPA teaches a width of a guiding zone (572’; in Figure 5C) being 137.5 mm in Paragraph 00139 thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 15, Soucy et al. in view of AAPA discloses that the second width is between 20 mm and 80 mm (AAPA teaches a width of a guiding zone (AAPA teaches a width of a guiding zone being 65 mm in Paragraph 00139 thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 18, Soucy et al. in view of AAPA discloses that a ratio of the first width over the fourth width is between 0.21 and 0.28 (572’ in Figure 5C of AAPA is 137.5 mm per Paragraph 00139, and 561’ in Figure 5C is half the width of a carcass thus the entire carcass is 588 mm wide. Therefore, 137.5/588 is equal to 0.23 thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 19, Soucy et al. in view of AAPA discloses a ratio of the third width over the fourth width (571’ in Figure 5C of AAPA is 124 mm per Paragraph 00139, and 561’ in Figure 5C is half the width of a carcass thus the entire carcass is 588 mm wide. Therefore, 124/588 is equal to 0.21).
Soucy et al. in view of AAPA does not disclose that the ratio is between 0.21 and 0.19.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Soucy et al. in view of AAPA to have the ratio of the third width over the fourth width be between 0.21 and 0.19 because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A rejection under 35 USC §103 is proper if one skilled in the art would have expected the claimed range and the prior art range to have the same or similar properties. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
Claims 22 and 23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soucy et al. (US 7,784,884 B2) in view of Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter referred to as AAPA) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshimura et al. (US 5,632,537 A).
Regarding claim 22, Soucy et al. in view of AAPA discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the endless track further includes a plurality of non-linear outer lugs extending radially outwardly from the outer surface of the outer portion and longitudinally spaced from one another along the outer surface.
Yoshimura et al. teaches an endless track (10) that further includes a plurality of non-linear outer lugs (the outer 13-15 in Figure 2) extending radially outwardly from an outer surface (the surface of 10 that 13-15 protrude from) of an outer portion (the portion of 10 that faces the ground) and longitudinally spaced from one another along the outer surface for the purpose of providing an endless track with high running stability (Column 1 / Lines 63-65).
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 endless track of Soucy et al. in view of AAPA to further include a plurality of non-linear outer lugs extending radially outwardly from the outer surface of the outer portion and longitudinally spaced from one another along the outer surface for the purpose of providing an endless track with high running stability, as taught by Yoshimura et al.
Regarding claim 23, Soucy et al. in view of AAPA and further in view of Yoshimura et al. discloses that the plurality of non-linear lugs includes a first non-linear outer lug (14c in Figure 2 of Yoshimura et al.) having a non-linear section (the center of 14c is curved; Yoshimura et al.) extending laterally between first and second lateral surfaces (the left and right ends of 14c in Figure 2 of Yoshimura et al.).
Claims 22, 23, and 25-27, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soucy et al. (US 7,784,884 B2) in view of Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter referred to as AAPA) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jee et al. (US 9,855,985 B2).
Regarding claim 22, Soucy et al. in view of AAPA discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the endless track further includes a plurality of non-linear outer lugs extending radially outwardly from the outer surface of the outer portion and longitudinally spaced from one another along the outer surface.
Jee et al. teaches an endless track (10) that further includes a plurality of non-linear outer lugs (22) extending radially outwardly from an outer surface (the surface of 10 that 22 protrude from) of an outer portion (the portion of 10 that faces the ground) and longitudinally spaced from one another along the outer surface for the purpose of providing a tread pattern that exhibits both relatively good traction and smooth operation on relatively uneven surfaces (Column 5 / Lines 1-5).
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 endless track of Soucy et al. in view of AAPA to further include a plurality of non-linear outer lugs extending radially outwardly from the outer surface of the outer portion and longitudinally spaced from one another along the outer surface for the purpose of providing a tread pattern that exhibits both relatively good traction and smooth operation on relatively uneven surfaces, as taught by Jee et al.
Regarding claim 23, Soucy et al. in view of AAPA and further in view of Jee et al. discloses that the plurality of non-linear lugs includes a first non-linear outer lug (each 22 is viewed as being non-linear in light of the curved sections shown in Figure 2A of Jee et al.) having a non-linear section (a curved portion of 24, 26, and 28 in Figure 2A of Jee et al.) extending laterally between first and second lateral surfaces (the left and right ends of each lug of Jee et al.).
Regarding claim 25, Soucy et al. in view of AAPA and further in view of Jee et al. discloses that the first non-linear outer lug further includes at least one linear section (a horizontal line section in Figure 2A of Jee et al.) disposed proximate to at least one of the first and second lateral surfaces.
Regarding claim 26, Soucy et al. in view of AAPA and further in view of Jee et al. discloses that the at least one linear section includes a first linear section (the linear section to the left of 30C in Figure 2A of Jee et al.) and a second linear section (the linear section to the right of 30C in Figure 2A of Jee et al.), the first linear section disposed proximate to one of the first and second lateral surfaces and the second linear section disposed proximate to the other one of the first and second lateral surfaces (see Figure 2A of Jee et al.).
Regarding claim 27, Soucy et al. in view of AAPA and further in view of Jee et al. discloses that the plurality of non-linear lugs defines a bi-directional pattern (see Figures 1-2B of Jee et al.).
**The above statements in brackets are instances of intended use and functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, see MPEP 2114. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 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.
Kegresse (AT 120470 B) discloses a track having an outer portion and an inner portion, the inner portion is comprised of a plurality of outer lugs and at least one inner lug, and the at least one inner lug appears to be more than half the size of the plurality of outer lugs.
Hori (US 5,380,076 A) discloses a crawler belt for a tracked vehicle, an outer surface of the crawler belt has a tread with a tread pattern, and the tread pattern has a plurality of curves and straight lines as shown in Figure 11.
Soucy et al. (US 7,425,044 B2) discloses an endless track for a multi-terrain vehicle, the track having an outer portion and an inner portion, a ground engaging area of the outer portion of the track has a tread with a tread pattern, the tread pattern has a plurality of curves and straight lines, the inner portion is comprised of a plurality of outer lugs and a plurality of inner lugs, and the plurality of inner lugs appear to be smaller in width than the plurality of outer lugs.
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
Prosecution Insights