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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 May 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
It should be noted that the lined through references are incomplete. Namely, the IDS form lacks dates for these references as required.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 29 May 2026. These drawings are approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hettegger (EP 3708473).
Per claim 21, Hettegger shows a traction device 1 for a track having first 11 and second 10 brackets, each with a body forming a mouth portion. The mouth portion of the brackets 10-11 engage respective edges of the track. The body of each bracket 10-11 has a constant U-shaped profile forming the mouth portion by top 19 and bottom flanges connected by a web 22. Hettegger discloses that the U-shaped profile may be the result of a unitarily formed bracket body (see paragraph [0037], lines 1-3). A ground-engaging chain 12 extends between the first 11 and second 10 brackets, with a first end of the chain 12 being removably connected to the first bracket 11 and a second end of the chain 12 being connected to the second bracket 10. The first bracket 11 includes an adjustment mechanism (inclusively 30-31) for adjusting the distance between the first end of the chain 12 and the body of the first bracket 11.
Per claims 22 and 29-31, the first 11 and second 10 brackets have a generally planar bottom flange.
Per claim 23, the top flange of each bracket 10-11 is proximal the top surface of the track, while the bottom flange of each bracket 10-11 is proximal the bottom surface of the track, with the mouth being formed between the top and bottom flanges.
Per claim 24, the adjustment system 30-31 is contained within a housing 34-35 of the first bracket 11.
Per claim 25, the chain 12 includes at least one chain link 14.
Per claim 26, the brackets 10-11 are formed from steel.
Regarding claim 21, Hettegger is silent regarding the thickness of the top and bottom flanges and web. 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 web and top and bottom flanges with the same thickness, for the purpose of reducing the need of having multiple different thickness materials on hand, reduce the effort in welding the top flange and web together, and so that all portions of the brackets would have the same chemical and physical properties.
Regarding claim 27, Hettegger does not disclose the thickness dimension of the web and top and bottom flanges of the brackets 10-11. 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 web and top and bottom flanges with a thickness suitable to achieve the desired physical properties to not fail or deform during use.
Regarding claims 28 and 32, Hettegger shows the first end of the chain 12 having an externally threaded rod 31 that removably engages an internally threaded nut or tube 30 on the first bracket 11, but does not show the opposite (i.e. the nut/tube 30 being attached to a chain link at the first end of the chain 12 for engaging with the threaded rod 31 on the first bracket 11). 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 nut/tube 30 on a chain link at the first end of the chain 12 to removably engage a threaded rod 31 attached to the top flange 19 of the first bracket 11, as a functionally equivalent reversal of parts that would achieve an identical achievable result of attaching the chain to the first bracket.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,275,470. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claim(s) is/are fully encompassed by the patented claims. Therefore, it is obvious that the Applicant is claiming the same invention in different and/or broader terms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36-40 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Hettegger does not show a “constant unitarily formed U-shaped profile” for the brackets. However, as pointed out by the Applicant, and set forth in the prior Office action, Hettegger does disclose that the brackets 10-11 may be welded to element 19 (which forms a top flange) of the U-shape, welding creating a “constant unitarily formed” profile. The Applicant’s arguments that elements 10 and 11 “are not U-shaped” and are separate from element 19 and therefore not “unitarily formed” is in reference to an intermediate step or pre-assembled condition of the brackets. Namely, it is not until brackets 10 and 11 are each respectively welded to its own element 19, that completed “constant unitarily formed” U-shaped brackets are created. The claims lack any physical structure to preclude the bracket formation of Hettegger.
The Applicant argues that the holding elements 19 are “pivotally connected to the respective angle elements 10 and 11. However, the Applicant is clearly arguing a different embodiment of Hettegger not relied upon in the rejection above (repeated from the prior Office action).
The Applicant argues that Hettegger does not show an “adjustment mechanism to adjust a distance” between the first end of the chain and the body of the first bracket. The Applicant argues that the end of the chain 12 is “a constant distance” from the holding element of Hettegger. However, this is NOT the case. Namely, and as illustrated in the Applicant’s annotated and edited Figure 5 of Hettegger, rotation of the nut 30 draws the bolt 31 axially along the length of holding element 19, which changes/adjusts the distance between the last end of the chain 12 with respect to the holding member 19.
The Applicant then argues that rotation of clamping element 30 “moves the screw threads of the connecting element 12 laterally relative to the holding element”. However, this is NOT the case. First, “lateral” movement with respect to the holding element 19 would mean moving perpendicular to the length thereof (i.e. perpendicular to the arrow line in the Applicant’s annotated portion of Figure 1 of Hettegger). Second, rotation of the nut 30 moves the bolt 31 along the longitudinal axis of the holding element 19 (as shown by the arrow line in the Applicant’s annotated portion of Figure 1 of Hettegger).
The Applicant argues that Hettegger does not show the subject matter of claim 28 (i.e. the end of the chain including an internally threaded nut or tube). The Applicant argues that if the nut 30 and bolt 31 of Hettegger were reversed, the nut 30 would be “non-rotatably” connected to the chain 12, and the chain 12 “would need to rotate”, which would not be possible due to being “within a tread of a crawler track”. However, the Applicant has failed to provide any evidence, in the form of a declaration or affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132, to support these arguments. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that forming the nut 30 on the end of the chain 12 would require the bolt 31 to be capable of rotating with respect to holding element 19 (such as within recess 32, in which case the recess 32 could either be internally threaded or not).
It should be noted that the Double Patenting rejection will remain in the Office action(s) until a proper Terminal Disclaimer is filed, or the claims have been amended to no longer overlap in scope with the patented claims.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to Michael are persuasive, and that rejection has been removed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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