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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “263” has been used to designate both a “groove” (pg. 14, line 3) and an “o-ring” (pg. 14, line 10).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 116, 118, 100, 102, 270, 271, 275, and 159.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 175, 333, 340.
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 method of “operating a set of wheels in a caterpillar track” in claim 30 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 4, line 7 recites “provide a flexible cushion that absorbs socks”. It is suggested to change the term “socks” to “shocks” for clarity
Pg. 11, line 28 recites “the inner layer of spoke arrangement is to optimize for torsional stiffness”. This is opposite what is described prior. It is suggested to change “inner layer” to “outer layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: both claims recite the limitation “a spoke network and least some of the spokes”. It is suggested to insert the term “at” before the term “least” for clarity. 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 16-20, 23, and 25-30 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 16 and 30 recite the broad recitation “the wheel includes two or more layers”, and the claim also recites “configured as a first-type layer sandwiched between two second-type layers” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The limitation “A wheel according to claim 16” recited in the first line of claims 17-20, 23, and 25-29 is unclear if the wheel in each of the above claims is the same as the wheel in claim 16.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the wheel rim includes sides angled relative to a plane of the wheel”. It is unclear which plane is being referenced (i.e. a plane which is perpendicular to the axial direction, parallel to the axial direction, parallel to the side of the spoke, etc.) as there is no clarification in the specification or preceding claims, therefore the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined
Claim 23 recites the limitation “a drive belt”. It is unclear if the drive belt is the same drive belt referenced in claim 16 or a different drive belt.
Claim 30 recites the limitation of “a set of driven wheels” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 further recites the limitation of “a set of wheels” in lines 18, 20 and 22. It is unclear if these are the same wheels referenced as “a number of wheels as a set” in line 2 or completely different sets of wheels. In addition, it is unclear of the “number of wheels as a set” in line 2 comprises the “at least one wheel” which includes the attributes listed.
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 16-19, 23, 25, 26, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et. al US 20160194151 A1 in view of Martin et. al US 20140062169 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Lindbo teaches a wheel for MHE (material handling equipment) wherein the wheel 200 includes two or more layers configured as a first-type layer 202 sandwiched between two second-type layers 204 (rubber tires), wherein the first-type layer 202 has a smaller diameter than the second-type layer 204 to create a channel configured to receive a drive belt. (Fig. 13)
Lindbo does not teach a wheel with curved spokes but Martin teaches a wheel comprising: a hub 22; a rim 28; and spokes 34, 36, wherein the spokes 34, 36 supportively connect the rim 28 to the hub 22, wherein the spokes 34, 36 are arranged in a spoke network 32 and least some of the spokes 34, 36 are non-radial, and wherein at least a portion of the spokes 34, 36 are made from a compliant material relative to a material of the rim 28 and/or the hub 22. (Figs. 2A and 12B)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to replace the second-type layers (rubber tires) on the wheel taught by Lindbo with the non-pneumatic tire containing curved spokes taught by Martin to make the wheels more resilient and provide more cushioning to the vehicle than the solid rubber tires can provide.
Regarding claim 17, Lindbo and Martin teach a wheel according to claim 16. Martin further teaches wherein at least a portion of the spoke network 32 is configured to be deformable and/or compressible. (para. 72, lines 1-4; Martin uses the term “cushioning” for a characteristic of the support structure (spokes) which means they would need to be deformable) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the spoke network deformable and/or compressible to provide more cushioning to the vehicle than the solid robber tires can provide with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Lindbo and Martin teach a wheel according to claim 16. Martin further teaches wherein the spokes 34, 36 comprise: a first set of spokes 34 curved in a clockwise direction, and a second set of spokes 36 curved in an anti-clockwise direction. (Fig. 5A) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a spoke mesh of spokes curved in a clockwise direction and anti-clockwise direction to provide increased torsional stiffness in both directions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, Lindbo and Martin teach a wheel according to claim 16. Martin further teaches wherein the spoke network 32 is configured for enhanced torsional stiffness. (Fig. 5A) The curved spokes inherently improve torsional stiffness over straight spokes as they point in the same direction as the wheel rotates instead of perpendicular. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to curve the spokes to improve the torsional stiffness with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 23, Lindbo and Martin teach a wheel according to claim 16. Lindbo further teaches wherein the wheel rim comprises: teeth configured for cooperating with a drive belt. (Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 25, Lindbo and Martin teach a wheel according to claim 16. Martin further teaches wherein the spoke network is configured to reduce backlash between forward and reverse drive directions. (Fig. 5A) The curved spokes inherently improve torsional stiffness over straight spokes as they point in the same direction as the wheel rotates instead of perpendicular. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to curve the spokes to improve the torsional stiffness with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 29, Lindbo and Martin teach a wheel according to claim 16. Lindbo further teaches wherein at least a portion of the wheel is made from a material selected from the group consisting of: plastic, polymer plastics, thermoset plastic, thermoplastic plastic, metals, aluminium, aluminium alloy, iron, iron alloy, steel, steel alloy, magnesium, magnesium alloy, titanium, titanium alloy, zinc, zinc alloy, fibre reinforced composite, carbon fibre, graphite fibre, glass fibre, natural fibre, plant fibre, plastic fibre, paper, cardboard, rubber, epoxy and nylon. (para. 79, pg. 6, line 2)
Regarding claim 30, Lindbo teaches a method for moving a system containing at least one wheel 200, or a number of wheels as a set, wherein the wheel 200 includes two or more layers configured as a first-type layer 202 sandwiched between two second-type layers 204, wherein the first-type layer 202 has a smaller diameter than the second-type layer 204 to create a channel configured to receive a drive belt, (Fig. 13) wherein the method comprises: operating a set of driven wheels 200 on a load handling device, wherein the load handling device is operable on a grid framework storage system structure having a first set of parallel rails or tracks and a second set of parallel rails or tracks extending substantially perpendicularly to the first set of rails or tracks in a substantially horizontal plane to form a grid pattern having a plurality of grid spaces (Fig. 7).
Lindbo does not teach a wheel with spokes but Martin teaches a wheel with curved spokes wherein the at least one wheel includes: a hub 22; a rim 28; and spokes 34, 36, wherein the spokes 34, 36 supportively connect the rim 28 to the hub 22, wherein the spokes 34, 36 are arranged in a spoke network 32 and least some of the spokes 34, 36 are non-radial, and wherein at least a portion of the spokes 34, 36 are made from a compliant material relative to a material of the rim 28 and or the hub 22. (Figs. 2A and 12B)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to replace the second-type layers (rubber tires) on the wheel taught by Lindbo with the non-pneumatic tire containing curved spokes taught by Martin to make the wheels more resilient and provide more cushioning to the vehicle than the solid rubber tires can provide.
Claims 20 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et. al US 20160194151 A1 in view of Martin et. al US 20140062169 A1 and further in view of Thompson WO 2019227205 A1.
Regarding claim 20, Lindbo and Martin teach a wheel according to claim 16. Lindbo and Martin do not teach wherein the wheel rim includes sides angled relative to a plane of the wheel. Thompson shows in Fig. 8 the sides of the wheel rim angled relative to a plane perpendicular to the axial direction of the wheel. (Fig. 8) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the friction of the wheel on the track by reducing the surface area in contact while still maintaining the width and strength of the body of the wheel with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 28, Lindbo and Martin teach a wheel according to claim 16. Lindbo and Martin do not teach, but Thompson teaches, wherein the wheel spokes and/or wheel rim are substantially topologically enhanced. (pg. 27, lines 29-30) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance the topography of the spokes and rims using Finite Element Analysis to improve the strength, efficiency, and cost of the wheel.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et. al US 20160194151 A1 in view of Martin et. al US 20140062169 A1 and further in view of Timoney et. al US 20040069385 A1.
Regarding claim 26, Lindbo and Martin teach a wheel according to claim 16. Lindbo and Martin do not teach, but Timoney teaches, wherein the spokes are configured of a spoke material which is polyurethane or nylon, and the wheel hub and wheel rim material is nylon. (para. 54, 56, 57) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the spoke, rim, and hub out of nylon to save weight while maintaining strength and flexibility.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et. al US 20160194151 A1 in view of Martin et. al US 20140062169 A1 and further in view of Kim et. al US 20180029419 A1.
Regarding claim 27, Lindbo and Martin teach a wheel according to claim 16. Lindbo and Martin do not teach, but Kim teaches, wherein the wheel is a 3-D printed wheel. (para. 130, lines 7-11)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX R PALMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm MST.
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 on (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.
/AP/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615