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 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, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-16, 19, 21-23, 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brame et. al US 8991938 B2 in view of Rogers et. al US 20110175432 Al.
Regarding claim 1, Brame teaches a wheel construction 10 including a rim 11, the rim 11 including: an inner flange 16,22 and an outer flange, 15,22 (the axially inner portion is 16, the axially outer portion is 15 and the flange uses the same number for either portion which is 22. Hereinafter, both flanges will simply be referred to as 22) each of the inner flange and the outer flange 22 having a first end and a second end, the first end of each of the inner and outer flange 22 being positioned axially inwardly relative to the second end of the respective flange, (apparent from Fig. 4) the rim 11 further including: a central well 18 positioned between the inner flange and the outer flange 22, a pair of bead seats 23, one being positioned adjacent each flange 22, each bead seat 23 having an axially outer end 24 which is connected to the first end of the respective flange 22 by a flange connection portion, and an axially inner end 25 which is connected to one of a pair of side parts 19,20, each side part 19,20 being positioned between the central well 18 and one of the inner flange and outer flange 22, and connected to the central well 18 by a well connecting portion 42, the axially outer end 24 of each bead seat 23 being positioned radially outwardly relative to the axially inner end 25 of the respective bead seat 23, (Fig. 2) wherein at least one of the side parts 20 includes: a convex portion 26, a first end of the convex portion being positioned adjacent the respective bead seat 23, the convex portion 26 including a convex surface that extends radially beyond the axially inner end 25 of the bead seat 23 (Col. 4, lines 21-24) and a curved portion 40, wherein a second end of the convex portion 26 is connected to the curved portion 40 of the side part 20 by a first substantially concave surface 41, which provides a sub-well, the curved portion 40 connecting to the central well 18, and wherein at least one of the inner flange and the outer flange 22 includes an extended portion 35 which extends radially inwardly to a free end 30, the axially outer end 24 of the bead seat 23 having a first radial position and the free end 30 having a second radial position which extends radially inwardly to substantially the same radial position as the first radial position, or alternatively extends further radially inwardly, to a position further radially inward than the first radial position, and wherein the axially inner end of the bead seat is located in a third radial position and the free end extends radially inwardly to substantially the same radial position as the third radial position, or alternatively extends further radially inwardly, to a position further radially inward than the third radial position, (Col. 5, lines 60-67, Fig. 4).
Brame does not explicitly teach wherein a height of the flange above the axially outer end of the bead seat is located in a flange height radial position and an extended portion to flange ratio defined as the distance radially between the flange height radial position and the second radial position and the distance radially between the first radial position and the flange height radial position, is between around 1.49 and 5. However, since Brame does teach the flange that extends inward, and the size of the flange is a result effective variable which alters the strength, stiffness, cost, and weight of the wheel (i.e. a larger flange would increase strength and stiffness but requires more material which raises costs and weight and vice versa), a person of ordinary skill in the art would simply have to balance the strength requirements of the wheel with the costs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) to come up with an extended portion to flange ratio in the range of around 1.49 to 5 with a reasonable expectation of success. It is further noted that the applicant does not give any particular reason for the ratio to be in the range of 1.49 to 5 that would make the ratio novel or non-obvious.
Brame also does not teach and wherein the or each extended portion is oriented substantially orthogonal to an axis about which the rim is configured to rotate when in use, and wherein the or each extended portion is oriented to define a substantially acute angle relative to the adjacent one of the pair of bead seats as viewed perpendicular to a radial plane extending along the axis. Rogers teaches a flange extended portion which is oriented substantially orthogonal to an axis about which the rim is configured to rotate when in use (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep the extended portion perpendicular to the axis of rotation in order to hold a protective plate or ring as well as to minimize the overall width of the rim and reduce the chance of impact on rocks or other obstacles with a reasonable expectation of success. It is apparent that if the extended portions of the flanges on the wheel taught by Brame were orthogonal to the axis of rotation, they would form an acute angle with the bead seat as the bead seat is inclined relative to the axis of rotation.
Regarding claim 3, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according to claim 1. Brame also teaches wherein the curved portion 40 is connected to the central well 18 by the well connecting portion 42, which well connecting portion 42 having a concave surface. (Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 4, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according to claim 3. Brame also teaches wherein the curved portion 40 includes a convex surface 44, which is between the first substantially concave surface 41 of the curved portion 40 and the well connecting portion 42. (Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 6, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according to claim 1. Brame also teaches wherein each flange connection portion 24 includes a substantially concave surface. (Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 7, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according to claim 1. Brame also teaches wherein the convex portion 26 includes a straight portion 28, which is generally frustoconical, connecting the convex surface of the convex portion 26 to the curved portion 40. (Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 8, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according to claim 1. Brame also teaches wherein the convex portion 26 includes a curved zone 27, which connects the convex surface of the convex portion 26 to the curved portion 40. (Fig. 4, Col. 4, lines 62-67)
Regarding claim 9, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according claim 1. Brame also teaches wherein the free end 30 of the or each extended portion 35 is located radially inward relative to the first end of the convex portion 26. (Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 10, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according to claim 1. Brame also teaches wherein the free end 30 of the or each extended portion 35 is located radially between the radial position of the axially inner end 25 of the bead seat 23 and the radial position of the first end 41 of the curved portion 40 and optionally, wherein the free end 30 is located approximately midway between the radial position of the axially inner end 25 of the bead seat 23 and the radial position of the first end 41 of the curved portion 40.
Regarding claim 12, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according to claim 1. Brame does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the or each extended portion is between 35 mm and 60 mm from a radial peak of the flange to the free end. However, since Brame does teach the flange that extends inward, and the size of the flange is a result effective variable which alters the strength, stiffness, cost, and weight of the wheel (i.e. a larger flange would increase strength and stiffness but requires more material which raises costs and weight and vice versa), a person of ordinary skill in the art would simply have to balance the strength requirements of the wheel with the costs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) to set the length of the or each extended portion between 35 mm and 60 mm from a radial peak of the flange to the free end with a reasonable expectation of success. It is further noted that the applicant does not give any particular reason for the length of the or each extended portion to be between 35 mm and 60 mm from a radial peak of the flange to the free end that would make the measurement novel or non-obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according to claim 1 wherein the or each extended portion 35 is substantially straight. (Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 15, Brame and Rogers teach a wheel construction according claim 1. Brame does not teach, but Rogers teaches, wherein the radial position of a first end of the extended portion and a radial position of the free end of the extended portion relative to a central axis is substantially the same. (Fig. 5) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep the extended portion perpendicular to the axis of rotation so as to minimize the overall width of the rim and reduce the chance of impact on rocks or other obstacles with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according to claim 1. Brame further teaches wherein at least one of the flanges 22 includes a convex surface 36 and optionally, wherein the free end 30 of the or each extended portion 35 lies axially outwardly relative to a radial peak of the convex surface 36 of the respective flange 22. (Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 19, Brame and Rogers teach a wheel construction according to claim 1. Brame does not teach, but Rogers teaches, wherein the or each extended portion includes a plate member which is attached to the flange (Figs. 3, 5, 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plate member with the extended portion to strengthen the wheel against impacts with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according to claim 1. Brame further teaches wherein at least one of the well connecting portions 42 includes a concave surface. (Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 22, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according claim 1. Brame further teaches wherein the pair of side parts may be substantially identical to one another, in a mirror image of one another about a substantially radially extending plane. (Col. 3, lines 21-24)
Regarding claim 23, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according to claim 1. Brame further teaches wherein the rim is substantially symmetrical about a central axis (Col. 3, lines 21-24)
Regarding claim 25, Brame and Rogers teach a vehicle including the wheel construction according to claim 1. (Col. 1, lines 5-8 and 28-30) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the principles of the strengthened wheel taught by Brame and Rogers to a well-known vehicle such as a mobile crane with a reasonable expectation of success. It is further noted that a “mobile crane” can refer to a wide variety of vehicles of different sizes (e.g. toy crane, mini crane, heavy-duty crane, crawler crane etc.). There are many cranes that would be reasonably considered light construction machines which could use the wheel taught by Brame and Rogers (col. 1, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 26, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according to claim 12. Brame does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the or each extended portion is around 38 mm from the radial peak of the flange to the free end and / or wherein the free end extends radially inwardly beyond the radial position of the axially inner end of the bead seat by 5 mm. However, since Brame does teach the flange that extends inward, and the size of the flange is a result effective variable which alters the strength, stiffness, cost, and weight of the wheel (i.e. a larger flange would increase strength and stiffness but requires more material which raises costs and weight and vice versa), a person of ordinary skill in the art would simply have to balance the strength requirements of the wheel with the costs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) to set the length of the or each extended portion to be around 38 mm from the radial peak of the flange to the free end and/or to extend the free end radially inwardly beyond the radial position of the axially inner end of the bead seat by 5 mm with a reasonable expectation of success. It is further noted that the applicant does not give any particular reason for the length of the or each extended portion to be around 38 mm from the radial peak of the flange to the free end and/or for the free end to extend radially inwardly beyond the radial position of the axially inner end of the bead seat by 5 mm that would make the measurement novel or non-obvious.
Regarding claim 27, Brame and Rogers teach the wheel construction according to claim 1. Brame further teaches wherein both the inner flange and the outer flange include the extended portion 35, (col. 3, lines 21-24; the wheel may be symmetrical in which case both the inner and outer flange would include the extended portion). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when the inner and outer flange are symmetrical and perpendicular to the axis of rotation, the respective extended portions 35 are oriented substantially parallel to each other.
Regarding claim 28, Brame teaches a wheel construction 10 including a rim 11, the rim 11 including: an inner flange 16,22 and an outer flange, 15,22 (the axially inner portion is 16, the axially outer portion is 15 and the flange uses the same number for either portion which is 22. Hereinafter, both flanges will simply be referred to as 22) each of the inner flange and the outer flange 22 having a first end and a second end, the first end of each of the inner and outer flange 22 being positioned axially inwardly relative to the second end of the respective flange, (apparent from Fig. 4) the rim 11 further including: a central well 18 positioned between the inner flange and the outer flange 22, a pair of bead seats 23, one being positioned adjacent each flange 22, each bead seat 23 having an axially outer end 24 which is connected to the first end of the respective flange 22 by a flange connection portion, and an axially inner end 25 which is connected to one of a pair of side parts 19,20, each side part 19,20 being positioned between the central well 18 and one of the inner flange and outer flange 22, and connected to the central well 18 by a well connecting portion 42, the axially outer end 24 of each bead seat 23 being positioned radially outwardly relative to the axially inner end 25 of the respective bead seat 23, (Fig. 2) wherein at least one of the side parts 20 includes: a convex portion 26, a first end of the convex portion being positioned adjacent the respective bead seat 23, the convex portion 26 including a convex surface that extends radially beyond the axially inner end 25 of the bead seat 23 (Col. 4, lines 21-24) and a curved portion 40, wherein a second end of the convex portion 26 is connected to the curved portion 40 of the side part 20 by a first substantially concave surface 41, which provides a sub-well, the curved portion 40 connecting to the central well 18, and wherein at least one of the inner flange and the outer flange 22 includes an extended portion 35 which extends radially inwardly to a free end 30, the axially outer end 24 of the bead seat 23 having a first radial position and the free end 30 having a second radial position which extends radially inwardly to substantially the same radial position as the first radial position, or alternatively extends further radially inwardly, to a position further radially inward than the first radial position, and wherein the axially inner end of the bead seat is located in a third radial position and the free end extends radially inwardly to substantially the same radial position as the third radial position, or alternatively extends further radially inwardly, to a position further radially inward than the third radial position, (Col. 5, lines 60-67, Fig. 4).
Brame does not teach wherein the or each extended portion is oriented substantially orthogonal to an axis about which the rim is configured to rotate when in use, and to define a substantially acute angle relative to the adjacent one of the pair of bead seats as viewed perpendicular to a radial plane extending along the axis. Rogers teaches a flange extended portion which is oriented substantially orthogonal to an axis about which the rim is configured to rotate when in use (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep the extended portion perpendicular to the axis of rotation in order to hold a protective plate or ring as well as to minimize the overall width of the rim and reduce the chance of impact on rocks or other obstacles with a reasonable expectation of success. It is apparent that if the extended portions of the flanges on the wheel taught by Brame were orthogonal to the axis of rotation, they would form an acute angle with the bead seat as the bead seat is inclined relative to the axis of rotation.
Regarding claim 29, Brame teaches a wheel construction 10 including a rim 11, the rim 11 including: an inner flange 16,22 and an outer flange, 15,22 (the axially inner portion is 16, the axially outer portion is 15 and the flange uses the same number for either portion which is 22. Hereinafter, both flanges will simply be referred to as 22) each of the inner flange and the outer flange 22 having a first end and a second end, the first end of each of the inner and outer flange 22 being positioned axially inwardly relative to the second end of the respective flange, (apparent from Fig. 4) the rim 11 further including: a central well 18 positioned between the inner flange and the outer flange 22, a pair of bead seats 23, one being positioned adjacent each flange 22, each bead seat 23 having an axially outer end 24 which is connected to the first end of the respective flange 22 by a flange connection portion, and an axially inner end 25 which is connected to one of a pair of side parts 19,20, each side part 19,20 being positioned between the central well 18 and one of the inner flange and outer flange 22, and connected to the central well 18 by a well connecting portion 42, the axially outer end 24 of each bead seat 23 being positioned radially outwardly relative to the axially inner end 25 of the respective bead seat 23, (Fig. 2) wherein at least one of the side parts 20 includes: a convex portion 26, a first end of the convex portion being positioned adjacent the respective bead seat 23, the convex portion 26 including a convex surface that extends radially beyond the axially inner end 25 of the bead seat 23 (Col. 4, lines 21-24) and a curved portion 40, wherein a second end of the convex portion 26 is connected to the curved portion 40 of the side part 20 by a first substantially concave surface 41, which provides a sub-well, the curved portion 40 connecting to the central well 18, and wherein at least one of the inner flange and the outer flange 22 includes an extended portion 35 which extends radially inwardly to a free end 30, the axially outer end 24 of the bead seat 23 having a first radial position and the free end 30 having a second radial position which extends radially inwardly to substantially the same radial position as the first radial position, or alternatively extends further radially inwardly, to a position further radially inward than the first radial position, and wherein the axially inner end of the bead seat is located in a third radial position and the free end extends radially inwardly to substantially the same radial position as the third radial position, or alternatively extends further radially inwardly, to a position further radially inward than the third radial position, (Col. 5, lines 60-67, Fig. 4).
Brame does not teach and wherein the or each extended portion is oriented substantially orthogonal to an axis about which the rim is configured to rotate when in use, and wherein the or each extended portion is oriented to define a substantially acute angle relative to the adjacent one of the pair of bead seats as viewed perpendicular to a radial plane extending along the axis. Rogers teaches a flange extended portion which is oriented substantially orthogonal to an axis about which the rim is configured to rotate when in use (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep the extended portion perpendicular to the axis of rotation in order to hold a protective plate or ring as well as to minimize the overall width of the rim and reduce the chance of impact on rocks or other obstacles with a reasonable expectation of success. It is apparent that if the extended portions of the flanges on the wheel taught by Brame were orthogonal to the axis of rotation, they would form an acute angle with the bead seat as the bead seat is inclined relative to the axis of rotation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claims 1, 18, and 29. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of “a mobile crane wheel” or a “wheel for a mobile crane” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that a wheel for a mobile crane has “unique demands and development” requirements compared to “agricultural/construction vehicle wheels” (pg. 12, para. 2), a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Given that the physical structure of the “agricultural/ construction wheel” taught by Brame is nearly identical to the claimed wheel from the instant application (the primary difference being the flange orientation) the application of the wheel to a mobile crane vs an agricultural or construction vehicle is merely a change in intended use.
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 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.
/AP/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights