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,
“a plurality of spokes affixed to the hub” in line 4 of claim 35. This feature should be clearly shown in the figures in order to help the public understand the invention without having to read the specification.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11, 20, 24, 27-28, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peric (WO2013010878A1).
Regarding claim 1, Peric discloses an additive-coated sheave (1; Figures 1-5) comprising: a wheel (cylindrical body of sheave 1) having a groove (105) in an outer circumferential surface of the wheel; and a coating (page 7, ¶10 and page 8, ¶1) affixed to the groove (105) by an additive manufacturing process; wherein one or more of: the wheel comprises two or more materials (page 13, last paragraph, made of different materials, where 101,102 and sheave 1 are made of different materials); an adhesive is used to affix the coating to the groove (105; page 8, ¶1, foil is glued to the surface); one or more depressions are formed into the groove (105) before the coating is affixed to the groove (105; page 7, ¶8-10, ball or sandblast performed forming depressions prior to coating).
Regarding claim 2, Peric discloses wherein the additive manufacturing process is selected from the group consisting of repeatedly spraying the coating onto the groove (105; page 8, ¶1, plasma or flame spraying); and wherein one or more of: the wheel comprises two or more materials (page 13, last paragraph, made of different materials, where 101,102 and sheave 1 are made of different materials); an adhesive is used to affix the coating to the groove (105; page 8, ¶1, foil is glued to the surface); one or more depressions are formed into the groove (105) before the coating is affixed to the groove (105; page 7, ¶8-10, ball or sandblast performed forming depressions prior to coating).
Regarding claim 11, Peric discloses wherein the groove (105) is: sanded (page 7, ¶8-10, sandblasted prior to coating) before the coating is affixed to the groove (105).
Regarding claim 20, Peric discloses wherein the coating comprises a material selected from the group consisting of a polymer material and a metal (page 8, ¶1, spraying applied metal or plastic layers); and wherein one or more of: the wheel comprises two or more materials (page 13, last paragraph, made of different materials, where 101,102 and sheave 1 are made of different materials); an adhesive is used to affix the coating to the groove (105; page 8, ¶1, foil is glued to the surface); one or more depressions are formed into the groove (105) before the coating is affixed to the groove (105; page 7, ¶8-10, ball or sandblast performed forming depressions prior to coating).
Regarding claim 24, Peric discloses wherein the coating has a surface selected from the group consisting of a smooth exterior surface and textured exterior surface (page 8, ¶1-3)
Regarding claim 27, Peric discloses wherein the coating comprises a material (page 7, ¶10, chrome) that is harder than a material forming the wheel (page 4, ¶1 and page 11, ¶5, steel C45, iron).
Regarding claim 28, Peric discloses wherein the coating comprises a material (page 8, ¶3, polymer PTFE) that is softer than a material forming the wheel (page 4, ¶1 and page 11, ¶5, steel C45, iron).
Regarding claim 34, Peric discloses wherein the wheel comprises a single continuous material (page 13, last paragraph, one piece material)
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Petersen (US2954702A).
Regarding claim 35, Petersen discloses an additive-coated sheave assembly comprising: a wheel (A; Figures 2-3) comprising: a hub (10); a plurality of spokes (11, 12) affixed to the hub (10); and a rim (13); wherein an outer circumferential surface of the rim (13) comprises a groove (14); and a coating (15) affixed to the groove by an additive manufacturing process.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peric.
Regarding claim 17, Peric discloses the above additive-coated sheave and further teaches wherein one or more indentations/depressions are formed into the groove (105) before the coating is affixed to the groove (105; page 7, ¶8-10, ball or sandblasted performed forming indentations or depressions prior to coating). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive-coated sheave to include ridges formed into the groove before the coating is affixed to the groove in order to form a gripping surface to allow the coating to better attach to the surface of the groove. Peric further teaches that ball or sandblasted is performed prior to coating, in which is known in the art that ball, sandblasting, or shot peening creates indentations in the surface that causes ridges to rise around the indentations.
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peric in view of Goser (WO2019011495A1).
Regarding claims 30-31, Peric discloses the above additive-coated sheave, but fails to teach an axle configured to support the wheel; a frame configured to receive and support the axle; and a bearing/bushing positioned between the wheel and the axle.
Goser teaches a similar additive-coated sheave and further teaches an axle (8; Figures 1-3) configured to support the wheel (4a; 4b; 4c); a frame (2; 3) configured to receive and support the axle (8); and a bearing/bushing (12; page 9, bearing sleeve) positioned between the wheel (4a; 4b; 4c) and the axle (8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive-coated sheave of Peric to include the axle, frame, bearing/bushing as taught by Goser in order to aid with frictionless rotation of the sheave without interference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 1, in the last three paragraphs of page 11, pages 12-13, and first four lines of page 14, the applicant argued that there is no disclosure in Peric, Goser, and Zhong an additive manufacturing process and wherein the additive manufacturing process is required to be selected from the group consisting of ultrasonic additive manufacturing, directed energy deposition, electron beam melting, and combinations thereof.
The examiner construed that the disclosure of Peric teaches an additive manufacturing process of applying/adding coating to the grooves of the sheave such as a corrosion coating (last line of page 7) and a coating having the desired surface roughness (first three paragraphs in page 8). The examiner further construed that the required additive manufacturing process including a selection from the group consisting of ultrasonic additive manufacturing, directed energy deposition, electron beam melting, and combinations thereof is not commensurate of the claim limitation. The phrase “wherein one or more of” in line 4 and the phrase “and/or” in line 16 indicates that the selection from the group of additive manufacturing process is one of the one or more options or alternatives listed between lines 5-19 and is therefore not a required feature of the claim limitation. Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, such argument does not overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights