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 § 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnell (US 2002/0121409 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Arnell discloses a wheel 12 including: a wheel rim 24 defining a wheel envelope (evident from Fig. 1); a hub 16 defining a hollow housing for a wheel mount (unlabeled structure at the center of 16 shown in Fig. 1 that allows the rotatable mounting of axle 20; evident from Fig. 1 and paragraph [0019]); and three or more resilient and equidistantly spaced spokes 32 extending between an outer circumferential surface of the hub and an inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim (Fig. 1), wherein each spoke is defined by a flexed, elongate spring element 32 (“resilient leaf springs” per paragraph [0020]) having a length that is greater than the radial distance between the outer circumferential surface of the hub and the inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim (evident from Fig. 1), the spring element being tangentially fixed at or towards one end to the outer circumferential surface of the hub (via “a mechanical fastener such as a rivet” per paragraph [0022]; Fig. 1) and tangentially coupled at or towards its other end to the inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim via a hinged connection (“pivot links 34” per paragraph [0022]; Fig. 1), the tangential coupling at the wheel rim being spaced circumferentially from the tangential fixing at the hub in a predetermined direction by a predetermined angle (evident from Fig. 1), such that the hub is biased to a centrally located position within the wheel rim in an unloaded condition whilst allowing radial movement of the hub relative to the wheel rim in a loaded condition (paragraphs [0021] and [0023]; Fig. 1); wherein the spokes define a rigid beam structure under torsional loading to resist rotation of the hub relative to the wheel rim (paragraph [0021]; Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 6, 7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnell in view of Gabrys et al. (US 7,523,773 B2; hereinafter “Gabrys”), Schoenberger (US 1,370,845) and Pearce (WO 2012/017202 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Arnell discloses a wheel 12 including: a wheel rim 18 defining a wheel envelope having a shape and size (evident from Fig. 1); a hub 16 defining a hollow housing for a wheel mount (unlabeled structure at the center of 16 shown in Fig. 1 that allows the rotatable mounting of axle 20; evident from Fig. 1 and paragraph [0019]); and three or more resilient and equidistantly spaced spokes 32 extending between an outer circumferential surface of the hub and an inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim (Fig. 1), wherein each spoke is defined by a flexed, elongate spring element 32 (“resilient leaf springs” per paragraph [0020]) having a length that is greater than the radial distance between the outer circumferential surface of the hub and the inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim (evident from Fig. 1), the spring element being tangentially fixed at or towards one end to the outer circumferential surface of the hub (via “a mechanical fastener such as a rivet” per paragraph [0022]; Fig. 1) and tangentially coupled at or towards its other end to the inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim via a hinged connection (“pivot links 34” per paragraph [0022]; Fig. 1), the tangential coupling at the wheel rim being spaced circumferentially from the tangential fixing at the hub in a predetermined direction by a predetermined angle (evident from Fig. 1), such that the hub is biased to a centrally located position within the wheel rim in an unloaded condition whilst allowing radial movement of the hub relative to the wheel rim in a loaded condition (paragraphs [0021] and [0023]; Fig. 1).
Although Arnell, as noted above, discloses the use of three or more spokes, Arnell fails to expressly disclose the use of three spokes.
Gabrys, however, teaches a wheel that includes three resilient and equidistantly spaced spokes 20 extending between the outer circumferential surface of the hub 16 and the inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim 26 (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Arnell by using three spokes, such as taught by Gabrys, as a well-known alternative spoke arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a desired load-carrying ability depending on the intended use of the wheel.
Arnell further fails to expressly disclose the length of the spring element of each spoke is selected so that the flexure of the spring element between the tangential coupling at the wheel rim and the tangential fixing at the hub causes the spring element to pass through a midpoint between the outer circumferential surface of the hub and the inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim at a midpoint of the circumferential spacing of the tangential fixing at the hub from the tangential coupling at the wheel rim.
Gabrys, however, teaches a wheel in which the length of the spring element of each spoke is selected so that the flexure of the spring element between the tangential coupling at the wheel rim and the tangential fixing at the hub causes the spring element to pass through a midpoint (unlabeled, but best shown in Fig. 2) between the outer circumferential surface of the hub and the inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim at a midpoint (unlabeled, but best shown in Fig. 2) of the circumferential spacing Ɵ of the tangential fixing at the hub from the tangential coupling at the wheel rim (evident from Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Arnell so that the spring element passes through a midpoint between the outer circumferential surface of the hub and the inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim at a midpoint of the circumferential spacing of the tangential fixing at the hub from the tangential coupling at the wheel rim, such as taught by Gabrys, as a well-known alternative spoke arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a desired load-carrying ability depending on the intended use of the wheel.
Arnell, as modified by Gabrys, fails to expressly disclose the predetermined angle is in the range of 100° to 110°.
Schoenberger, however, teaches a wheel in which the predetermined angle is a result effective variable that can be adjusted to provide a desired cushioning action and resiliency of the wheel (lines 113 of page 2 through line 10 of page 3; Figs. 1 and 3).
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the wheel of Arnell, as modified by Gabrys, so that the predetermined angle is in the range of 100° to 110° with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a desired cushioning action and resiliency of the wheel for its intended use.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Arnell, as modified by Gabrys and Schoenberger, fails to expressly disclose the diameter of the hub is 60% of the inside diameter of the wheel rim.
Pearce, however, teaches a wheel in which the relative diameter of the hub in relation to a given inside diameter of the wheel rim is a result effective variable which affects the ability of the wheel to resist lateral and twisting movements of the hub relative to the rim (note at least lines 1-12 of page 3).
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the wheel of Arnell, as modified by Gabrys and Schoenberger, so that the diameter of the hub is 60% of the inside diameter of the wheel rim with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the lateral stability of the wheel for a given application of the wheel.
Regarding claim 7, Arnell further discloses a wheel mount fixed in the hollow housing defined by the hub and an axle 20 coupled to the wheel mount for connection to a vehicle (evident from Fig. 1 and paragraph [0019]) .
Regarding claim 10, Arnell further discloses each spring element is tangentially coupled at or towards its other end to the inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim via a mechanical hinge (“pivot links 34” per paragraph [0022]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Arnell further discloses the spokes define a rigid beam structure under torsional loading to resist rotation of the hub relative to the wheel rim (paragraph [0021]; Fig. 1).
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnell in view of Gabrys, Schoenberger and Pearce, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Tolkachev (US 2004/0051373 A1).
Arnell, as modified by Gabrys, Schoenberger and Pearce, fails to expressly disclose the wheel mount further includes an electric hub motor configured to drive rotation of the hub on the axle.
Tolkachev, however, teaches a wheel in which the wheel mount includes an electric hub motor configured to (i.e., capable of) drive rotation of the hub on the axle (paragraph [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel mount of the wheel of Arnell, as modified by Gabrys, Schoenberger and Pearce, so that it includes an electric hub motor configured to drive rotation of the hub on the axle, such as taught by Tolkachev, as a well-known configuration that would have a reasonable expectation of success in powering and driving the wheel directly.
7. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnell in view of Gabrys, Schoenberger and Pearce, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Ihrig (US 1,031,269).
Arnell, as modified by Gabrys, Schoenberger and Pearce, fails to expressly disclose the use of a brake disc.
Ihrig, however, teaches a wheel which includes a brake disc 16 mounted on an outer face of the wheel mount 5 for rotation with the hub 24 in a plane generally parallel to but spaced from the hub (Fig. 5; lines 76-79 of page 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Arnell, as modified by Gabrys, Schoenberger and Pearce, by substituting its brake arrangement for a brake arrangement which includes a brake disc mounted on an outer face of a wheel mount for rotation with the hub in a plane generally parallel to but spaced from the hub, such as taught by Ihrig, as a well-known alternative brake arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the slowing or stopping of the wheel, if needed and/or desired.
8. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnell in view of Gabrys, Schoenberger and Pearce, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Markow (US 3,182,705).
Although Arnell, as noted above, discloses each spring element is tangentially coupled at or towards its other end to the inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim with a hinge (i.e., mechanical hinge in the form of “pivot links 34” per paragraph [0022]; Fig. 1), Arnell fails to expressly disclose the use of a non-mechanical hinge.
Markow, however, teaches a wheel 10 in which each spring element 13 (lines 22-25 of col. 3; Figs. 1 and 2) is tangentially coupled at or towards its other end to the inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim 12 via a non-mechanical hinge 17 (Fig. 1; lines 66-70 of col. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel mount of the wheel of Arnell, as modified by Gabrys, Schoenberger and Pearce, by substituting its mechanical hinge for tangentially coupling each spring element at or towards its other end to the inner circumferential surface of the wheel rim for a non-mechanical hinge, such as taught by Markow, as a well-known alternative hinge arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the freedom of hinge movement of the spring element relative to the rim to reduce the likelihood of the spring element being bent or broken under strain.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 24 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Arnell “fails to disclose the claimed feature of the spokes defining a rigid beam structure that resists rotation of the hub relative to the wheel rim under torsional loading”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that it is clear from paragraph [0021] of Arnell that the spokes (i.e., resilient leaf spring 32) can be considered to define a rigid beam structure that resists rotation of the hub relative to the wheel rim under torsional loading inasmuch the “resilient leaf springs 32 connect the inner and outer wheels 16 and 18 in a manner to efficiently transfer rotational motion between the inner and outer wheels 16 and 18. Thus, the inner and outer wheels 16 and 18 both rotate about the axle 20 together as a unit” (emphasis added). In a similar manner to Applicant’s invention, and spring wheels in general, the spokes of Arnell provide a suspension or damping effect to allow for relative movement in the radial direction between the wheel rim (i.e., outer wheel 18) and the hub (i.e., inner wheel or hub 16) when the wheel rim encounters external forces (note paragraph [0021] of Arnell, which states, in part “The leaf springs 32 also permit resilient movement of the outer wheel 18 relative to the inner wheel 16 in response to external forces applied to the outer wheel 18. In operation, when the outer wheel 18 encounters an external force (e.g., bumps, pot holes, etc.), the resilient leaf springs 32 flex in a manner to permit movement of the outer wheel 18 relative to the inner wheel 18 to absorb the shock.”; and note the last paragraph beginning on page 1 of Applicant’s specification, which states, in part, “The resilient nature of the spokes, which allows radial movement of the hub relative to the wheel rim in a loaded condition…provides an integrated suspension system that allows the wheel to absorb external forces that might be encountered, for example, during driving movement over an uneven surface”). As such, Applicant’s argument has not been found to be persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments (e.g., Arnell fails to disclose the tangential coupling at the wheel rim; Gabrys fails to disclose the radial dimension of the hub relative to the inside radial dimension of the wheel rim) against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As noted above, Gabrys provides the tangential coupling at the wheel rim teaching while Pearce teaches the relative diameter of the hub in relation to a given inside diameter of the wheel rim is a result effective variable which affects the ability of the wheel to resist lateral and twisting movements of the hub relative to the rim.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615