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 were received on 25 November 2025. These drawings are approved.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 12-17 been renumbered 11-16.
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 4-5 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.
Claim 4 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “engaging the second bracket, the outrigger, whereby” set forth in line 2. This phrase appears to be incomplete.
Claim 5 is indefinite due to the fact that the term “can” renders it unclear whether or not the second projection actually engages the outrigger.
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) 1, 3-6, 11-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frischmann (2,618,490) in view of Brynste (3,814,456).
Per claim 1, Frischmann shows a wheel assembly W mounted on an outrigger 12 of a material handling vehicle T including a first axle with first and second independently rotatable wheels 28 mounted thereon.
Regarding claim 1, Frischmann does not show the wheel assembly including a second axle with first and second wheels independently rotatable thereon, such that the first and second axle are mounted in tandem. Brynste teaches the use of a wheel assembly having first and second axles 18 mounted in tandem with wheels 17 mounted thereon. Brackets 16 have a pivot point 15 between the axles18. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the wheel assembly of Frischmann with a second axle with wheels thereon, as an obvious multiplication of parts, dependent upon the desired load handling characteristics of the wheel assembly.
Regarding claim 1, Frischmann as modified by Brynste does not disclose the ratio of the distance between the first and second axles with respect to the distance between the outside of the first and second wheels on the first axle, or the distance between the distances between the first and second axles and the pivot point. Or the distance between the first and second axles with respect to the mean diameter of the wheels. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the wheel assembly of Frischmann as modified by Brynste with dimensions suitable for supporting the loads imparted thereon.
Per claims 3-4 and 10, the first and second axles include first and second ends that engage respective first and second brackets 16 (as shown by Frischmann). The first and second brackets 16 are parallel to each other and pivotally mounted (by pivot shaft 17) to the outrigger 12.
Per claim 5, the first and second brackets 16 each have outwardly facing projections that engage the outrigger 12, and allows pivoting of the wheel assembly W.
Regarding claim 6, Brynste shows the first and second axles being at an angle of 180 degrees relative to a pivot point 15.
Per claim 11, each wheel 28 (of Frischmann) on the axle 21 includes a rim 23 that is mounted on a bearing 25.
Regarding claim 11, Frischmann as modified by Brynste does not disclose the material from which the wheel rim is formed. However, the use of polyurethane to form a wheel rim is well-known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, would find it obvious to form the wheel rim of Frischmann as modified by Brynste from polyurethane, dependent upon the desired chemical and physical properties (such as weight, wear resistance, etc.) to not fail during use.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, the limitation that the wheel is used on a “Class II powered industrial truck” is merely an intended use, which receives no patentable weight.
Regarding claims 13-14, Frischmann as modified by Brynste does not disclose the width and height of the wheel assembly. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the wheel assembly of Frischmann as modified by Brynste with dimensions suitable for supporting the loads imparted thereon.
8. Claim(s) 7-8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frischmann in view of Brynste as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 11-14, and 16 above, and further in view of Tompkins (3,951,370).
Frischmann as modified by Brynste do not show a third wheel mounted on each of the first and second axles. Tompkins teaches the use of a wheel assembly including three wheels 50 mounted on a common axle 60. A bracket 70 is formed of a unitary plate of metal having bends.
Therefore, from this teaching, 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, provide a third wheel on each of the first and second axles of the wheel assembly of Frischmann as modified by Brynste, dependent upon the desired load handling characteristics of the wheel assembly.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 25 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant is correct in the assumption that the first rejection under 35 USC 103 included a typographical error that incorrectly referred to the Tompkins reference instead of the Brynste reference. Said error has been corrected in the updated rejection above.
The Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose or teach the dimensional limitations set forth in amended claim 1. Some of these limitations were originally present in claim 2, and the rejection provided a rationale of obviousness for these dimensions. The Applicant has yet to provide any evidence (in the form of declarations or affidavits under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132) proving the criticality of the claimed dimensions. Furthermore, the Applicant has failed to provide any detailed argument against the obviousness rationale set forth in the rejection that addresses these limitations (see section 12 below).
The Applicant argues that Frischmann uses “rubber wheels (instead of steel)” and Tompkins is related to “leveling home appliances”, and Brynste is “used to level appliances such as washing machines and dryers”. First, the pending claims do not specify the material from which the wheel are made (see section 10 below). Second, the Applicant is arguing the intended use of the Tompkins and Brynste references (see section 11 below).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the wheels being steel) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that Tompkins and Brynste are not used on larger and/or heavier machines, 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.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
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