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
Each distinct part, including modified parts, should be labeled with a distinct reference character to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(p). Note at least the following: The element denoted by reference character 34 in the embodiment shown in Fig. 10 is distinct (i.e., modified) from the element denoted by these same reference characters in the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-6.
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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darnell (US 2003/0080609 A1) in view of HYTREL 4556 (newly cited non-patent literature).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Darnell discloses a wheel assembly 12 comprising: an inboard wheel segment 14 comprising an inboard tubular body having an exterior inboard rim surface 28, a first inboard segment end 26 having an inboard annular lip 34 extending radially outward from the exterior inboard rim surface (Fig. 7), and a second inboard segment end 32 having an inboard wheel segment connecting surface 40 (Fig. 2); an outboard wheel segment 16 comprising an outboard tubular body having an exterior outboard rim surface 46 (Figs. 2, 5 and 7), a first outboard segment end 50 having an outboard annular lip (at 50 as shown in Fig. 5) extending radially outward from the exterior outboard rim surface (Fig. 5), and a second outboard segment end 44 having an outboard wheel segment connecting surface (paragraph [0033]; Fig. 7); wherein the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces are coupled together to form a joint (unlabeled joint shown in Fig.7), and wherein the exterior inboard and exterior outboard rim surfaces cooperate to form a wheel assembly rim surface (Fig. 7); and wherein the inboard and outboard wheel segments are formed from a polymer-based composition (paragraph [0031]).
Darnell fails to expressly disclose the polymer-based composition consists of a copolyether-ester having a melt flow rate of about 0.5 g/10 min or more up to about 10 g/10 min or less as determined at 220°C under a 2.16 kg load according to ISOI133.
HYTREL 4556, however, teaches a polymer-based composition consisting of a copolyether-ester having a melt flow rate of about 0.5 g/10 min or more up to about 10 g/10 min or less as determined at 220°C under a 2.16 kg load according to ISOI133 (note 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 assembly of Darnell by utilizing a polymer-based composition consists of a copolyether-ester having a melt flow rate of about 0.5 g/10 min or more up to about 10 g/10 min or less as determined at 220°C under a 2.16 kg load according to ISOI133 for its polymer-based composition, such as taught by HYTREL 4556, as a well-known alternative polymer-based composition that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing predictable material and physical properties, such as exceptional toughness and resilience, high resistance to creep, impact and flex fatigue, and good melt stability.
Regarding claim 2, Darnell further discloses the inboard wheel segment connecting surface or the outboard wheel segment connecting surface is singular or plural (shown in at least Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Darnell further discloses the joint extends through the wheel assembly rim surface (evident from Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Darnell further discloses at least one fastener (unlabeled bolt shown in Fig. 7) that couples the inboard and outboard wheel connecting surfaces (paragraph [0045]; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Darnell further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel connecting surfaces each comprise a respective plurality of openings 42, 52, the plurality of openings of the inboard connecting surface being aligned with the plurality of openings of the outboard connecting surface (paragraph [0045]; Fig. 7)
. Regarding claim 7, Darnell further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces extend radially inward and perpendicular to the rotational and longitudinal axis of the inboard and outboard tubular bodies (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Darnell further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces substantially enclose the second inboard and outboard segment ends (Figs. 2 and 7).
Regarding claim 9, Darnell further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces enclose the second inboard and outboard segment ends (Figs. 2 and 7).
Regarding claim 10, Darnell further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces have at least one mounting bore hole (unlabeled central opening in each of 14 and 16 as best shown in Figs. 1 and 2) extending therethrough (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 11, Darnell further discloses the interface of the inboard and outboard connecting surfaces is formed by an intermediate plate 18.
Regarding claim 12, Darnell further discloses the intermediate plate comprises a metal (e.g., “billet aluminum” per paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 13, Darnell further discloses the wheel assembly is injection molded from the polymer-based composition (Abstract; paragraphs [0030] and [0048]).
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (US 2004/0255462 A1; hereinafter “Schroeder”) in view of HYTREL 4556.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Schroeder discloses a wheel assembly 10 comprising: an inboard wheel segment 14 comprising an inboard tubular body 34 having an exterior inboard rim surface (at 34 in Fig. 5), a first inboard segment end (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 5) having an inboard annular lip 48 extending radially outward from the exterior inboard rim surface (Fig. 5), and a second inboard segment end at 42 having an inboard wheel segment connecting surface (unlabeled surfaces of 42 shown in Fig. 5); an outboard wheel segment 12 comprising an outboard tubular body 31 having an exterior outboard rim surface (at 31 in Fig. 4), a first outboard segment end (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 5) having an outboard annular lip 30 extending radially outward from the exterior outboard rim surface (Fig. 5), and a second outboard segment end at 32 having an outboard wheel segment connecting surface (unlabeled surfaces of groove 32 as shown in Fig. 5); wherein the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces are coupled together to form a joint (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 5), and wherein the exterior inboard and exterior outboard rim surfaces cooperate to form a wheel assembly rim surface (Fig. 5); and wherein the inboard and outboard wheel segments are formed from a polymer-based composition (paragraphs [0025]-0027]).
Schroeder fails to expressly disclose the polymer-based composition consists of a copolyether-ester having a melt flow rate of about 0.5 g/10 min or more up to about 10 g/10 min or less as determined at 220°C under a 2.16 kg load according to ISOI133.
HYTREL 4556, however, teaches a polymer-based composition consisting of a copolyether-ester having a melt flow rate of about 0.5 g/10 min or more up to about 10 g/10 min or less as determined at 220°C under a 2.16 kg load according to ISOI133 (note 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 assembly of Schroeder by utilizing a polymer-based composition consists of a copolyether-ester having a melt flow rate of about 0.5 g/10 min or more up to about 10 g/10 min or less as determined at 220°C under a 2.16 kg load according to ISOI133 for its polymer-based composition, such as taught by HYTREL 4556, as a well-known alternative polymer-based composition that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing predictable material and physical properties, such as exceptional toughness and resilience, high resistance to creep, impact and flex fatigue, and good melt stability.
Regarding claim 2, Schroeder further discloses the inboard wheel segment connecting surface or the outboard wheel segment connecting surface is singular or plural (evident from Figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 3, Schroeder further discloses the joint extends through the wheel assembly rim surface (evident from Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Schroeder further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel connecting surfaces abut one another (Fig. 5; note the term “abut” is being defined as “to be adjacent to”).
Regarding claim 6, Schroeder further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel connecting surfaces each comprise a respective plurality of openings at 46, 26, the plurality of openings of the inboard connecting surface being aligned with the plurality of openings of the outboard connecting surface (Fig. 5; paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Schroeder further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces substantially enclose the second inboard and outboard segment ends (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Schroeder further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces enclose the second inboard and outboard segment ends (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Schroeder further discloses the inboard and outboard wheel segment connecting surfaces have at least one mounting bore hole (unlabeled central bore hole of 14 shown in Fig. 3, axial opening 28 of 12 shown in Fig. 3) extending therethrough (evident from Fig. 3 and paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 11, Schroeder further discloses the interface of the inboard and outboard connecting surfaces is formed by an intermediate plate 16 (Figs. 3and 5).
Regarding claim 12, Schroeder further discloses the intermediate plate comprises a metal (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 13, Schroeder further discloses the wheel assembly is molded from the polymer-based composition (paragraphs [0006], [0026] and [0027]; note the specific manner of molding the wheel assembly (i.e., “injection molded”) is method limitation that is not afforded full patentable weight in a product claim (See MPEP 2113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coran et al. (US 3,977,453) teaches a wheel assembly that is entirely formed from HYTREL (lines 62-67 of col. 9).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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