Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
· “SPR”, “ɛPt”, and “141 A” in Figure 3A should read “SPr”, “EPt”, and “141 a” as actually described in the “Description” portion of the specification, as required.
· “140rl” in Figure 3C is not actually described in the “Description” portion of the specification, as required.
· “Ø250” in Figure 27B is not actually described in the “Description” portion of the specification, as required.
· Figure 23A is not consistent with Fig. 23B. Fig. 23A shows "V2a is positioned along the orbit 720.", whereas Fig. 23B shows "V2a is positioned along the orbit 722.".
· Figure 24A is not consistent with Fig. 24B. Fig. 24A shows "V2a is positioned along the orbit 720.", whereas Fig. 24B shows "V2a is positioned along the orbit 722.".
· Reference characters “540” is not clearly associated with distinct structures in Figure 16B.
· Reference characters “V2a” and “V2b” have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 24A. References cannot share the same leader line.
· Reference characters “V3a” and “V3b” have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 24A. References cannot share the same leader line.
· Reference characters “V2a” and “V2b” have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 24B. References cannot share the same leader line.
· Reference characters “V3a” and “V3b” have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 24B. References cannot share the same leader line.
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. 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.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
· In Para [34, 35, and 238], "0,60" should read "0.60".
· The reference numeral “30” in Para [162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 172, 246, and 251] is used to identify a track system, but such reference numeral does not appear in the drawings.
· In Para [172], "112" should read "114" and "114" should read "116".
· In Para [179], "Supercluster 135" is not shown in Figure 3C.
· In Para [199], "the flexible portion 120" should read "the resilient portion 120".
· In Para [210], "EPt" should read "SPt".
· In Para [211], "whether it be on the inner side 125 or outer side 126"" should read "whether it be on the inner side 124 or outer side 126 of the resilient portion".
· In Para [232], "a rim portion 510" should read "a hub portion 510" and "the rim portion 110" should read "the hub portion 110".
· In Para [250], "Referring to 21" should read "Referring to Fig. 21".
· In Para [258], "user interface 506" should read "user interface 606".
· In Para [262] line 8 and 10, "the dedicated memory 640" should read "the dedicated memory 650".
· In Para [262] line 9, "the processing unit 610" should read " the processing unit 620".
· In Para [268] line 2, "V3b is positioned along the orbit 724" should read "V3b is positioned along the orbit 722".
· In Para [272] line 2, "resilient portion 130" should read "resilient portion 120"
· In Para [275] line 3, the reference numeral “1213” is used to identify the central orbit but such reference does not appear in the drawings.
· In Para [277] "the storage 302" should read "the storage 602".
· In Para [259 and 281], the reference numeral “602” is used to identify both a memory and storage.
· The description provided in Para [278] does not correspond to the structure shown in Figure 27B.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 2 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
· Claim 2: The absence of a period at the end of the claim renders it unclear whether the claim sentence has ended.
· Claim 15: “in a pyramidal clusters” should read “in a pyramidal cluster”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 1, 2, 9, 10, 15, and 18 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.
Claims 1 and 18 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the term “being configured to”. Namely, no physical structure is present in these claims to define this term.
Claims 2, 9, and 15 are indefinite due to the fact that the term “some” fails to specify which elements or how many elements are included, such that the scope of the claims is not reasonably clear.
Claim 10 is indefinite due to the fact that the term “similar” is a relative term that lacks an objective standard, such that the scope of the claim is not reasonably clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US9415631B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a compliant wheel (1 “variable diameter wheel”; Fig. 3) comprising: a hub portion (The centrally located element 40 “Spoke” in Fig. 3 coupled to the 45 “shaft hole” constitutes a hub portion) defining an axis and a longitudinal plane (not explicitly shown but implicit from Fig. 3); and a resilient portion extending radially from the hub portion (Figs. 2-3), the resilient portion including: a plurality of elements (12 and 22 “unit cell”; Figs. 4-6) , a plurality of fold lines (13-16, 23, and 26 “edge folding part”; Figs. 4-6), and a first element of the plurality of elements (22a “first connection cell”; Fig. 6) and a second element of the plurality of elements (22b “second connection cell”; Fig. 6) being connected by one of the plurality of fold lines (26; Fig. 6), the one of the plurality of fold lines defining a bend axis, the first element being configured to resiliently move relative to the second element about the bend axis (Relative resilient movement about the bend axis is inherent from the fold line structure shown in Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the wheel (1) of claim 1, wherein a force applied to the compliant wheel is distributed to at least some of the plurality of elements according to a pre-determined profile of resiliency (Force distribution among a plurality of resilient elements is an inherent result of the compliant wheel structure disclosed in Figs. 2-3; Col. 3, line 19-21; Col. 8, line 21-25)
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the compliant wheel (1) of claim 1, wherein one of the plurality of elements has an element thickness (34 “folding area”; Figs. 7(a)-(d)), one of the plurality of fold lines has a fold line thickness, the element thickness being different from the fold line thickness (Fig. 7(c)).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the compliant wheel (1) of claim 1, wherein the plurality of fold lines includes a plurality of radial fold lines and a plurality of tangent fold lines (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the compliant wheel (1) of claim 1, wherein: the plurality of elements defines at least one apex and at least one depression, the at least one apex and the at least one depression being connected by at least one of: a radial fold line of the plurality of radial fold lines; and a tangent fold line of the plurality of tangent fold lines (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the compliant wheel (1) of claim 1, wherein the plurality of elements includes peripheral elements forming a peripheral surface of the compliant wheel (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the compliant wheel (1) of claim 6, wherein the peripheral elements include a first peripheral element and a second peripheral element adjacent to the first peripheral element, the first and second peripheral elements extending at an angle to the longitudinal plane (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the compliant wheel (1) of claim 1, wherein: in a resting state (Fig. 2), the compliant wheel (1) has a first profile perimeter; and in response to a force being applied to the compliant wheel (1), the compliant wheel (1) deforms to a deformed state (Fig. 3), in which: at least some of the plurality of elements move about corresponding bend axes (Figs. 2-3); and the compliant wheel (1) has a second profile perimeter, the second profile perimeter being substantially equal to the first profile perimeter (Fig. 4 illustrates that the perimeter of the compliant wheel is predetermined and remains unchanged during deformation of the compliant wheel from Fig. 2 to Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses the compliant wheel (1) of claim 1, wherein: the first element extends along a first plane; the second element extends along a second plane
and the second plane is at an angle relative to the first plane (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses the compliant wheel (1) of claim 1, wherein an inner profile of the resilient portion and an outer profile of the resilient portion are one of: asymmetrical relative to the longitudinal plane and symmetrical relative to the longitudinal plane (Figs. 2-3 and 10-11).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses the compliant wheel (1) of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of elements has a shape formed of at least three sides (22a; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses the wheel (1) of claim 1, wherein at least some of the plurality of elements are arranged in a pyramidal clusters (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses the compliant wheel (1) of claim 1, wherein the first element and the second element are connected in a hinge configuration about the one of the plurality of fold lines (Figs. 2-3; Col. 7, line 11-21).
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses a deformable wheel (1) comprising: a hub portion (The centrally located element 40 “Spoke” in Fig. 3 coupled to the 45 “shaft hole” constitutes a hub portion) defining an axis and a longitudinal center plane (not explicitly shown but implicit from Figs. 1-3); and a resilient portion extending radially from the hub portion (Fig. 3), the resilient portion including a plurality of elements arranged in a mesh pattern (Figs. 2-4), each one of the plurality of elements having a polygonal shape defining a plurality of vertices and a plurality of edges (Figs. 3 and 6), a first element (22a; Fig. 6) and a second element (22b; Fig. 6) being connected by one of the plurality of edges (26; Fig. 6), the one of the plurality of edges (26) defining a bend axis (26; Fig. 3); the first element being configured to resiliently move relative to the second element about the bend axis (Relative resilient movement about the bend axis is inherent from the fold line structure shown in Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses the deformable wheel (1) of claim 18, wherein the resilient portion includes: an inner side defining: a first circle having a first diameter and defining a first plane axially spaced from the longitudinal center plane by a first distance (Not explicitly shown but implicit from the below examiner’s annotated figure 11 and figure 3 from Lee); a second circle having a second diameter and defining a second plane axially spaced from the longitudinal center plane by a second distance (Not explicitly shown but implicit from the below examiner’s annotated figure 11 and figure 3 from Lee); an outer side defining: a third circle having a third diameter and defining a third plane axially spaced from the longitudinal center plane by a third distance (Not explicitly shown but implicit from the below examiner’s annotated figure 11 and figure 3 from Lee); a fourth circle having a fourth diameter and defining a fourth plane axially spaced from the longitudinal center plane by a fourth distance (Not explicitly shown but implicit from the below examiner’s annotated figure 11 and figure 3 from Lee); wherein the vertices of the first element are on at least three of the first, second, third and fourth circles (Not explicitly shown but implicit from the below examiner’s annotated figure 11 and figure 3 from Lee).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
1144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 11 from Lee
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses the deformable wheel (1) of claim 19, wherein at least one of: the second diameter is greater than the first diameter; and the third diameter is greater than the fourth diameter (not explicitly shown but implicit from the above examiner’s annotated figure 11 from Lee).
9. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10, 13, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN111169219A).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a compliant wheel (Fig. 6) comprising: a hub portion (Fig. 6) defining an axis and a longitudinal plane (not explicitly shown but implicit from Fig. 6); and a resilient portion (Fig. 6; Para [0113]-[0115]) extending radially from the hub portion (Fig. 6), the resilient portion including: a plurality of elements, a plurality of fold lines, and a first element of the plurality of elements and a second element of the plurality of elements being connected by one of the plurality of fold lines, the one of the plurality of fold lines defining a bend axis, the first element being configured to resiliently move relative to the second element about the bend axis (Fig. 6; Para [0113]-[0115]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the wheel (Fig. 6) of claim 1, wherein a force applied to the compliant wheel is distributed to at least some of the plurality of elements according to a pre-determined profile of resiliency (Force distribution among a plurality of resilient elements is an inherent result of the compliant wheel structure disclosed in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the compliant wheel (Fig. 6) of claim 1, wherein the plurality of fold lines includes a plurality of radial fold lines and a plurality of tangent fold line (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses the compliant wheel (Fig. 6) of claim 1, further comprising a flexible rim portion connected to the resilient portion (Figs. 4, Para [0054] line 6-8; Fig. 6, Para [0113-0115]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses the compliant wheel (Fig. 6) of claim 1, wherein: in a resting state (Fig. 6), the compliant wheel has a first profile perimeter; and in response to a force being applied to the compliant wheel, the compliant wheel deforms to a deformed state (Figs. 4 and 6 illustrate the same compliant wheel in different operational states, and the differences in element shape merely reflect elastic deformation during use), in which: at least some of the plurality of elements move about corresponding bend axes (Fig. 4); and the compliant wheel has a second profile perimeter, the second profile perimeter being substantially equal to the first profile perimeter (Fig. 2 illustrates that the perimeter of the compliant wheel is predetermined and remains unchanged during deformation of the compliant wheel from Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the compliant wheel (Fig. 6) of claim 1, wherein: the resilient portion defines a plurality of equal sections (Fig. 6), each one of the plurality of sections comprising at least one peripheral segment (Fig. 6); in the resting state, a length of each peripheral segment of the plurality of peripheral segments is substantially similar (Fig. 6); and in the deformed state, a length of at least one of the peripheral segments varies (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses the compliant wheel (Fig. 6) of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of elements has a shape formed of at least three sides (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses the compliant wheel (Fig. 6) of claim 13, wherein the first element has a first shape, the second element has a second shape, and the first and second shape are different from one another (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses a deformable wheel (Fig. 6) comprising: a hub portion (Fig. 6) defining an axis and a longitudinal center plane (not shown but implicit from Fig. 6); and a resilient portion extending radially from the hub portion (Fig. 6), the resilient portion including a plurality of elements arranged in a mesh pattern (Fig. 6), each one of the plurality of elements having a polygonal shape defining a plurality of vertices and a plurality of edges (Fig. 6), a first element and a second element being connected by one of the plurality of edges (Fig. 6), the one of the plurality of edges defining a bend axis (Fig. 6); the first element being configured to resiliently move relative to the second element about the bend axis (Relative resilient movement of adjacent elements about the bend axis is an inherent result of the fold line structure disclosed in Fig. 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
12. 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.
13. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Thompson et al (US20200277012A1).
Regarding claim 17, Lee fails to disclose a track system comprising: a frame; a plurality of wheel assemblies rotationally connected to the frame, at least one wheel assembly of the plurality of wheel assembly comprising the compliant wheel; and an endless track surrounding the frame, and the plurality of wheel assemblies.
Thompson et al, however, teaches a track system (20 “Track system”; Fig. 4) comprising: a frame (44 “Frame”; Fig. 4); a plurality of wheel assemblies rotationally connected to the frame (Figs. 4-5), at least one wheel assembly of the plurality of wheel assembly comprising the compliant wheel (77 “Resiliently-deformable wheel portion”; Fig. 4); and an endless track (41 “Endless track”; Fig. 4) surrounding the frame (44), and the plurality of wheel assemblies (Figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the track system of Thompson et al by substituting its resiliently deformable wheel portion for the compliant wheel, such as taught by Lee, with the motivation to achieve compliant deformation under load using a known alternative wheel structure that provides predictable results.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615