DETAILED ACTION
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:
· “140rl” in Figure 3C is not actually described in the “Description” portion of the specification, as required. Note that this was objected to in the prior non-final office action and has not been fully amended.
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.
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.
6. Claims 1-20 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. The term “some” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “some” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 (Refer to the axis and longitudinal plane in the below annotated Fig. 3), the hub portion (Refer to the hub portion in the below annotated Fig. 3) being configured to connect to a shaft (50 “induction shaft”; “A shaft hole 45 is formed at a center of the spoke 40 to be coupled with the variable induction shaft 50” per Col. 7, lines 54-55); and a resilient portion (Refer to the resilient portion in the below annotated Fig. 3) extending radially from the hub portion, the resilient portion extending on either side of the longitudinal plane (Refer to the resilient portion and longitudinal plane in the below annotated Fig. 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), and a width of the compliant wheel (1) being smaller than a diameter of the compliant wheel (Fig. 10 illustrates a state in which the compliant wheel has a width smaller than its diameter; accordingly, the limitation is met; Col. 4, lines 55-58; Col. 7, lines 48-52; Col. 8, lines 12-36).
PNG
media_image1.png
656
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Lee
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses 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 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 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 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 plurality of elements includes peripheral elements forming a peripheral surface of the compliant wheel (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses 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 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 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 at least some of the plurality of elements are arranged in a pyramidal cluster (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses 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 defining an axis and a longitudinal center plane, the hub portion being configured to connect to a shaft; and a resilient portion extending radially from the hub portion (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 1), 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_image2.png
645
1144
media_image2.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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10, 13, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN111169219A) in view of Manesh et al (US8104524B2; hereinafter “Manesh”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a compliant wheel (Fig. 6) comprising: a hub portion (Refer to the hub portion in the below annotated Fig. 6; Para [0071] and [0072]) defining an axis and a longitudinal plane (The axis and longitudinal plane are not explicitly shown but implicit from Fig. 6), the hub portion being configured to connect to a shaft (1 “wheel axle”; Fig. 1; Reference is made to the embodiment in which the element is explicitly labeled); and a resilient portion (Fig. 6; Para [0113]-[0115]) extending radially from the hub portion, 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 (Refer to the elements, fold line, and bend axis in the below annotated Fig. 6; Para [0113]-[0115]),
PNG
media_image3.png
734
776
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 6 of Zhang
but fails to disclose the resilient portion extending on either side of the longitudinal plane and a width of the compliant wheel being smaller than a diameter of the compliant wheel.
Manesh, however, teaches a non-pneumatic tire 10 including resilient portions (40 “interconnected web”; Fig. 2) extending on either side of the longitudinal plane (Refer to the longitudinal plane in the below annotated Fig. 11) and a width of the tire (“Tire 10 may be about 8 inches wide” per col. 10, line 36; Fig. 3) being smaller than a diameter of the tire (“Tire 10 has a radius of about 9.5 inches” per col. 10, line 21; Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
561
457
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 11 of Manesh
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the compliant wheel of Zhang by including a resilient portion extending on either side of the longitudinal plane and having a wheel width smaller than the wheel diameter, as taught by Manesh, such dimensional and symmetric wheel configurations are well-known design choices for compliant wheels with the motivation to provide structural balance, predictable deformation characteristics, and compatibility with rotational wheel operation (such as not interfering with suspension and/or brake components when mounted on a vehicle).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further discloses a force applied to the compliant wheel is distributed to at least some of the plurality of elements (Refer to the element in the above annotated Fig. 6 with respect to claim 1) 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 further discloses the plurality of fold lines includes a plurality of radial fold lines and a plurality of tangent fold line (Refer to the radial fold line and tangent fold line in the below annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image5.png
701
734
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 6 of Zhang
Regarding claim 8, Zhang further discloses a flexible rim portion connected to the resilient portion (Fig. 4, Para [0054] line 6-8; Fig. 6, Para [0113]-[0115]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang further discloses wherein: in a resting state (Figs. 2 and 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; Refer to the elements and bend axes in the annotated Fig. 6 with respect to claim 1); 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 further discloses 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 a resting state, a length of each peripheral segment of the plurality of peripheral segments is substantially equal (Fig. 6); and in a deformed state, a length of at least one of the peripheral segments varies (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of elements has a shape formed of at least three sides (Refer to the side in the below annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
717
650
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 6 of Zhang
Regarding claim 14, Zhang further discloses 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 (Refer to the first and second element in the below annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image7.png
712
633
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 6 of Zhang
Regarding claim 18, Zhang, as modified by Manesh, discloses a deformable wheel comprising: a hub portion defining an axis and a longitudinal center plane, the hub portion being configured to connect to a shaft; and a resilient portion extending radially from the hub portion, the resilient portion extending on either side of the longitudinal plane (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 1), and 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 (Refer to the joint or corner in the above annotated Fig. 6 with respect to claim 1) and a plurality of edges (Refer to the fold line in the above annotated Fig. 6 with respect to claim 1), a first element and a second element (Refer to the first and second element in the above annotated Fig. 6) being connected by one of the plurality of edges, the one of the plurality of edges defining a bend axis; 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).
11. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Thompson et al (US20200277012A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
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.
Response to Arguments
12. The following Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
· In response to Applicant’s opinion that the phrase “being configured to” is clear and definite to a person skilled in the art having access to the present description, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the phrase “configured to” is a generally functional and narrative expression which, in this instance, does not positively recite any specific structure or structural features of the invention. The applicant is advised to remove the phrase “configured to” and amend the claim to positively recite the structural relationship or structural capability of the claimed components. For example, “configured to connect” may be amended to “connectable to”.
· In response to Applicant’s opinion that a person skilled in the art would understand from the term “at least some” and the term does not render the claims indefinite, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the term “some” is a relative term that fails to provide a clear boundary for the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the term does not inform, with reasonable certainty, which or how many of the plurality of elements are required to receive the distributed force, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
· In response to Applicant’s opinion that Lee does not disclose the features, “the hub portion being configured to connect a shaft” and “a resilient portion that extends on either lateral side of a longitudinal plane”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s position appear to rely on the manner of deformation of the wheel body (i.e., axial displacement of the spokes); however, the claim language does not require any particular mode or direction of deformation. Rather, the limitation merely requires that the resilient portion extend on either side of the longitudinal plane as shown in the above annotated Fig. 2 with respect to claim 1. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to expressly recite the particular structural and/or deformation characteristics allegedly distinguishing over the applied prior art. Further, Lee discloses the limitation “the hub portion being configured to connect a shaft”, as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
13. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10, 13, 14, and 18 as being anticipated by Zhang have been considered but are not persuasive in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth above.
· In response to Applicant’s opinion that Zhang does not disclose a plurality of elements that are connected by fold lines that define bend axes. Instead, in Zhang, it is the elastic spoke structure itself that resiliently deforms by flexing, there is no relative movement about bend axes, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang discloses that the elastic spoke structure comprises a plurality of interconnected regions joined at joints or corners, which define lines along which bending occurs during deformation. Such interconnected regions reasonably correspond to the claimed plurality of elements, and the connecting regions (e.g., joints or corners) define localized bending regions that inherently establish bend axes about which adjacent portions move relative to each other. See the annotated Fig. 6 as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Further, Applicant’s argument that “it is the elastic spoke structure itself that resiliently deforms by flexing without relative movement about bend axes” is not supported by evidence (in the form of an affidavit or declaration filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132) to support this argument.
Conclusion
14. 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.
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose a compliant wheel.
16. 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
Prosecution Insights