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 Objections
Claims 7, 11, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 2, recites “approximately25 to 35 degrees” which is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to --approximately 25 to 35 degrees--.
Claim 11, line 11, recites “a plurality of substantially- V shaped beams” which is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to --a plurality of substantially V-shaped beams--.
Claim 20, line 5, recites “approximately25 to 35 degrees” which is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to --approximately 25 to 35 degrees--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J. H. Hunt et al. (US 2,339,859 A).
Regarding claim 1, J. H. Hunt et al. discloses an idler wheel (Column 1 / Line 4), comprising:
an annular rim portion (11);
an annular hub portion (10); and
a plurality of beams (12) extending between the annular rim portion and the annular hub portion, the plurality of beams including:
a first set of beams (each 12 that is attached to 17 in Figure 1) extending between the annular rim portion and the annular hub portion on a first axial side (the left side of Figure 1) of the idler wheel; and
a second set of beams (each 12 that is attached to 18 in Figure 1) extending between the annular rim portion and the annular hub portion on a second, opposite axial side (the right side of Figure 1) of the idler wheel,
wherein the first set of beams of the idler wheel is axially offset from the second set of beams of the idler wheel (see Figure 1).
While the hub is disclosed as being a cast part, J. H. Hunt et al. does not disclose that the idler wheel is fully cast.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the idler wheel may be made by any known method of manufacture which achieves the desired operational characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming the idler wheel and make the idler wheel as a fully cast structure, the idler wheel may be made by any known manufacturing method which is suitable to the desired operational characteristics of the part being made. Further, the patentability of the device does not depend on its method of manufacture.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Regarding claim 2, J. H. Hunt et al. discloses a central vertical axis (the vertical centerline of the structure in Figure 1), wherein the first set of beams and the second set of beams are located on opposite sides of the central vertical axis (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, J. H. Hunt et al. discloses that the first set of beams and the second set of beams each include a plurality of substantially V-shaped beams (V-Shape 1 and V-Shape 2 as shown below), each with a pair of arms (the parts of each 12 that extend between 10 and 11) that extend between the annular hub portion and the annular rim portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of J. H. Hunt et al. (US 2,339,859 A)
Regarding claim 6, J. H. Hunt et al. discloses that the plurality of substantially V-shaped beams of the first set of beams are substantially identical to the plurality of substantially V-shaped beams of the second set of beams (as shown in Figure 2, two V-shaped beams can be constructed that do not have the openings for element 16, and those two V-shaped beams match the beams that attach to 18 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, J. H. Hunt et al. discloses an idler wheel (Column 1 / Line 4) for an undercarriage assembly of a mobile industrial machine, the idler wheel comprising:
an annular rim portion (11);
an annular hub portion (10); and
a plurality of beams (12) including:
a first set of beams (each 12 that is attached to 17 in Figure 1) extending between the annular rim portion and the annular hub portion on a first axial side (the left side of Figure 1) of the idler wheel; and
a second set of beams (each 12 that is attached to 18 in Figure 1) extending between the annular rim portion and the annular hub portion on a second, opposite axial side (the right side of Figure 1) of the idler wheel,
wherein the first set of beams and the second set of beams of the idler wheel each include a plurality of substantially V-shaped beams (V-Shape 1 and V-Shape 2 as shown below) that extend between the annular hub portion and the annular rim portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of J. H. Hunt et al. (US 2,339,859 A)
While the hub is disclosed as being a cast part, J. H. Hunt et al. does not disclose that the idler wheel is fully cast.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the idler wheel may be made by any known method of manufacture which achieves the desired operational characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming the idler wheel and make the idler wheel as a fully cast structure, the idler wheel may be made by any known manufacturing method which is suitable to the desired operational characteristics of the part being made. Further, the patentability of the device does not depend on its method of manufacture.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Regarding claim 14, J. H. Hunt et al. discloses a central vertical axis (the vertical centerline of the structure in Figure 1), wherein the first set of beams and the second set of beams are axially offset from the central vertical axis (see Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 16:
J. H. Hunt et al. discloses an idler wheel comprising:
an annular rim portion;
an annular hub portion; and
a first set of beams extending between the annular rim portion and the annular hub portion; and
a second set of beams extending between the annular rim portion and the annular hub portion,
wherein the first set of beams of the idler wheel is axially offset from the second set of beams of the idler wheel.
J. H. Hunt et al. does not disclose that the first set of beams include four substantially V-shaped beams, and the second set of beams include four substantially V-shaped beams, and the first set of beams and the second set of beams of the fully cast idler wheel being circumferentially offset from each other at an approximately 45 degree angle.
While the prior art, as described above, discloses an annular rim portion, an annular hub portion, a first set of beams, and a second set of beams, the prior art does not teach or render obvious the fully cast idler wheel as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
R. W. Runge (US 1,627,413 A) discloses a track roller that is comprised of a rim portion, a hub portion, a plurality of beams that connect the hub portion and the rim portion, and the rims being circumferentially offset from each other in an axial direction.
Xavier et al. (US 12,358,577 B2) discloses a cast idler wheel with similar structural elements as the cast idler wheel in the current application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617