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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 16 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 16 which broadened its scope.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J. H. Hunt et al. (US 2,339,859 A) in view of Amsler (GB 149913 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), wherein the first set of beams include four 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; and
a second set of beams (each 12 that is attached to 18 in Figure 1), wherein the second set of beams include four 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 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.
J. H. Hunt et al. does not disclose that the first set of beams and the second set of beams of the fully cast idler wheel are circumferentially offset from each other.
Amsler teaches a wheel (see Figure 1) that is comprised of an annular rim portion (b), an annular hub portion (a), a plurality of beams (1-4 and 1’-4’) extending between the annular rim portion and the annular hub portion, the plurality of beams including:
a first set of beams (1-4) extending between the annular rim portion and the annular hub portion on a first axial side (the left side of Figure 4) of the wheel; and
a second set of beams (1’-4’) extending between the annular rim portion and the annular hub portion on a second, opposite axial side (the right side of Figure 4) of the wheel,
wherein the first set of beams of the idler wheel is circumferentially offset from the second set of beams of the idler wheel (see Figure 1).
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 first set of beams and the second set of beams of J. H. Hunt et al. to be circumferentially offset from each other, as taught by Amsler, for the purpose of increasing the rigidity of the wheel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 21, and 22 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 17-20 and 23 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed June 15, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights