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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11, and 14-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 8, 9, and 14-20 of copending Application No. 19/096,116 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of ‘116 discloses “a wheel hub assembly that includes a plurality of wheels, each wheel comprising:
a wheel hub including a plurality of spokes and a main axle bore rotatable around a main axis;
a plurality of cross roller sub-assemblies comprising:
a plurality of pre-roller assemblies including:
a plurality of symmetrical axles; and
a plurality of solid bushings, each solid bushing configured to receive one symmetrical axle in a central longitudinal bore; and
a plurality of peripheral rollers, each pre-roller assembly overmolded with one peripheral roller;
a peripheral axle ring adapted about each wheel and radially spaced from the main axis, each wheel having the plurality of cross roller sub-assemblies overmolded with the wheel hub, and
wherein the overmolded cross roller sub-assemblies form the peripheral axle ring.” The wheel assembly claims a plurality of wheels thus claiming a singular wheel as claimed in current claim 1.
Claim 1 of ‘116 discloses the claim limitations of current claim 3.
Claim 6 of ‘116 discloses the claim limitations of current claim 4.
Claim 1 of ‘116 discloses the claim limitations of current claim 5.
Claim 8 of ‘116 discloses the claim limitations of current claim 8.
Current claim 9 of ‘116 discloses a method of assembling a wheel assembly that includes all of the limitations of current claim 11. Claim 9 of ‘116 discloses a plurality of wheel wheels which would include a singular wheel as claimed in current claim 11.
Claim 14 of ‘116 discloses the claim limitations of current claim 14.
Claim 15 of ‘116 discloses the claim limitations of current claim 15.
Claim 16 of ‘116 discloses the claim limitations of current claim 16.
Claim 17 of ‘116 discloses the claim limitations of current claim 17.
Claim 18 of ‘116 discloses the claim limitations of current claim 18.
Claim 19 of ‘116 discloses the claim limitations of current claim 19.
Claim 20 of ‘116 discloses the claim limitations of current claim 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 6-7, recites “one symmetrical axle in a central longitudinal bore” which should be changed to --one symmetrical axle of the plurality of symmetrical axles in a central longitudinal bore-- so that the limitation refers back to the language of line 5.
Claim 1, lines 8-9, recites “one peripheral roller” which should be changed to --one peripheral roller of the plurality of peripheral rollers-- so that the limitation refers back to the language of line 8.
Claim 3, lines 2-3, recites “two spokes of the overmolded wheel hub” which should be changed to --two spokes of the plurality of spokes of the overmolded wheel hub-- so that the limitation refers back to the plurality of spokes from line 1.
Claim 12, lines 1-2, recites “the overmolding of each pre-roller assembly with the peripheral roller” which is grammatically awkward and should be changed to --the overmolding of each pre-roller assembly with its corresponding peripheral roller--.
Claim 16, lines 2-3, recites “two spokes of the overmolded wheel hub” which should be changed to --two spokes of the plurality of spokes of the overmolded wheel hub-- so that the limitation refers back to the plurality of spokes from line 1.
Claim 15, lines 6-7, recites “for overmolding each axle bushing of the plurality of pre-roller assemblies with the peripheral roller” which is grammatically awkward and should be changed to --for overmolding each axle bushing of the plurality of pre-roller assemblies with its corresponding peripheral roller--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12 and 15-19 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.
Claim 12, lines 1-2, recites “with the peripheral roller
The term “slightly” in claim 18, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” 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. What one person considers as slight may not be the same as what another person considers as slight thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
The term “slightly” in claim 19, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” 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. What one person considers as slight may not be the same as what another person considers as slight thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guile (US 6,857,707 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Guile discloses a wheel comprising:
a wheel hub (36) including a main axle bore (37) rotatable around a main axis (the axial centerline of 37);
a plurality of cross roller sub-assemblies (21, 25, 26, 32) comprising:
a plurality of pre-roller assemblies (21, 26) including:
a plurality of symmetrical axles (21); and
a plurality of axle bushings (26), each axle bushing configured to receive one symmetrical axle in a central longitudinal bore; and
a plurality of peripheral rollers (25, 32), each pre-roller assembly overmolded with one peripheral roller;
a peripheral axle ring (the plurality of roller assemblies shown in Figures 7 and 9) adapted about the wheel and radially spaced from the main axis, the wheel having the plurality of cross roller sub-assemblies overmolded with the wheel hub (Column 7 / Lines 27-38),
wherein the overmolded cross roller sub-assemblies form the peripheral axle ring.
Regarding claim 2, Guile discloses the wheel hub comprises an inner wheel hub (36, 43-46) and an outer wheel hub (40-42), wherein the inner wheel hub is overmolded with the outer wheel hub.
Regarding claim 3, Guile discloses that the overmolded wheel hub comprises a plurality of spokes (the plurality of 39 in Figure 8), and each cross roller sub-assembly is secured between two spokes of the plurality of spokes of the overmolded wheel hub.
Regarding claim 6, Guile discloses that the plurality of axle bushings each have a cylindrical outer diameter (see the outer diameter of the tubular portion of 31).
Regarding claim 9, Guile discloses that the symmetrical axles are made of at least one of metal and plastic materials (Column 7 / Lines 10-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ren et al. (CN 105415969 A) discloses an omni-directional wheel that is formed of a hub member, a plurality of rollers, and each roller of the plurality of rollers is formed of an axle, a pair of bearings, a bushing, and a rolling element attached to an outer surface of the bushing.
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