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 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.
Claim(s) 4-14 is/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.
Regarding claim 4 the limitation “thereof” is unclear about what is being referred to. Amending the claim to replace “thereof” with –of the wheel body—would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 5 the limitation “thereof” is unclear about what is being referred to. Amending the claim to replace “thereof” with –of the wheel body—would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 6 the limitation “thereof” is unclear about what is being referred to. Amending the claim to replace “thereof” with –of each jointed leg—would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 10 the limitation “thereof” is unclear about what is being referred to. Amending the claim to replace “thereof” with –of the wheel body—would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 11 the limitation “thereof” is unclear about what is being referred to. Amending the claim to replace “thereof” with –of the wheel body—would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 12 the limitation “thereof” is unclear about what is being referred to. Amending the claim to replace “thereof” with – of each jointed leg —would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claims 6, 8, 12, & 13 the limitation “four jointed legs” is unclear as to if this is four legs with each leg having at least one joint, or if this is a plurality of legs with each leg having four joints. Amending the claims to positively affirm the correct interpretation would overcome this rejection.
All claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 1-3, & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herold (US 2541514 A).
Regarding claim 1 Herold teaches a wheel and tire assembly (FIG. 3: 18-20) securable to a rotating hub of a wheel base (FIG. 3: 13) including: a tire (FIG. 3: either 19 or 20) and first and second tire sidewalls (FIG. 3: depicted bordering 18 and bordering 30), the first and second tire sidewalls each having an inner edge circumscribing a tire opening extending through the first and second tire sidewalls (FIG. 5: depicted); and a wheel body comprising a tubular wheel body wall having a first end and a second end wherein the tire is securable to and around the wheel body with the tubular wheel body wall extending through the tire opening (FIG. 5: 21), the wheel body further having a rail engaging flange projecting radially outward relative to the wheel body wall in outwardly spaced relation from the tire in a spacing adapted for reception of a rail therebetween (FIG. 4 & 5: 18).
However, Herold does not explicitly teach a tread on the tire. Official notice is taken that tires with treads are commonly known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included a tread on the tire in order to increase traction in wet conditions.
Regarding claim 2 Herold as modified above teaches that the tubular wheel body wall is formed as a single piece (FIG. 5: depicted with wheel body 21 formed of a single piece).
Regarding claim 3 Herold as modified above teaches that the tire is secured to and around the wheel body between a first rim and a second rim (FIG. 3: first and second instances of 30, which may be considered part of the wheel body for the purposes of claim 3 even though they are not part of it in the interpretation used to reject claim 2 because claim 3 does not depend from claim 2).
Regarding claim 5 Herold as modified above teaches a first rim extends outward around the wheel body proximate the first end of the wheel body and a second rim extends outward around the wheel body medially between the first end and the second end thereof (FIG. 3: side walls of 18 & 30).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herold (US 2541514 A) in view of Moore (US 1807793 A).
Regarding claim 4 Herold as modified above does not teach that a wheel mounting flange projects radially outward from the rotating hub of the wheel base and the wheel and tire assembly includes a wheel body mounting flange projecting inward from the wheel body wall between the first end and the second end thereof and the wheel body mounting flange is removably securable to the wheel mounting flange of the rotating hub.
However, Moore does teach the use of a wheel mounting flange (FIG. 3: 13) which projects radially outward from a rotating hub of a wheel base (FIG. 3: 8) and the wheel and tire assembly includes a wheel body mounting flange projecting inward from the wheel body wall (FIG. 3: 14) between the first end and the second end thereof and the wheel body mounting flange is removable securable to the wheel mounting flange of the rotating hub (FIG. 3: by 15). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively used the wheel hub and mounting flanges of Moore with the wheel assembly of Herold as modified above in order to also mount the wheel on a suspension (Moore, FIG. 3: 9) to provide a more comfortable ride experience.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herold (US 2541514 A) in view of Smith et al. (US 7686561 B2, herein after referred to as Smith).
Regarding claim 6 Herold as modified above does not explicitly teach a walking type material handling machine having four jointed legs with each jointed leg having a wheel drive assembly mounted on a distal end thereof and with each wheel drive assembly including a hub rotatably mounted on the respective jointed leg, wherein one of the wheel and tire assemblies of Claim 1 is attached to the hub of each wheel drive assembly.
However, Smith does teach a walking type material handling machine (FIG. 1: 10) having four jointed legs (FIG. 1: 26) with each jointed leg having a wheel drive assembly mounted on a distal end thereof (FIG. 1: 28) and with each wheel drive assembly including a hub rotatably mounted on the respective jointed leg (FIG. 1: depicted such that they can rotate for driving forward and back). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included one of the wheel and tire assemblies of Herold as modified above mounted to the hub of each wheel drive assembly in order to provide a wheel system that works on and off tracks for a more versatile vehicle.
Regarding claim 7 Herold as modified above teaches that each of the wheel and tire assemblies is attached to the hub of a respective wheel drive assembly such that the first end of the wheel body extends toward the respective jointed leg to which the respective wheel drive assembly is attached and the second end of the wheel body extends away from the respective jointed leg (result of the above combination).
Regarding claim 8 Herold as modified above teaches that the four jointed legs are pivotably connected to an undercarriage (Herold, FIG. 2: 14) having a power and control unit (Herold, FIG. 48 & 50) rotatably mounted on the undercarriage (rotatable relative to the articulating legs and the articulated arm) and an articulated arm pivotally connected to the power and control unit (Herold, FIG. 1: 36).
Regarding claim 9 Herold as modified above teaches open topped rail cars (Smith, FIG. 10: 12) wherein upper ends of the sidewalls of the open topped rail cars form rails (Smith, FIG. 10: depicted) which extend between the rail engaging flange and the tire secured to the wheel body of each wheel and tire assembly as the wheel and tire assembly is advanced across the upper ends of the sidewalls (Smith, FIG. 10: depicted).
Claim(s) 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US 1807793 A) in view of Herold (US 2541514 A).
Regarding claim 10 Moore teaches a wheel and tire assembly (FIG. 3: depicted) securable to a rotating hub of a wheel base (FIG. 3: 18) including: a tire having a tread (FIG. 3: 35) and first and second tire sidewalls (FIG. 3: depicted), the first and second tire sidewalls each having an inner edge circumscribing a tire opening extending through the first and second tire sidewalls (FIG. 3: proximal to 30); and a wheel body comprising a tubular wheel body wall formed as a single piece and having an inner end and an outer end (FIG. 3: 30, with wheel body wall 31 formed as a single piece), the wheel body having an first rim extending radially outward relative to the wheel body and an second rim extending radially outward relative to the wheel body wherein the tire is secured to and around the wheel body between the first rim and the second rim (FIG. 3: 31 & 32), the wheel body further having a rail engaging flange projecting radially outward relative to the wheel body wall in outwardly spaced relation from the second rim in a spacing adapted for reception of a rail therebetween (FIG. 3: 22).
Moore does not teach that the first and second rims are inner and outer rims with the outer rim located medially between the inner end and outer end of the wheel body. However, Herold teaches a double tire wheel assembly (FIG. 3: depicted with 18-20) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively used the two tires and one centrally located rail groove structure with the wheel and tire assembly of Moore in order to spread the weight of a vehicle when using the tires and reduce ground pressure, enhancing performance on low quality driving paths. The above limitations regarding the locations of the rims would be taught as a result of this combination.
Regarding claim 11 Moore as modified above teaches a wheel mounting flange projects radially outward from the rotating hub of the wheel base (Moore, FIG. 3: 13) and the wheel and tire assembly includes a wheel body mounting flange projecting inward from the wheel body wall between the inner end and the outer end thereof (Moore, FIG. 3: 14, located between them in a radial direction rather than a lateral one) and the wheel body mounting flange is removably securable to the wheel mounting flange of the rotating hub (Moore, FIG. 3: 15).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US 1807793 A) in view of Herold (US 2541514 A) and further in view of Smith et al. (US 7686561 B2, herein after referred to as Smith).
Regarding claim 12 Moore as modified above does not teach walking type material handling machine having four jointed legs with each leg having a wheel drive assembly mounted on a distal end thereof and with each wheel drive assembly including a rotating hub rotatably mounted on a wheel base connected to the respective jointed leg, wherein one of the wheel and tire assemblies of Claim 10 is attached to the rotating hub of each wheel drive assembly with the inner end of the wheel body extending toward the respective jointed leg to which the respective wheel drive assembly is attached and the outer end of the wheel body extending away from the respective jointed leg.
However, Smith does teach a walking type material handling machine (FIG. 1: depicted) having four jointed legs (FIG. 1: 26) with each leg having a wheel drive assembly mounted on a distal end thereof (FIG. 1: 28 and surrounding structure) and with each wheel drive assembly including a rotating hub rotatably mounted on a wheel base connected to the respective jointed leg(FIG. 1: depicted as part of 28 & the surrounding structure). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the material handling machine of Smith with the wheel assembly of Moore as modified above in order to use the wheel for material handling.
As a result of this combination one of the wheel and tire assemblies of Claim 10 is attached to the rotating hub of each wheel drive assembly with the inner end of the wheel body extending toward the respective jointed leg to which the respective wheel drive assembly is attached and the outer end of the wheel body extending away from the respective jointed leg.
Regarding claim 13 Moore as modified above teaches that the four jointed legs are pivotably connected to an undercarriage (Smith, FIG. 2: 14) having a power and control unit (Smith, FIG. 2: 50) rotatably mounted on the undercarriage (rotatable relative to the legs and arm of the machine) and an articulated arm pivotally connected to the power and control unit (Smith, FIG. 1: 36).
Regarding claim 14 Moore as modified above teaches open topped rail cars (Smith, FIG. 10: 12) wherein upper ends of the sidewalls of the open topped rail cars form rails (Smith, FIG. 10: depicted) which extend between the rail engaging flange and the tire secured to the wheel body of each wheel and tire assembly as the wheel and tire assembly is advanced across the upper ends of the sidewalls (Smith, FIG. 10: depicted).
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not replied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO 892 teach wheel and tire assemblies of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
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, Samuel J Morano IV can be reached on (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 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.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights