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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figure 1a should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Reference characters should not share the same lead lines (note Figs. 2, 4, 6 and 7a). The lead lines for the different parts should be directed to the different parts to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(p).
The lead lines for reference characters 6 and 9 in Fig. 2 should contact the corresponding parts.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “6” in Fig. 4 has been used to designate both what appears to be a retaining structure of the axle end 7 and a retaining structure of the deflective arm 15.
Each distinct part, including modified parts, should be labeled with a distinct reference character to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(p). Note at least the following informalities:
The part represented by reference character 2 in the embodiment shown in Figs. 2-4 is distinct from the part represented by this same reference character in at least the prior art embodiment shown in Fig. 1a.
The part represented by reference character 2 in the embodiment shown in Fig. 5 is distinct from the part represented by this same reference character in at least the embodiment shown in Figs. 2-4.
The parts represented by reference characters 2 and 7 in the embodiment shown in Fig. 6 is distinct from the parts represented by these same reference characters in at least the embodiment shown in Figs. 2-4.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Each occurrence of the term “axel” should be replaced with the term -- axle -- to correct an apparent typographical error.
Specific claim numbers (note line 3 on page 4) should not be referenced in the specification inasmuch as the claims are subject to amendments and renumbering during prosecution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9 and 11, each occurrence of the term “axel” in these claims should be replaced with the term -- axle -- to correct an apparent typographical error.
Regarding claims 2-13, the preamble “Mecanum wheel” in each of these claims should be replaced with -- The mecanum wheel -- for clarity.
Regarding claim 3, the term “xel” should be replaced with the term -- axle -- to correct an apparent typographical error.
Regarding claim 6, the term “Wheel” should not be capitalized.
Regarding claim 12, the number “18” should be deleted for clarity.
Regarding claim 14, the term “compnses” should be replaced with the term -- comprises -- to correct an apparent typographical error.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “a mecanum wheel according to claim 1,” should be replaced with a phrase, such as -- the mecanum wheel according to claim 1, and -- for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 3-6 and 9-13 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 3, the limitation “an xel” (note: best understood as being “an axle”) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an xel” refers to “an axel” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the end surface”.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “a roller” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a roller” refers to “a plurality of rollers” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the bottom of the recess”.
Regarding claim 12, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the outward facing largely vertical end surface”.
Regarding claim 13, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the outward facing inner side of the axial end” and “the axial end”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 5, 6, 8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yada et al. (WO 2021/039324 A1; hereinafter “Yada”).
Regarding claim 1, Yada discloses a mecanum wheel 7 comprising: a plurality of rollers 5 each with a rolling surface (at radially outer surface of 42 as shown in Fig. 4) and an axle 41 with axle ends (unlabeled, but best shown in Fig. 4) protruding from each side of the rolling surface in the longitudinal direction of the roller (Fig. 4) and having an axial stopper surface (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 4 below) largely perpendicular to the axle (Fig. 4), a wheel frame 4 for mounting the rollers with mounting units (inclined portions 36), arranged for holding respective axle ends (unlabeled respective ends of 41) of each roller (Fig. 4), wherein each mounting unit comprising: a mounting unit recess 45 with an opening (opening at surface of 36 for 45 as shown in Fig. 4) for inserting an axle end (Fig. 4), wherein the mounting unit recess interacts with the respective axle end for structurally locking the roller against movements relative to the wheel frame in directions having a component radially inwards of the mecanum wheel (evident from Fig. 4), a mounting unit stopper surface (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 4 below) largely perpendicular to the axle interacting with the axial stopper surface for locking the roller against movements relative to the wheel frame in directions along the axis of the roller (evident from Fig. 4), a rebounding roller retaining structure 71 positioned at least partly inside an insertion path of the respective axle end (Fig. 6; sixth full paragraph on page 6 of the English language machine translation) causing resistance when the axle end is pushed or pulled past the roller retaining structure into, and out from, a resting position in the mounting unit recess, thus preventing unintended release of the roller caused by forces having a component directed radially outward of the mecanum wheel (evident from Fig. 6 and the sixth full paragraph on page 6 of the English language machine translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yada further discloses the axle is fixed to the rolling surface of the roller (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Yada further discloses the rollers have an axle around which the rolling surface is rotating (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Yada further discloses the rebounding roller retaining structure is a narrow neck 71 positioned partly inside the opening of the recess to receive the axle end of a roller allowing the axle end to be pushed past the narrow neck and rest in the bottom of the recess (Fig. 6; sixth full paragraph on page 6 of the English language machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Yada further discloses the narrow neck comprises a resilient material (sixth full paragraph on page 6 of the English language machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Yada further discloses the mounting unit recess is a U-shape structure 45 for receiving the axle end (Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 11, Yada further discloses the end surface of both axle ends of each roller comprises a gripping zone (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 4 above) for robotic removal (i.e., capable of robotic removal) of the roller from the roller mounting units (evident from Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Yada further discloses the axial stopper surface is the outward facing largely vertical end surface of the axial end interacting with an inward facing vertical stopper surface on an outer side of the recess constituting the mounting unit stopper surface (as evident from reproduced and annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 13, Yada further discloses the axial stopper surface is a flange at the outward facing inner side of the axial end interacting with an inward facing vertical inner rim of the recess constituting the mounting unit stopper surface (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Yada further discloses a rolling device 2 for movement along a surface wherein the rolling device comprises: a housing 3 arranged for attachment to the device, the mecanum wheel 7, and driving means 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Claims 4, 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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 (Joe) J Morano can be reached at (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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615