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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the phrase “an integrally-molded interface” does not appear to have proper antecedent basis in the originally filed specification.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 7-9 be found allowable, claims 14-16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 6, 8-10, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (JP 2002-29202 A; see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda et al. discloses a roller (3) rotatably attached to an outer circumference of a wheel main body (5), the roller comprising:
a first member (1) having a through hole (the hole through 1 that 9 passes through) into which a support shaft (9) is inserted; and
a second member (2) adapted to cover an outer circumference surface (the outer surface of 1) of the first member; and
wherein the first member and second member are in continuous contact with each other along an interface (the outer surface of 1 that 2 contacts).
Maeda et al. does not disclose that the interface is an integrally-molded interface.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the interface 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 process of making the interface and make the interface as an integrally-molded interface, the interface 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, Maeda et al. discloses that the second member does not cover both end surfaces of the first member (as shown in Figure 6a, 2 does not extend cover the axial ends of 1).
Regarding claim 6, Maeda et al. discloses a wheel comprising a wheel main body (5) and a plurality of rollers (3; see Figure 1a) rotatably attached to an outer circumference of the wheel main body, wherein at least a roller in the plurality of rollers includes a first member (1) having a through hole (the hole through 1 that 9 passes through) into which a support shaft (9) is inserted and a second member (2) that covers an outer circumference surface of the first member; and
wherein the first member and second member are in continuous contact with each other along an interface (the outer surface of 1 that 2 contacts).
Maeda et al. does not disclose that the interface is an integrally-molded interface.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the interface 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 process of making the interface and make the interface as an integrally-molded interface, the interface 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 8, Maeda et al. discloses that the second member is provided at a position where it does not come in contact with the wheel main body to which the support shaft is attached (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Maeda et al. discloses the wheel according to claim 6 being an omni wheel (see the machine translation of the Abstract) or a mecanum wheel.
Regarding claim 10, Maeda et al. discloses that the second member does not cover both end surfaces of the first member (as shown in Figure 6a, 2 does not extend cover the axial ends of 1).
Regarding claim 15, Maeda et al. discloses that the second member is provided at a position where it does not come in contact with the wheel main body to which the support shaft is attached (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Maeda et al. discloses the wheel main body is at least part of an omni wheel (see the machine translation of the Abstract) or a mecanum wheel.
Regarding claim 17, Maeda et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a wheel (A) comprising a wheel main body (5); and
at least one roller (3) rotatably attached to an outer circumference of the wheel main body,
wherein the at least one roller includes a first member (1) and a second member (2), the first member having a through hole (the hole through 1 that 9 passes through) into which a support shaft (9) is inserted, and the second member being adapted to cover an outer circumference surface of the first member (see Figure 2); and
wherein the first member and second member are in continuous contact with each other along an interface (the outer surface of 1 that 2 contacts).
Maeda et al. does not disclose that the interface is an integrally-molded interface.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the interface 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 process of making the interface and make the interface as an integrally-molded interface, the interface 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 18, Maeda et al. discloses that the second member does not cover both end surfaces of the first member (as shown in Figure 6a, 2 does not extend cover the axial ends of 1).
Regarding claim 20, Maeda et al. discloses that the second member is provided at a position where it does not come in contact with the wheel main body to which the support shaft is attached (see Figure 2).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (JP 2002-29202 A; see provided machine translation) in view of Jin (KR 20190098418 A; see provided machine translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Maeda et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the second member does not cover outer circumference surfaces of both end portions of the first member.
Jin teaches a second member (3) that does not cover outer circumference surfaces of both end portions of a first member (3).
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 second member of Maeda et al. to not cover outer circumference surfaces of both end portions of the first member, as taught by Jin, for the purpose of reducing the amount of material on the roller thus reducing the weight of the roller.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (JP 2002-29202 A; see provided machine translation) in view of Naruse (DE 102019211937 A1; see provided machine translation).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Maeda et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the second member is provided at an approximately uniform thickness on the outer circumference surface of the first member.
Naruse teaches a roller (105; Figure 3) formed of a first member (105b) and a second member (105a) that is provided at an approximately uniform thickness (see the fifth paragraph on Page 5 of the provided machine translation) on the outer circumference surface of the first member.
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 second member of Maeda et al. to be provided at an approximately uniform thickness on the outer circumference surface of the first member, as taught by Naruse, for the purpose of providing a structure that allows for a consistent wear rate.
Claims 7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (JP 2002-29202 A; see provided machine translation) in view of Guile (US 7,318,628 B2).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 19, Maeda et al. discloses that one end side of the support shaft is secured to the wheel main body.
Maeda et al. does not disclose that the one end side is secured with an adhesive or secured by welding.
Guile teaches a roller with a support shaft (29) that is secured to a wheel body (30) by adhesive or welding (Column 8 / Line 62 – Column 9 / Line 1) for the purpose of providing a strong bond between the shaft and wheel body (Column 8 / Line 66 – Column 9 / Line 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 one end side of the support shaft of Maeda et al. to be is secured to the wheel main body with an adhesive or secured by welding for the purpose of providing a strong bond between the shaft and wheel body, as taught by Guile.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued on Page 6 of the Remarks that “Applicant has amended claim 1 to clarify the structural relationship associated with the integral molding. As amended, claim 1 recites that the first member and the second member "are in continuous contact with each other along an integrally-molded interface." Maeda does not teach or suggest this structural relationship. The Office Action maps Maeda's "first member" to element (1) and Maeda's "second member" to element (2). See Office Action, pp. 2-3. But the Office Action has not shown that Maeda discloses or suggests that those members "are in continuous contact with each other along an integrally-molded interface," as required by amended claim 1.”
Elements 1 and 2 are in continuous contact with each other as shown in Figures 1C, 2, and 6a-6c. There is no space or gap between the inner surface of 2 and the outer surface of 1 thus the structure is viewed as meeting the claim limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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