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) 5 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 5 the limitation “axis along which the central shaft is elongated” is unclear because it was not previously established that the central shaft was elongated and it is not made clear that that limitation is being introduced here or if its introduction was omitted elsewhere. Amending the claim to introduce that the central shaft is elongated about an axis would overcome this rejection.
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) 1-7, 9, 10, & 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosin et al. (US 4019789 A, herein after referred to as Rosin) in view of Olson (US 4693698 A).
Regarding claim 1 Rosin teaches a trolley wheel for use in a conveyor system (FIG. 1: 10; abstract), the trolley wheel comprising a central shaft (FIG. 4: 14), a wheel body (FIG. 1: 12), first and second rows of ball bearings (FIG. 3: 60), and an inner race (FIG. 3: 17b & 19b), the wheel body defining a central rim with opposed first and second sides that respectively define first and second outwardly-angled outer race tracks (FIG. 4: depicted with 17b & 19b), the inner race defining first and second inwardly-angled inner race tracks (FIG. 6 & 7: 88 & 89), such that the first row of ball bearings is configured to roll between the first inwardly-angled inner race track and the first outwardly-angled outer race track (FIG. 6: depicted), and the second row of ball bearings is configured to roll between the second inwardly-angled inner race track and the second outwardly-angled outer race track (FIG. 6: depicted). However, Rosin does not teach the wheel body and the inner race both comprising polymer in combination with the trolley wheel being devoid of a metal inner race and being devoid of a metal outer race.
However, Olson does teach the use of polymer rather than metal races (column 6, lines 25-36). 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 a polymer race as taught by Olson in order to prevent accelerated track wear.
Regarding claim 2 Rosen as modified above teaches that the inner race is a split inner race consisting of first and second annular inner race bodies mounted side-by-side on the central shaft (Rosin, FIG. 4: 17 & 19), but does not explicitly teach the central shaft having opposed first and second ends, the first end of the central shaft having an enlarged head, the first annular inner race body being adjacent to the enlarged head of the central shaft, and the trolley wheel being devoid of a retainer hub alongside the second annular inner race body. However, it has been held that making integral and making separable involves only routine skill in the art, and so 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 made the central shaft (FIG. 7: 85), bushing (FIG. 7: 95 & 96), and outer race (FIG. 7: 88 & 89) separate and integrated until they met the limitations of the claim in order to achieve a desired balance of ease and cost of manufacture and repair.
Regarding claim 3 Rosen as modified above teaches that the trolley wheel is mounted on a trolley bracket, such that that the second annular inner race body is carried directly alongside the trolley bracket (FIG. 1: 11).
Regarding claim 4 Rosen as modified above teaches that the first and second annular inner race bodies mounted side-by-side on the central shaft are mounted thereon solely by a press fit of the first and second annular inner race bodies on the central shaft (FIG. 6: depicted). However, should it be reasoned that FIG. 6 does not teach mounting as claimed above, official notice is taken that press fit mounting is commonly known in the art. 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 a press fit solely to mount the first and second annular inner race bodies on the central shaft as claimed in order to simplify manufacture.
Regarding claim 5 Rosen as modified above does not explicitly teach that the inner race has a first thickness, the wheel body has a second thickness, and the first thickness is greater than the second thickness, the first and second thicknesses measured along a rotation axis along which the central shaft is elongated. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rosen as modified above to use a first thickness greater than a second thickness as claimed, so as to achieve an optimal rolling friction, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 6 Rosen as modified above does not explicitly teach that the inner race comprises a first polymer, the wheel body comprises a second polymer, and the first polymer is a different polymer than the second polymer, merely teaching that the races are “a polymer” (Olson) and that the wheel is “a plastic wheel” (Rosin). However, 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 used a different polymers for the races than used for the wheel in order to achieve the best cost and durability for all components.
Regarding claim 7 Rosin does not explicitly teach that the first polymer comprises ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene however official notice is taken that ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) is commonly known in the art as a polymer suitable for bearings; 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 used UHMWPE as the polymer for the first polymer in order to reduce rolling friction and increase durability.
Regarding claim 9 Rosin as modified above teaches that the inner race is a split inner race comprising first and second annular inner race bodies (Rosin, FIG. 4: 17 & 19, but does not explicitly teach the first and second annular inner race bodies both being machined polymer bodies, whereas the wheel body is an injection molded polymer body. However, it would have been obvious to manufacture the wheel and the race bodies with whatever combination of machining and injection molding was desirable because machining and injection molding are both commonly known ways to manufacture polymers and it would be obvious to use whatever manufacturing techniques achieved the optimal dimensional tolerances and costs.
Regarding claim 10 Rosin as modified above teaches a split inner race comprising first and second annular inner race bodies, the first annular inner race body being carried against the second annular inner race body at an interface therebetween (Rosin, FIG. 4: depicted with 17 & 19 interfacing with 14), the interface lying in a plane that passes through the second row of ball bearings (Rosin, FIG. 4: depicted with horizontal or angled plane).
Regarding claim 14 Rosin as modified above teaches that the trolley wheel consists of the central shaft, the wheel body, the first and second rows of ball bearings, and the inner race (Rosin, FIG. 1-7: depicted).
Regarding claim 15 Rosin as modified above does not explicitly teach that the wheel body and the inner race are both formed of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, however official notice is taken that ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) is commonly known in the art as a polymer/plastic suitable for bearings and wheels; 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 used UHMWPE as the polymer for the race and the plastic for the wheel in order to reduce rolling friction and increase durability.
Regarding claim 16 Rosin as modified above does not explicitly teach that the wheel body and the inner race each have a dynamic coefficient of friction that is less than 0.25. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel body and the inner race to have a dynamic coefficient of friction less than 0.25, so as to achieve optimal efficiency, quietness, and long working life, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17 Rosin as modified above teaches that the central shaft is elongated along a rotation axis (Rosin, FIG. 6: depicted), and a radial axis perpendicular to the rotation axis passes midway between the first and second rows of ball bearings (Rosin, FIG. 6: depicted), the first inwardly-angled inner race track and the first outwardly-angled outer race track being aligned along a bearing angle, such that the bearing angle is offset from the radial axis by an acute angle (Rosin, FIG. 6: depicted).
Regarding claim 18 Rosin as modified above teaches that the acute angle is between 30 degrees and 60 degrees (Rosin, FIG. 6: depicted).
Regarding claim 19 Rosin as modified above teaches that the central rim has a butte configuration characterized by: (i) a flat top facing radially inwardly toward the inner race, and (ii) first and second sides that extend into divergent first and second curves respectively defining the first and second outwardly-angled outer race tracks (Rosin, FIG. 4: depicted with substantially flat top).
Regarding claim 20 Rosin as modified above teaches that the inner race is a split inner race comprising first and second annular inner race bodies, and an entirety of the flat top of the central rim’s butte configuration is located directly radially outward of the first annular inner race body (Rosin, FIG. 4: depicted with races 17 & 19 and butte at the tip of 14 being more radially out from the central shaft than the tip of either 17 or 19).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosin et al. (US 4019789 A, herein after referred to as Rosin) in view of Olson (US 4693698 A) and further in view of Kelly (US 20190106919 A1).
Regarding claim 8 Rosin as modified above does not explicitly teach the second polymer comprises polyoxymethylene.
However, Kelly does teach the use of a polyoxymethylene wheel. 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 a polyoxymethylene wheel because Rosin as modified above does not teach a specific plastic to use for the wheel and POM is suitable for the task.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosin et al. (US 4019789 A, herein after referred to as Rosin) in view of Olson (US 4693698 A) and further in view of McLean (US 4541786 A).
Regarding claim 11 Rosin as modified above teaches that the first and second rows of ball bearings are devoid of a ball bearing retainer (none taught), but not that the first and second rows of ball bearings comprise non-metal ball bearings.
However, McLean does teach the use of non-metal ball bearings (abstract). 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 ceramic ball bearings as taught by McLean in order to improve the hardness and durability of the ball bearings.
Regarding claim 12 Rosin as modified above teaches that the non-metal ball bearings are formed of ceramic (McLean, abstract).
Regarding claim 13 Rosin as modified above teaches that the trolley wheel is characterized by having a wheel face consisting of, moving radially outwardly, a circular metal face portion defined by the metal of the central shaft, an annular polymer inner face region defined by the polymer of the inner race, and an annular polymer outer face region defined by the polymer of the wheel body, and wherein a gap exists between the annular polymer inner face region and the annular polymer outer face region, such that the first row of ball bearings defines ceramic ball bearing surfaces that are exposed through the gap at the wheel face (result of the above combination, see in particular Rosin FIG. 1-7), but Rosin as modified above does not explicitly teach that the central shaft is formed of metal. However, metal is used elsewhere in Rosin and so Rosin teaches that metal is suitable to use in trolley wheel construction. 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 made the central shaft out of metal in order to provide high strength and durability where not specific material was otherwise taught.
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosin et al. (US 4019789 A, herein after referred to as Rosin) in view of Olson (US 4693698 A) and further in view of Sibley et al. (US 5066145 A, herein after referred to as Sibley).
Regarding claim 21 Rosin as modified above does not explicitly teach that the polymer of the inner race comprises a lubricant additive. However, Sibley does (column 3, lines 44-55). 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 used a polymer with a lubricant additive in order to reduce friction and extend the life of the races.
Regarding claim 22 Rosin as modified above teaches that the polymer of the wheel body is devoid of the lubricant additive (no lubricant additive is taught for this).
Regarding claim 23 Rosin as modified above teaches a transfer film on the first and second outwardly-angled outer race tracks, the transfer film comprising the lubricant additive (result of the above combination).
Regarding claim 24 Rosin as modified above teaches that the lubricant additive is selected from the group consisting of molybdenum disulfide, tungsten disulfide, graphite, calcium stearate, polytetrafluoroethylene, and oil (Sibley, column 3, lines 44-55).
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 trolley wheels 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