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 § 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, 4-5, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemeth [US Pat # 4,106,583] in view of Manus [WO 2011151439].
Regarding claim 1: Nemeth discloses a wheel built-in power system for an electric golf bag trolley (see abstract), comprising a motor (32), and a worm wheel (108) engaged with an output worm (104) of the motor, a spindle (98) of the worm wheel being connected to a hub of any wheel of the electric golf bag trolley (see fig 1), and box body (94), the box body having a cavity for accommodating the worm wheel (108) and the output worm (104)
Nemeth does not shows that wherein the wheel built-in the power system is installed in a space formed inside the wheel, and a support base located on a rear side of the cavity, wherein an outer wall, facing away from the wheel, of the box body is provided with a connection groove used to be hinged to a connecting rod connecting a trolley body of the electric golf bag trolley, and wherein the motor is mounted on the support base. However Manus shows wherein the wheel built-in the power system is installed in a space formed inside the wheel (19), and a support base (21) located on a rear side of the cavity (see fig 3), wherein an outer wall, facing away from the wheel, of the box body (17) is provided with a connection groove used to be hinged to a connecting rod (18) connecting a trolley body of the electric golf bag trolley, and wherein the motor (4) is mounted on the support base (see fig 3).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have modified the wheel built-in power system taught in Nemeth reference with the teaching of Manus and have the wheel built-in power installed inside the wheel to reduce the overall size and make a compact system.
3. The wheel built-in power system for an electric golf bag trolley according to claim 1, wherein the motor is a brushless motor.
Regarding claim 4: Nemeth discloses further comprising a parking assembly (clutches) connected to an end of the output worm.
Regarding claim 5: Nemeth discloses, wherein the parking assembly comprises a friction plate (clutches) connected to the output worm, and a brake pad capable of locking the friction plate (“… Therein the cart includes individual wheel motors equipped with one-way clutches (the motors being coupled in parallel) which permits the wheels to travel at differing speeds while negotiating turns…”).
Regarding claim 11: Nemeth discloses wherein one end, away from the motor (32), of the box body is provided with a housing detachably connected with the box body.
Regarding claim 12: Nemeth discloses wherein a heat-radiating cavity is disposed outside the motor, a plurality of heat-radiating fins are disposed inside the heat-radiating cavity, and heat-radiating windows matched with the heat-radiating cavity are disposed in the box body.
Regarding claim 14: Nemeth discloses An electric golf bag trolley, using the wheel built-in power system for an electric golf bag trolley according to claim 1.
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemeth [US Pat # 4,106,583] in view of Wei [CN 205429957].
Regarding claims 6-9: Nemeth does not explicitly show wherein a pin hole is disposed in the output worm, and the friction plate is connected with the output worm through a bolt mounted in the pin hole. wherein the parking assembly further comprises a brake stator, the brake pad is located on an inner side of the brake stator, the friction plate is mounted on one side, facing the brake pad, of the brake stator, and a coil is wound inside the brake stator.
wherein return springs are mounted on one side, facing the brake pad, of the brake stator.
wherein guide pins parallel to the output worm are mounted on the brake stator, and guide notches matched with the guide pins are disposed in an outer ring surface of the brake pad.
However Wei shows wherein a pin hole (422) is disposed in the output worm (“… a worm wheel fixed on the shaft end and vertical to the long shaft of the hand, the hand shaft is fixed with the worm wheel engaged with the worm…”), and the friction plate (54) is connected with the output worm through a bolt (421) mounted in the pin hole (422). wherein the parking assembly further comprises a brake stator, the brake pad is located on an inner side of the brake stator (“… wherein the brake device also comprises the second brake pad on the other side friction piece and the brake sheet is sleeved on rotor of the second…”), the friction plate (54) is mounted on one side, facing the brake pad, of the brake stator (51), and a coil (423) is wound inside the brake stator.
wherein return springs (423) are mounted on one side, facing the brake pad, of the brake stator (see fig 8).
wherein guide pins (422) parallel to the output worm are mounted on the brake stator, and guide notches matched with the guide pins are disposed in an outer ring surface of the brake pad (“(“… a worm wheel fixed on the shaft end and vertical to the long shaft of the hand, the hand shaft is fixed with the worm wheel engaged with the worm…”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have provided the electric gold card taught in Nemeth with brake pad and friction plate fix to the shaft by pin hole and bolt to control the wheel rotation and apply brake when its needed.
PNG
media_image1.png
695
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
770
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
689
553
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights