DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the first pawl surface of each of the one or more pawls is aligned parallel to its respective radial axis, and the second pawl surface of each of the one or more pawls is slanted relative to its respective radial axis” as recited in claim 19, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawing, Fig. 4c, appears to show that the first pawl surface of the pawl is slanted relative to its respective radial axis 160 and the second pawl surface of the pawl is aligned parallel to its respective radial axis 160.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
· A comma should be added after “nut” in Claim 11, line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
· The limitation “wherein the first pawl surface of each of the one or more pawls is aligned parallel to its respective radial axis, and the second pawl surface of each of the one or more pawls is slanted relative to its respective radial axis” as recited in claim 19 is not described by the specification.
6. 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.
7. Claims 14 and 21 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.
· Claims 14 and 21 are indefinite because the claims include multiple recitations of the same element without clarity as to whether the recited elements refer to the same element previously set forth in the claims or to an additional element. Please note the following: “a disengaging force” in claim 14, line 5; “A vehicle” and “A wheel fastening system” in claim 21, line 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Browning et al (US4591211; hereinafter “Browning”).
Regarding claim 1, Browning discloses a wheel fastening system for a vehicle (Abstract), the wheel fastening system comprising :a hub 26 on which a wheel 10 is mountable, the hub 26 comprising a threaded surface 40; a nut 14 which is engageable with the threaded surface 40 to fasten the wheel 10 to the hub 26 (Col. 4, lines 49-59; Figs. 2 and 5), wherein, when the nut 14 is engaged with the threaded surface 40 (Figs. 2, 5, 7, and 11), rotation of the nut 14 in a first direction about an axis 18 (Fig. 5) of the hub 26 results in tightening of the nut 14 on the hub 26 (Col. 8, lines 23-32); a pawl assembly (Fig. 6 discloses the pawl assembly; Col. 4, lines 4-5) arranged on a first one of the hub 26 and the nut 14 (Fig. 5), the pawl assembly comprising one (80 “pawl”; Col. 7, lines 34-36; Figs. 5, 8, and 9) or more pawls; and a ratchet 42 arranged on a second one of the hub 26 and the nut 14 (Fig. 5); wherein, when the nut 14 is engaged with the threaded surface 40, each of the one 80 or more pawls is configured to engage with the ratchet 42 to thereby allow rotation of the nut 14 about the axis 18 in the first direction (Col. 8, lines 23-38) and block rotation of the nut 14 about the axis 18 in a second, opposite direction (Col. 2, lines 49-52; Col. 8, lines 37-50).
Regarding claim 2, Browning discloses the pawl assembly (Fig. 6) is disposed on the hub 26 (Fig. 5), and the ratchet 42 is disposed on the nut 14, or each of the one or more pawls is configured to protrude through an aperture in the hub to engage with the ratchet.
Regarding claim 9, Browning discloses the pawl assembly (Fig. 6) further comprises a biasing element (96 “biasing of the spring”; Figs. 5 and 6; “The pawl 80 is biased by a helically coiled spring 96” per col. 6, lines 51-52; Col. 7, lines 3-7) configured to urge the one 80 or more pawls into engagement with the ratchet (“The spring 96 outwardly biases the pawl 80 toward the ratcheted surface.” per col. 6, lines 54-55) when the nut 14 is engaged with the threaded surface 40 on the hub 26 (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Browning discloses the pawl assembly (Fig. 6) further comprises a pawl housing (70 “wall” and 73 “cover plate”; Fig. 5); and each of the one 80 or more pawls is received in a respective channel (The channel receiving the pawl 80 is defined between the legs 71 of the wall 70, where the inwardly facing surfaces of the legs 71 guide radial movement of the pawl 80; Col. 6, lines 30-34) formed in the pawl housing (70 and 73), the channel being configured to guide movement of the pawl 80 in a radial direction (Refer to the radial direction in the below annotated Fig. 8) relative to the axis 18 of the hub 26 when the nut 14 is rotated about the axis 18 of the hub (Col. 6, lines 30-34; Col. 7, lines 8-10).
PNG
media_image1.png
792
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Browning
Regarding claim 12, Browning discloses each of the one 80 or more pawls is configured to be disengageable from the ratchet 42 (“When the lock bolt is depressed, it disengages the pawl blocking hole and permits radial shifting of the pawl, such that the pawl tip 91 can ride over the ratchet teeth 42 for rotation of the nut 14 in either direction.” per col. 2, lines 54-58; Figs. 8 and 9) when the nut 14 is engaged with the threaded surface 40 on the hub 26.
Regarding claim 15, Browning discloses the ratchet (Refer to the ratchet in the below annotated Fig. 8; Note that the ratchet and its reference character 42 were used for clarity and citation to the figures until the previous claims) comprises a plurality of evenly spaced teeth 42 disposed in a circular arrangement (Figs. 3 and 8-10; Col. 5, lines 51-54), each tooth of the ratchet having a first tooth surface and a second tooth surface (Refer to the first and second tooth surface in the below annotated Fig. 10); each of the one (80 and 91) or more pawls has a first pawl surface (Refer to the first pawl surface in the below annotated Fig. 8; Note that the pawl 80 including its tip 91 is read as the claimed one pawl) that is configured to contact and slide over the first tooth surface of one of the teeth 42 when the nut 14 is engaged with the threaded surface 40 and the nut 14 is rotated about the axis 18 of the hub 26 in the first direction (Col. 7, lines 42-44; Col. 8, lines 13-16); and each of the one (80 and 91) or more pawls has a second pawl surface (Refer to the second pawl surface in the below annotated Fig. 8) that is engageable with the second tooth surface (Refer to the second tooth surface in the below annotated Fig. 8) of one of the teeth 42 when the nut 14 is engaged with the threaded surface 40, whereby engagement of the second pawl surface of one of the one (80 and 91) or more pawls with the second tooth surface of one of the teeth 42 blocks rotation of the nut 14 about the axis 18 of the hub 26 in the second direction (Col. 7, lines 39-42).
PNG
media_image2.png
657
781
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Browning
PNG
media_image3.png
550
687
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 10 of Browning
Regarding claim 18, Browning discloses each of the one or more pawls (80 and 91) is arranged to extend along a respective radial axis (Refer to the respective radial axis in the below annotated Fig. 10) that is normal to the axis 18 of the hub 26 when the nut 14 is engaged with the threaded surface 40; and for each of the one (80 and 91) or more pawls, the first pawl surface and the second pawl surface are shaped such that the pawl is asymmetrical about its respective radial axis (Refer to the first and second pawl surface in the below annotated Fig. 10; “The side walls 114 and 116 of the tip 91 are formed with differing inclinations with respect to the radial direction of pawl movement” per col. 7, lines 34-39).
PNG
media_image4.png
590
809
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 10 of Browning
Regarding claim 20, Browning discloses the nut 14 comprises an outer face having a plurality of tool engagement features (Figs. 2-5; “the peripheral sides of which function as six torque transmitting faces in a well known manner” per col. 6, lines 11-13) arranged around a central axis of the nut 14 for applying a torque to the nut 14 about its central axis.
Regarding claim 21, Browning discloses a vehicle comprising a wheel fastening system according to claim l (Abstract; Fig. 1).
11. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Maudslay (GB190920453A).
Regarding claim 1, Maudslay discloses a wheel fastening system for a vehicle, the wheel fastening system comprising: a hub A on which a wheel is mountable (Fig. 1), the hub A comprising a threaded surface A2; a nut F which is engageable with the threaded surface A2 to fasten the wheel to the hub (Fig. 1), wherein, when the nut F is engaged with the threaded surface A2 (Figs. 1 and 2; Note that the figures show the nut engaged with the treaded surface on the hub), rotation of the nut F in a first direction about an axis (Refer to the axis in the below annotated Fig. 1) of the hub results in tightening of the nut on the hub (The locking sleeve F reasonably reads on the claimed nut because the sleeve F engages the threaded surface A2 of the fixed hub A and fastens detachable wheel D to the hub A. Maudslay further discloses that “the sleeve F screws on to the fixed hub A forcing the detachable wheel D into place and holding it securely” thereby disclosing that rotation of the nut F in a first direction tightens the wheel fastening arrangement); a pawl assembly K arranged on a first one of the hub A and the nut F (Fig. 1), the pawl assembly K comprising one or more pawls (Maudslay discloses two pawls as shown in Figs. 1 and 2); and a ratchet J arranged on a second one of the hub A and the nut F (Fig. 1; Maudslay discloses a ratchet and pawl locking arrangement, wherein “a ratchet J may be cut on the fixed hub A and pawls K be pivoted on the sleeve F being adapted to engage with the ratchet J”. Thus, the ratchet J is arranged on the hub A while the pawls K are arranged on the locking sleeve/nut F); wherein, when the nut F is engaged with the threaded surface A2, each of the one or more pawls K is configured to engage with the ratchet J to thereby allow rotation of the nut F about the axis in the first direction and block rotation of the nut F about the axis in a second, opposite direction (Maudslay discloses that the pawls K engage ratchet J while “overrunning as the sleeve is screwed up and preventing accidental unscrewing of the same”. This discloses that the pawls permit rotation of the sleeve F in the tightening direction while blocking rotation in the opposite loosening direction; Page 2, line 36-50; Page 3, lines 1-6).
PNG
media_image5.png
694
680
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 1 of Maudslay
Regarding claim 2, Maudslay discloses the pawl assembly K is disposed on the hub A, and the ratchet J is disposed on the nut F (Figs. 1 and 2; Note that the Examiner interprets pawl K and ratchet J as being arranged along a common radial axis of the hub and the nut), or each of the one or more pawls is configured to protrude through an aperture in the hub to engage with the ratchet.
Regarding claim 4, Maudslay discloses the pawl assembly comprises two or more pawls (Figs. 1-2 disclose two pawls K).
Regarding claim 5, Maudslay discloses the two or more pawls K comprise a pair of pawls (Fig. 2) which are arranged to extend radially relative to the axis of the hub (Figs. 1 and 2; Refer to the axis as discussed above with respect to claim 1) when the nut is engaged with the threaded surface on the hub.
Regarding claim 6, Maudslay discloses the pair of pawls K are arranged to extend in opposite directions relative to the axis of the hub (Refer to the axis in the below annotated Fig. 1; The pair of pawls K are arranged approximately 180 degrees apart relative to the axis) when the nut is engaged with the threaded surface on the hub.
Regarding claim 7, Maudslay discloses pair of pawls K are arranged to extend away from the axis of the hub A (The pawls K are arranged approximately 180 degrees apart and extend radially outward away from the axis, as shown in Figs 1 and 2) when the nut is engaged with the threaded surface on the hub.
Regarding claim 8, Maudslay discloses the ratchet J comprises a plurality of evenly spaced teeth disposed in a circular arrangement (Fig. 2); and the two or more pawls K comprise a first pawl (Refer to the first pawl in the below annotated Fig. 2) and a second pawl (Refer to the second pawl in the below annotated Fig. 2), the first pawl and the second pawl being arranged such that a first angular spacing (Refer to the first angular spacing in the below annotated Fig. 2) between adjacent teeth in the ratchet is not a factor of a second angular spacing between the first pawl and the second pawl (The ratchet J comprises a plurality of teeth in a circular arrangement including approximately 23 teeth, while the pair of pawls K are arranged approximately 180 degrees apart, such that the first angular spacing is not a factor of the second angular spacing, as shown in the below annotated Fig. 2. Accordingly, the limitation is met), the first angular spacing and the second angular spacing being relative to a circle centred at the axis of the hub (The first angular spacing and the second angular spacing are measured relative to a circle centered at the axis of the hub, as shown in the below annotated Fig. 2) when the nut is engaged with the threaded surface on the hub.
PNG
media_image6.png
595
860
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Maudslay
Regarding claim 12, Maudslay discloses each of the one or more pawls K is configured to be disengageable from the ratchet J (Page 3, lines 1-4; Fig. 2) when the nut is engaged with the threaded surface on the hub.
Regarding claim 13, Maudslay discloses each of the one or more pawls K includes a ratchet engaging portion configured to engage the ratchet (The leg portions of pawls K as annotated in the below Fig. 2 engaging ratchet J), and a tool receiving portion configured to receive a disengaging force from a tool (Projections L of the pawls K configured to be engaged by the bevelled spanner), the pawl being configured to disengage from the ratchet in response to application of the disengaging force to the tool receiving portion (The bevelled edge engages the projections L disengaging the pawls and allowing the sleeve F to be unscrewed; Page 3, lines 1-6; Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image7.png
642
617
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Maudslay
Regarding claim 14, Maudslay discloses the tool receiving portion comprises a slanted surface that slants towards the axis of the hub; and the pawl is configured to move radially relative to the axis of the hub in response to a disengaging force applied to the slanted surface along a direction parallel to the axis of the hub (Page 2, lines 49-50; Page 3, lines 1-6; Maudslay discloses that the peg or suitable spanner used to unscrew the sleeve is “bevelled along one side” and that the pawls K include projections L passing through the sleeve F, “so that when the spanner is slipped into place the bevelled edge engages the projections L disengaging the pawls and allowing the sleeve F to be unscrewed.” Accordingly, the bevelled edge of the spanner reasonably reads on the claimed slanted surface of the tool receiving portion. Further, the spanner is inserted generally along a direction parallel to the axis of the hub, and the slanted/bevelled surface converts the insertion force into a radially directed disengaging force against projections L of the pawls K, thereby causing the pawls K to move radially relative to the axis of the hub and disengage from ratchet J. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 15, Maudslay discloses the ratchet comprises a plurality of evenly spaced teeth disposed in a circular arrangement (Fig. 2), each tooth of the ratchet having a first tooth surface and a second tooth surface (Refer to the first and second tooth surface in the below annotated Fig. 2); each of the one or more pawls K has a first pawl surface that is configured to contact and slide over the first tooth surface of one of the teeth (Refer to the first pawl surface and first tooth surface in the below annotated Fig. 2) when the nut is engaged with the threaded surface and the nut is rotated about the axis of the hub in the first direction; and each of the one or more pawls has a second pawl surface that is engageable with the second tooth surface of one of the teeth (Refer to the second pawl surface and second tooth surface in the below annotated Fig. 2) when the nut is engaged with the threaded surface, whereby engagement of the second pawl surface of one of the one or more pawls with the second tooth surface of one of the teeth blocks rotation of the nut about the axis of the hub in the second direction (Fig. 2; Page 2, lines 44-50; The pawls K engage the ratchet J, overrunning as the sleeve F is screwed up and preventing accidental unscrewing, thereby allowing the pawls K to slide over the ratchet teeth in a first direction while blocking rotation in an opposite direction. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
PNG
media_image8.png
658
835
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Maudslay
Regarding claim 16, Maudslay discloses for each tooth of the ratchet J, the first tooth surface and the second tooth surface are shaped such that the tooth is asymmetrical about a radius of the circular arrangement extending through a tip of the tooth (Refer to the tip, radial axis, and first and second tooth surface and tip in the below annotated Fig. 2; Note that the radial direction shown in the below annotated Fig. 2 also corresponds to the claimed radius).
PNG
media_image9.png
695
826
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Maudslay
Regarding claim 17, Maudslay discloses for each tooth of the ratchet J, the second tooth surface is aligned along a respective radial direction of the circular arrangement, and the first tooth surface is slanted relative to the respective radial direction (Refer to the first and second tooth surface and the respective direction in the above annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Maudslay discloses each of the one or more pawls is arranged to extend along a respective radial axis (Refer to the radial axis in the below annotated Fig. 2; Note that the radial axis is drawn through the center portion of the leg of the pawl that engages with the ratchet) that is normal to the axis (Refer to the axis as discussed above with respect to claim 1) of the hub A when the nut F is engaged with the threaded surface; and for each of the one or more pawls K, the first pawl surface and the second pawl surface (Refer to the first and second pawl surface in the below annotated Fig. 2) are shaped such that the pawl is asymmetrical about its respective radial axis (The below annotated Fig. 2 discloses the pawl is asymmetrical about the radial axis).
PNG
media_image10.png
650
646
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Maudslay
Regarding claim 19, Maudslay discloses the first pawl surface of each of the one or more pawls K is aligned parallel to its respective radial axis, and the second pawl surface of each of the one or more pawls is slanted relative to its respective radial axis (Claim 19 is interpreted as best understood in view of the specification and drawings, wherein the first pawl surface corresponds to the slanted surface and the second pawl surface corresponds to the surface aligned parallel to the radial axis as annotated in the above Fig. 2; Note the drawing objection above).
Regarding claim 20, Maudslay discloses the wheel fastening system according to claim 1, wherein the nut F comprises an outer face having a plurality of tool engagement features arranged around a central axis of the nut F for applying a torque to the nut F about its central axis (Page 2, lines 49-50; Page 3, lines 1-4; The sleeve F is configured to engage a peg spanner for applying torque about the central axis, which inherently indicates that the outer face of the sleeve F includes a plurality of tool engagement features).
Regarding claim 21, Maudslay discloses a vehicle comprising a wheel fastening system according to claim l (Maudslay discloses a detachable road wheel for a vehicle including the wheel fastening system discussed above. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 11 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.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose a wheel fastening system for a vehicle.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON (TAE) CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights