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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown (including identifying reference numerals) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The embodiment from claim 5 in which there are multiple main fluid pipes
The embodiment from claim 7 in which there are multiple secondary fluid pipes
the embodiment from claim 8 in which the “movable part comprises at least two secondary fluid pipes”
the “fitted assembly” from claims 1, 12, and 13
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are 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 “fitted assembly” is not adequately described or shown in the disclosure as filed. It is unclear if the “first component” and “second component” are a part of the “fitted assembly” or separate from it. Claims 12 and 13 make the “fitted assembly” seem to be a single component rather than an assembly. The group from claim 12 has elements which are generally not assemblies but are instead just single components (i.e. brake disc, spindle, second track widener) and so it is unclear what the “fitted assembly” would actually entail. Claim 13 states “the movable part is attached to the second component using an attachment system that is originally present on the vehicle and was previously intended for attaching the fitted assembly”. The disclosure as filed would then limit the “fitted assembly” to being a wheel or a second track widener because the described track widener assembly would only be able to be used between a wheel hub assembly and a wheel (connected to the existing wheel studs) without extensively modifying the vehicle suspension/wheel attachment point or the track widener itself.
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 1 and 3-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the guide system is positioned radially to the axis of rotation of the movable part in relation to the sealing system”. This statement does not impart a clear structural or positional relationship between the guide system and the sealing system, does not make grammatical sense and it is unclear what the statement is claiming (i.e. is the guide system radially inboard or outboard of the sealing system? Is the guide system at the same radial distance from the axis of rotation as the sealing system?). The figures show the guide system radially outboard of, and axially aligned with the sealing system but the claim language does not describe that. For the purpose of advancing prosecution and in light of the specification, it is assumed the applicant intended the limitation to be similar to the following: “wherein the guide system is positioned radially outward from the axis of rotation of the movable part in relation to the sealing system.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sealing system” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the widener” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “the secondary fluid pipe” (prior is at least one secondary fluid pipe) and “the widener” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 3, 4, and 12 recite the phrase “a group comprising:”. This is an improper Markush grouping because the term “comprising” leaves the groups in question open ended and so it is unclear if the components are limited to those listed or if the items listed in the group are merely examples (see MPEP 2173.05(h)). It is suggested to change the phrase to “a group consisting of:” in each claim to make it clear the group is closed. In order to advance prosecution, the groups will be treated as closed.
Claim 13 contains the limitation “the second component” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (prior to this instance it is introduced as “at least one second component”)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “wherein the guide system is in a group comprising:”. This phrase does not actually limit the invention because it essentially says the guide system falls within a certain group in addition to the types of bearings listed; it does not limit the guide system to any of the bearing types listed or even require the guide system to contain a bearing. It is assumed the applicant intended the phrase to read something along the lines of “wherein the guide system is an element (or comprises an element or consists of an element etc.) selected from a group consisting of:” which would require the guide system to contain a bearing of one of the types listed. It is further noted that “a group comprising:” also does not provide adequate limitation because the term “comprising” can allow for more than the elements listed to be in the group and so the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be accurately determined.
Claim 4 recites the phrase “wherein the sealing system is in a group comprising:”. This phrase does not actually limit the invention because it essentially says the sealing system falls within a certain group in addition to the types of seals listed; it does not limit the sealing system to any of the seal types listed. It is assumed the applicant intended the phrase to read something along the lines of “wherein the sealing system is an element (or comprises an element or consists of an element etc.) selected from a group consisting of:” which would require the sealing system to contain a seal of one of the types listed. It is further noted that “a group comprising:” also does not provide adequate limitation because the term “comprising” can allow for more than the elements listed to be in the group and so the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be accurately determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Finkle et al. US 20210101420 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Finkle discloses a track widener (abstract and para. 5 disclose the tire inflator can be a wheel spacer) comprising: a movable part 34 capable of being attached between a first component (wheel) and at least one second component (brake rotor), both of which can rotate about an axis of rotation of a fitted assembly of a vehicle, the movable part 34 having an axis of rotation intended to be coaxial with the axis of rotation of the fitted assembly, a static part 44 capable of being connected to at least one immovable element of the vehicle, a guide system 42a,42b for guiding the rotational movement between the movable part 34 and the static part 44, an airtightness system 36b,36c defining a chamber 43 between the movable part 34 and the static part 44, at least one main fluid pipe provided in the static part and opening into the chamber 43 on one side and to the outside of the track widener on the other side, and at least one secondary fluid pipe provided in the movable part 34 and opening into the chamber 43 on one side and to the outside of the track widener on the other side, wherein the guide system 42a,42b is positioned radially outward from the axis of rotation of the movable part 34 in relation to the sealing system 36b,36c. (Figs. 3-5)
Regarding claim 3, Finkle discloses the track widener according to claim 1, wherein the guide system is a bearing bush (para. 32: PTFE would be considered a bushing bearing type material).
Regarding claim 4, Finkle discloses the track widener according to claim 1 wherein the sealing system comprises O-rings (para. 30)
Regarding claim 7, Finkle discloses the track widener according to claim 1 wherein the minimum cross section of the secondary fluid pipe is same as the minimum cross section of a single main fluid pipe. (Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 12, Finkle discloses a vehicle comprising a track widener according to claim 1, fitted between a first component and a second component, both of which can rotate about an axis of rotation of a fitted assembly of the vehicle including a wheel and a brake disc. (Figs 1 and 13)
Regarding claim 13, Finkle discloses a method for attaching a track widener according to claim 1, between a first component and at least one second component, both of which can rotate about an axis of rotation of a fitted assembly of a vehicle, wherein the movable part is attached to the second component using an attachment system that is originally present on the vehicle and was previously intended for attaching the fitted assembly, the fitted assembly being rigidly attached to the rotatable part of the widener by a similar attachment system. (Abstract and para. 5 disclose the air inflation assembly can be a wheel spacer and Fig. 5 shows holes for existing wheel studs and secondary holes for new wheel studs to hold the wheel.)
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 5, 6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkle et al. US 20210101420 A1 in view of Schuermann EP 2647511 A2.
Regarding claim 5, Finkle teaches the track widener according to claim 1. Finkle does not teach wherein the minimum cross section of the main fluid pipe is between 10 and 200 mm2. Schuermann teaches a supply line with a diameter of approximately 10 mm (para. 6 of the English language translation) which would give the supply line a cross sectional area of approximately 31.4 mm2. Given that 10 mm is a fairly common air hose size, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a 10 mm main fluid pipe in order to allow adequate air flow with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Finkle and Schuermann teach the track widener according to claim 5. Finkle further discloses wherein the static part of the widener comprises a single main fluid pipe. (Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 9, Finkle teaches the track widener according to claim 1. Finkle does not expressly teach wherein a minimum cross section of each secondary fluid pipe is greater than 5 mm2. Schuermann teaches a supply line with a diameter of approximately 10 mm (para. 6 of the English language translation) which would give the supply line a cross sectional area of approximately 31.4 mm2. Given that 10 mm is a fairly common air hose size, and that Finkle shows the secondary fluid pipe to be the same diameter as the main fluid pipe, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a 10 mm secondary fluid pipe in order to allow adequate air flow with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Finkle teaches the track widener according to claim 1. Finkle does not expressly teach wherein a smaller axial dimension of the movable part between a first bearing face of the first component and a second bearing face of the at least one second component is less than 120 mm. Schuermann teaches a tire inflation rotary union that is 80 mm thick. Furthermore, a track widener that is more than 120 mm thick would be extremely detrimental to the drivability and longevity of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the track widener less than 120 mm thick in order to minimize the stress added to the vehicle as well as manufacturing costs with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art shows further examples of track wideners that allow a tire inflation system to be retrofitted onto a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX R PALMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm MST.
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) 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.
/AP/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights