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 or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The “first torsion spring … inserted into the hinge shaft” (emphasis added) from claim 7. (The drawings show the torsion spring positioned on the hinge shaft, not in the hinge shaft).
The “rotation motor … inserted into the hinge shaft” (emphasis added) from claim 10. (The drawings show the rotation motor positioned on the hinge shaft, not in the hinge shaft).
The “anti-slip member” configured to “surround the tire” from claim 12.
The drawings are further objected to for the following informalities:
Figs. 1, 3 and 6 contain a reference number 100 that does not contain a lead line.
Figs. 4 and 7 contain reference numbers 30, 43, 44, and 45 that do not contain a lead line.
Fig. 4 contains reference numbers 50, 51, and 53 that do not contain a lead line
Fig. 7 contains reference numbers 60, 61, and 63 that do not contain a lead line
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “30” has been used to designate both the first and second embodiment of the invention. Separate embodiments should have separate reference numbers to differentiate them.
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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to for using the term “provides”. It is recommended to change the term to “provide” for grammatical clarity.
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 7-11 and 14-15 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a first torsion spring … inserted into the hinge shaft” (emphasis added). The drawings and description do not support or describe a way for a torsion spring to be inserted into the hinge shaft. In order to advance prosecution, it is assumed the applicant meant the hinge shaft is inserted into the first torsion spring.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a rotation motor … inserted into the hinge shaft” (emphasis added) The drawings and description do not support or describe a way for a rotation motor to be inserted into the hinge shaft. In order to advance prosecution, it is assumed the applicant meant the hinge shaft is inserted into the rotation motor.
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 1-18 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 “reversibly rotating about an axis”. It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “reversibly rotating” (i.e. Is it intended to describe the direction of rotation relative to the wheel rotation? Is it simply meaning the anti-slip member can be rotated in both directions? Etc.)
Claim 2 uses the term “via”. Via is a generally narrative and indefinite term that does not impart a specific structural relationship between the components being described. As such it is unclear how the components are related to each other.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “surround” in claim 12 is used by the claim to mean “wrap partially around,” while the accepted meaning is “to enclose on all sides.” (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surround) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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 1-6, 10, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vice DE 19525004 C2.
Regarding claim 1, Vice discloses a vehicle wheel, comprising: a wheel disk comprising: a hub; a plurality of spokes extending from the hub in an outward radial direction; and a wheel rim 1 provided radially outside of the spokes; a hook-shaped anti-slip member 100 connected to the wheel disk so as to be capable of reversibly rotating about an axis 3 on the wheel rim so as to protrude radially outside of the wheel rim 1; and a driver 10 configured to drive the anti-slip member 100 to rotate about the axis 3. (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 2, Vice discloses the vehicle wheel of claim 1, wherein the anti-slip member 100 comprises: a first end 2 connected to the wheel disk via a connection forming the axis 3, and a second end 5, opposite to the first end 2, configured to protrude radially outside of the wheel rim 1 by rotation of the anti-slip member 100 at the first end. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 3, Vice discloses the vehicle wheel of claim 1, wherein a seating groove, formed in the wheel disk, is configured to accommodate the anti-slip member. (Figs. 1 and 3)
Regarding claim 4, Vice discloses the vehicle wheel of claim 3, wherein the seating groove comprises a rounded surface 7 in a hook-shape corresponding to the hook-shape of the anti-slip member. (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 5, Vice discloses the vehicle wheel of claim 3, wherein the seating groove extends in a radial direction in a spoke of the plurality of spokes. (Figs. 1 and 4)
Regarding claim 6, Vice discloses the vehicle wheel of claim 1, wherein the axis comprises a hinge shaft 3, of the anti-slip member, rotatably inserted into a radially outward portion of the wheel disk. (Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 10, Vice discloses the vehicle wheel of claim 6, wherein the driver comprises a rotation motor 10, which is connected to the hinge shaft 3 and configured to provide rotational force to cause the anti-slip member 100 to rotate to protrude radially outside of the wheel rim. (Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 12, Vice discloses the vehicle wheel of claim 1, further comprising: a tire provided radially outside of the wheel disk, wherein the anti-slip member 100 is configured to rotate to protrude radially outside of the wheel rim and to surround the tire. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 16, Vice discloses the vehicle wheel of claim 1, wherein the anti-slip member comprises a hinge shaft rotatably connected to the wheel disk, and wherein a thickness of a first end, of the anti-slip member, connected to the hinge shaft is thicker than a second end of the anti-slip member. (Fig. 2; the arm 2 is thicker than the portion 6 around the tire)
Regarding claim 17, Vice discloses a vehicle, comprising: a body; and the vehicle wheel of claim 1. (para. 1 of English translation)
Regarding claim 18, Vice discloses the vehicle of claim 17, wherein the driver comprises a rotation motor. (Fig. 3)
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vice DE 19525004 C2.
Regarding claim 13, Vice teaches the vehicle wheel of claim 1. Vice does not explicitly teach wherein the anti-slip member is formed one or more of plastic, steel, or steel coated with plastic. However, it is well known in the art to make anti-slip members and other wheel components out of steel or plastic. Official notice is hereby given. 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 anti-slip member out of steel, plastic, or plastic coated steel in order to meet the required strength and durability characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gross SE 1350762 A1 teaches an anti-skid attachment for wheels with elements that pivot with torsional springs and electric motors. Eugene et al. CH 536203 A teaches a wheel with anti-skid members.
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