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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the wheel assembly as set forth in claim 6 in the reply filed on 8 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8, 12-13, and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8 July 2026.
It should be noted that the Applicant elected claims 1-6 and 8-16 in the aforementioned reply. However, claims 8, 12-13, and 16 are drawn to non-elected inventions (namely an elongate arm and elongate rod/pin). Therefore, these claims are included in the withdrawn claims as mentioned above.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) have been considered by the examiner.
It should be noted that the crossed out IDS, filed 20 October 2025, is a duplicate of the IDS filed 30 January 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 0816.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0001] fails to denote that the parent application has matured into a US Patent.
Paragraphs [0081] through [00214] are written in claim form, with the term “claim(s)” replaced with the term “clause(s)”. The paragraphs should either be rewritten in narrative form, or removed from the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 is 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.
The term “similar” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No qualitative or quantitative limitations have been provided to clearly define this 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holt et al (2018/0312,001).
Per claims 1 and 9, Figure 6 of Holt et al shows an assembly 200 including an apertured article 210 including a body having an aperture 212 therein. The aperture 212 includes an outer periphery (defined by grooves 214) coinciding with a first reference circle with a first radius, and an inner periphery coinciding with a second reference circle having a second radius, with the second radius being less than the first radius. The inner periphery of the aperture 212 is defined by a plurality of elongated arc shaped surfaces concentric with the first and second reference circles. The outer periphery of the aperture 212 is defined by a plurality of elongated arc shaped surfaces concentric with the first and second reference circles. The aperture 212 extends through the body of the apertured article 210 from a first side to a second side.
Per claims 2 and 14, a splined shaft 222 engages with the aperture 212 with a transverse cross-section area bounded by a shape that substantially corresponds to the shape of the perimeter of the aperture 212.
Per claims 3 and 15, the shaft 222 is a cylindrical body that slidably engages the aperture 212 and has a transverse cross-sectional area bounded by a perimeter that defines a circle with a circumference that only engages the plurality of inner peripheral surface of the aperture 212.
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(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (5,964,008).
Per claims 1 and 9, Figures 3-4 of Lim shows an assembly including an apertured article 120 including a body having an aperture 121 therein. The aperture 121 includes an outer periphery coinciding with a first reference circle with a first radius, and an inner periphery coinciding with a second reference circle having a second radius, with the second radius being less than the first radius. The inner periphery of the aperture 121 is defined by a plurality of elongated arc shaped surfaces concentric with the first and second reference circles. The outer periphery of the aperture 121 is defined by a plurality of elongated arc shaped surfaces concentric with the first and second reference circles.
Per claims 2 and 14, a splined shaft 110 engages with the aperture 121 with a transverse cross-section area 111 bounded by a shape that substantially corresponds to the shape of the perimeter of the aperture 121.
Per claims 5 and 10, the transverse cross-sectional area of the apertured article 120 is bounded by a perimeter defining a shape (i.e. a circle) that differs from the shape formed by the perimeter of the aperture 121 (i.e. a spline or gear).
Per claims 6 and 11, the apertured article 120 is a wheel.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Figures 3-4 of Lim do not show the aperture 121 extending through the apertured article (wheel) 120 from a first side to a second side. However, Figure 2 of Lim teaches that such a configuration is known in the art. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the wheel of Lim such that the aperture extends completely through the body thereof, as a substitute equivalent configuration, allowing the wheel to be secured to the shaft by a circlip (see element 54 in Figure 2), thus allowing easy removal of the wheel in the event of maintenance or replacement.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,813. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims fully encompass the pending claims. Therefore, it is obvious that the Applicant is claiming the same invention in different and/or broader terms.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show splined connections between two elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights