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 § 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 24 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.
Claim 24 is indefinite due to the fact that the term “via” is generally narrative and fails to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
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, 9-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US12337616B2, Kemeny, hereinafter Kemeny) Further-in-view-of (FIV) (DE19905954A1, Klaus Kleinhoff, hereinafter Klienhoff).
Regarding Claim 1, Kemeny teaches a wheel assembly comprising: an inner rim; an outer rim surrounding the inner rim; a plurality of gas springs coupled between the inner and outer rims (Kemeny, paragraph 11, line 2). A tread assembly is carried by the outer rim (paragraph 0086, line 1).
Kemeny fails to teach an inner resilient material layer carried by an outer circumferential surface of the outer rim, and an outer metallic layer carried by the inner resilient material layer to rotatably contact a ground surface.
However, Kleinhoff teaches a wheel contact surface carried by the outer rim and comprising an (rubber springs) inner resilient material layer (Paragraph 0054, line 3, Figure 1 see below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny to incorporate the teachings of Klienhoff to add a resilient layer between the inner and outer rims to reduce noise and vibration.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the wheel assembly of claim 1 and Klienhoff further teaches a tread assembly (paragraph 0001, line 1, see above) comprises a metallic tread support carrying the inner resilient material layer (rubber) and the outer metallic layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny to incorporate the teachings of Klienhoff to further add metallic tread to the resilient layer to make the wheel more durable.
Regarding Claim 10, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the wheel assembly of claim 9 and Kemeny further teaches the tread assembly comprises a clamping arrangement removably securing the metallic tread support to the outer rim (Paragraph 0088, line 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to further incorporate the teachings of Kemeny to add a clamping arrangement to facilitate removal for maintenance and replacement.
Regarding Claim 11, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the wheel assembly of claim 1. Klienhoff further teaches an inner resilient material layer of rubber (paragraph 0040, line 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to further incorporate the teachings of Klienhoff to make the resilient material layer rubber to reduce the transmission of structure-borne sound.
Regarding Claim 12, Kemeny, teaches a wheel assembly comprising: an inner rim; an outer rim surrounding the inner rim; a plurality of gas springs coupled between the inner and outer rims (paragraph 0012, line 1). Kemeny fails to teach a tread assembly carried by the outer rim and comprising an inner rubber layer carried by an outer circumferential surface of the outer rim, an outer metallic layer carried by the inner rubber layer to rotatably contact a ground surface as the wheel assembly moves along a path of travel, and a metallic tread support carrying the inner rubber layer and the outer metallic layer.
However, Kleinhoff teaches a tread assembly (paragraph 0001, line 1), carried by the outer rim and comprising an inner rubber layer carried by an outer circumferential surface of the outer rim (paragraph 0054, line 1, see fig. 1 below), an outer metallic layer to rotatably contact a ground surface (paragraph 0053, line 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny to further incorporate the teachings of Klienhoff to make a tread assembly with a rubber layer and an outer metallic tread. Doing so would reduce the transmission of structure-borne sound.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the wheel assembly of claim 12 and Kemeny further teaches the tread assembly comprises a clamping arrangement removably securing the metallic tread support to the outer rim (paragraph 0088, line 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to further incorporate the teachings of Kemeny to add a clamping arrangement to secure the tread support to the outer rim to make it easier to repair.
Regarding Claim 18, Kemeny teaches a method of making a wheel assembly comprising: coupling a plurality of gas springs coupled between inner and outer rims; and coupling a tread assembly to the outer rim, (paragraph 0016, line 1). Kemeny fails to teach the tread assembly comprising an inner resilient material layer carried by an outer circumferential surface of the outer rim, and an outer metallic layer carried by the inner resilient material layer to rotatably contact a ground surface as the wheel assembly moves along a path of travel.
However, Kleinhoff teaches a wheel with an outer tread assembly with an inner resilient material layer and an outer metallic layer outside (see fig above) to contact a running surface (paragraph 0046, line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny to incorporate the teachings of Klienhoff to add a resilient layer between the inner and outer rims to reduce noise and vibration.
Claims 2-4, 7, 13-16 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemeny FIV Kleinhoff, and (JP2019505432A, Kristen Damon hereinafter Damon).
Regarding Claim 2, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the wheel assembly of claim 1. Kemeny fails to teach the outer metallic layer comprises a plurality of corrugations. However, Damon teaches a wheel with a corrugated outer metal layer (see below fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to incorporate the teachings of Damon to make an outer metallic layer corrugated to make it flexible to absorb impacts.
PNG
media_image2.png
571
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the wheel assembly of claim 1. Kemeny FIV Klienhoff fail to teach an inner resilient material layer comprising a plurality of corrugations. However, Damon teaches a corrugated resilient material layer (see fig. 7 above, rubber layer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to incorporate the teachings of Klienhoff to make the resilient layer between the inner and outer rims corrugated to make it flexible to absorb vibrations and impacts.
Regarding Claim 4, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the wheel assembly of claim 1. Kemeny fails to teach the outer rim comprises a plurality of protrusions extending outwardly into the inner resilient material layer. However, Damon teaches protrusions extending into the inner resilient layer (see fig below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to incorporate the teachings of Damon to add protrusions into the resilient layer to improve traction.
PNG
media_image3.png
586
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the wheel assembly of claim 1. Kemeny FIV Klienhoff fails to teach the outer metallic layer comprises a plurality of protrusions extending inwardly into the inner resilient material layer. However, Damon teaches protrusions extending inwardly into the rubber layer (see fig. 7 below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to incorporate the teachings of Damon to add protrusions into the resilient layer to improve traction.
PNG
media_image4.png
571
626
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the wheel assembly of claim 12. Kemeny FIV Klienhoff fails to teach the outer metallic layer comprises a plurality of corrugations. However, Damon teaches a corrugated outer layer (see fig. 7 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to incorporate the teachings of Damon to make it corrugated to make it flexible to absorb vibrations and impacts.
Regarding Claim 14, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the wheel assembly of claim 12. Kemeny FIV Klienhoff fail to teach the inner rubber layer comprises a plurality of corrugations. However, Damon teaches a corrugated rubber layer (see fig. 7 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to incorporate the teachings of Damon to make it corrugated to make it flexible to absorb vibrations and impacts.
Regarding Claim 15, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the wheel assembly of claim 12. Kemeny FIV Klienhoff fails to teach the outer rim comprises a plurality of protrusions extending outwardly into the inner rubber layer. However, Damon teaches outer rim protrusions (see fig. 7 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to incorporate the teachings of Damon to add protrusions into the resilient layer to reduce slipping.
Regarding Claim 16, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the wheel assembly of claim 12. Kemeny FIV Klienhoff fails to teach the outer metallic layer comprises a plurality of protrusions extending inwardly into the inner rubber layer. However, Damon teaches protrusions into rubber layer from the outer metallic layer (see fig. 7 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to incorporate the teachings of Damon to add protrusions into the resilient (rubber) layer to reduce slipping.
Regarding Claim 19, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the method of claim 18. Kemeny FIV Klienhoff fails to teach the outer metallic layer comprises a plurality of corrugations. However, Damon teaches a corrugated outer layer (see fig. 7 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to incorporate the teachings of Damon to make the metallic outer layer corrugated to make it flexible to absorb vibrations and impacts.
Regarding Claim 20, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the method of claim 18. Kemeny FIV Klienhoff fails to teach the inner resilient material layer comprises a plurality of corrugations. However, Damon teaches a corrugated rubber layer (see fig. 7 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to incorporate the teachings of Damon to make the rubber layer corrugated to make it flexible to absorb vibrations and impacts.
Regarding Claim 21, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the method of claim 18. Kemeny FIV Klienhoff fails to teach outer rim comprises a plurality of protrusions extending outwardly into the inner resilient material layer. However, Damon teaches protrusions outwardly into the rubber layer (see fig. 7 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to incorporate the teachings of Damon to add protrusions into the resilient layer to aid in traction.
Regarding Claim 22, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the method of claim 18. Kemeny FIV Klienhoff fails to teach the outer metallic layer comprises a plurality of protrusions extending inwardly into the inner resilient material layer. However, Damon teaches an outer corrugated metal layer with protrusions into the rubber layer (see fig. 7 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to incorporate the teachings of Damon to add protrusions into the resilient layer to aid in traction.
Regarding Claim 23, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the method of claim 18 and Klienhoff further teaches coupling a tread assembly comprising a metallic tread support carrying the inner resilient material layer and the outer metallic layer (see fig below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to further incorporate the teachings of Klienhoff to couple the tread section the outer rim to make it easier to repair.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 24, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff, teach the method of claim 23 and Kemeny further teaches coupling the tread assembly comprises removably securing the metallic tread support to the outer rim via a clamping arrangement of the tread assembly (paragraph 0088, line 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff to further incorporate the teachings of Kemeny to add a clamping arrangement to secure the tread support to the outer rim to make it easier to repair.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemeny FIV Kleinhoff, Damon and (CN204915133U, Yang et al. herein after Yang).
Regarding Claim 6, Kemeny FIV Klienhoff and Damon, teach the wheel assembly of claim 4. Kemeny FIV Klienhoff and Damon fail to teach plurality of protrusions comprises a plurality of T-shaped protrusions. However, Yang (paragraph 007, line 2) teaches a plurality of uniform T-shaped “columns” into a rubber resilient layer. Since all of the applications are in the same art, wheels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Kemeny FIV Klienhoff and Damon to incorporate the teachings of Yang to make the protrusions into the resilient rubber layer T-shaped (see below) to reduce slipping and increase adhesion.
PNG
media_image5.png
321
308
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of the allowable subject
matter: The closest prior art of record is Damon, which discloses protrusions from the interior to the exterior into a rubber layer of claim 5. Rubber is a resilient material. However, Damon fails to disclose a “spiked” protrusion into a rubber layer from the exterior. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art could modify Damon to arrive at the claimed invention to include one without the benefit of hindsight.
Claim 8 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art of record is Yang which discloses t-shaped protrusions from the radially interior to the exterior direction into a solid rubber tire. Yang fails to disclose t-shaped protrusions into a separate resilient layer from the interior to the exterior. Also, a metallic tread with t-shaped protrusions into a rubber layer from the exterior is not disclosed. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art could modify Yang to arrive at the claimed invention to include one without the benefit of hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (CN102423995B, ZHOU, LIXIN), (US20240123769A1, Hird et al.) and (US11458759B2, KEMENY, ZOLTAN).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD BINNS whose telephone number is (571)272-9456. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, 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.
/HOWARD PATRICK BINNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights