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 .
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
· “portion290” should be replaced with --portion 290-- for clarity in para [0041], line 6.
· “connection points 360” should be replaced with --curved sections 360-- for clarity in para [0040], line 21 (on page 10).
· “the axle locking device 240” should be replaced with --the axle locking device 260-- for clarity in para [0041], line 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
· “an angle relative the longitudinal axis” should be replaced with --an angle relative to the longitudinal axis-- for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sheefel (US8944524B1).
Regarding claim 1, Sheefel discloses a hub 12 (Fig. 3) for a removable wheel assembly, comprising: a housing (Refer to the housing in the below annotated Fig. 3) with an axle bore 16 configured to receive an axle 11, an axle locking device (24 “finger” OR a combination of 24 and 50 “insertable cap”) received within the housing adjacent the axle bore 16, wherein the axle locking device 24 comprises: an axle locking portion (29 “protrusion”; Figs. 3-6) that extends into the axle bore 16 to interact with the axle 11 when in a first position (Fig. 6), and a resilient release portion (21 “free ends”; Figs. 3 and 4) extending from the axle locking portion 29, wherein at least a portion of the resilient release portion 21 is located outside the housing (Refer to the circle in the below annotated Fig. 3 indicated by dotted lines), the resilient release portion 21 configured to be displaced away (Fig. 4) from the axle bore 16 to displace the axle locking portion 29 outwardly from the axle bore 16 when in a second position (Col. 3, lines 34-40; Although Fig. 4 does not disclose the claimed second position, it illustrates that the locking device 24 is removable from the axle 11), wherein the axle 11 is locked in the hub 12 in the first position (Fig. 6), and wherein the axle 11 is released from the hub 12 in the second position (Col. 3, lines 34-40).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Sheefel
Regarding claim 2, Sheefel discloses the axle locking device (24 “finger” OR a combination of 24 and 50 “insertable cap”) further comprises a retaining portion (23 “connected end”; Col. 2, lines 36-40; Fig. 3) that secures the axle locking device (24 “finger” OR a combination of 24 and 50 “insertable cap”) within the housing (Refer to the housing in the above annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Sheefel discloses the retaining portion 23 has a longitudinal axis (Refer to the longitudinal axis in the below annotated Fig. 3) that extends substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis 13 (Fig. 3; Col. 2, line 28) of the axle bore 16.
PNG
media_image2.png
483
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Sheefel
Regarding claim 4, Sheefel discloses the release portion 21 extends at an angle relative the longitudinal axis of the retaining portion (Based on Fig. 4, Examiner interprets that the angle is made by the free ends 21 of the fingers 24 with respect to an inboard end 23 of the retaining portion; Refer to the angle in the below annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
509
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 of Sheefel
Regarding claim 6, Sheefel discloses the axle locking device (24 “finger” OR a combination of 24 and 50 “insertable cap”) is made from a single strip of material that is bent to create the axle locking portion and the resilient release portion (Sheefel discloses a pair of fingers 24, each finger including a connected end 23, a protrusion 29 corresponding to the axle locking portion, and a resilient release portion extending from the connected end to the free end 21. Each finger is interpreted as corresponding to the claimed axle locking device. Accordingly, although Sheefel does not expressly disclose forming each finger from a single strip of material that is bent to create the axle locking portion and resilient release portion, Sheefel discloses the structure implied by the recited product-by-process limitation. See MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 8, Sheefel discloses a removable wheel assembly (Figs. 1 and 2) for use in combination with an axle 11 having an annular groove 78 adjacent an end of the axle 11 (Fig. 2), comprising a wheel 10 with a hub assembly 12, wherein the hub assembly 12 comprises: a housing (Refer to the housing in the below annotated Fig. 3) with an axle bore 16 configured to receive the axle 11, and an axle locking device (24 “finger” OR a combination of 24 and 50 “insertable cap”) received within the housing adjacent the axle bore 16, wherein the axle locking device (24 “finger” OR a combination of 24 and 50 “insertable cap”) comprises: a retaining portion 23 configured to secure the axle locking device (24 “finger” OR a combination of 24 and 50 “insertable cap”) within the housing, a release portion 21, wherein at least a portion (Refer to the circle indicated by dash lines in the below annotated Fig. 3) of the release portion 21 is located outside the housing, and an axle locking portion 29 extending between the retaining portion 23 and the release portion 21, and configured to operatively interact with the annular groove 78 on the axle 11 when in a first position (Fig. 6), wherein the release portion 21 is configured to be displaced away from the axle bore 16 to displace the axle locking portion 29 outwardly from the annular groove 78 when in a second position (Col. 3, lines 34-40; Although Fig. 4 does not disclose the claimed second position, it illustrates that the locking device 24 is removable from the axle 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Sheefel
Regarding claim 9, Sheefel discloses the axle locking device (24 “finger” OR a combination of 24 and 50 “insertable cap”) is integrally formed of a resilient material that is shaped to create the retaining portion 23, the axle locking portion 29 and the release portion 21 (Sheefel discloses an integrally molded resilient finger 24 including a connected end 23 corresponding to the retaining portion, a protrusion 29 corresponding to the axle locking portion, and a resilient release portion extending from the connected end to the free end 21. Although Sheefel does not expressly describe the claimed product-by-process language, Sheefel discloses the structure implied by the recited product-by-process limitation. See MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 10, Sheefel discloses an axle locking device 24, comprising: a retaining portion 23 with a longitudinal axis (Refer to the longitudinal axis of the retaining portion in the below annotated Fig. 3), a release portion 21 extending at an angle (Based on Fig. 4, Examiner interprets that the angle is made by the free ends 21 of the fingers 24 with respect to an inboard end 23 of the retaining portion) relative the longitudinal axis of the retaining portion, and an axle locking portion 29 extending between the retaining portion 23 and the release portion 21, and configured to interact with an axle 11 when in a first position (Fig. 6), and wherein the release portion 21 is configured to be displaced to displace the axle locking portion into a second position (Col. 3, lines 34-40; Although Fig. 4 does not disclose the claimed second position, it illustrates that the locking device 24 is removable from the axle 11) where it does not interact with the axle 11, and wherein the axle locking device (24 “finger” OR a combination of 24 and 50 “insertable cap”) is integrally formed of a resilient material that is shaped to create the retaining portion 23, the axle locking portion 29 and the release portion 23 (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
483
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Sheefel
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. 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.
10. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheefel as applied to claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 above.
Regarding claim 5, Sheefel fails to disclose the angle is from about 130 to about 170 degrees.
Although Sheefel does not explicitly disclose that the angle from about 130 to about 170 degrees, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to optimize the angle to be from about 130 to about 170 degrees, since the angle is a recognized result-effective variable that would have been routinely optimized to achieve the desired engagement and release characteristics of the axle locking device.
11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheefel in view of Ollier (FR3036313A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 above.
Regarding claim 7, Sheefel fails to disclose the axle locking portion comprises at least one curved surface configured to contact the axle to facilitate displacement of the axle locking portion from the axle bore during insertion of the axle into the axle bore.
Ollier, however, teaches the axle locking portion 26/27 comprises at least one curved surface (Refer to the curved surface in the below annotated Fig. 4) configured to contact axle to facilitate displacement of the axle locking portion from the axle bore during insertion of the axle into the axle bore (Refer to the highlighted portions on page 2 of the attached English translated document of Ollier; Refer to the axle bore in the below annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
432
716
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 of Ollier
It would have been obvious to one having 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 axle locking portion of Sheefel by substituting its edge surfaces for the curved surface taught by Ollier, as a known alternative surface configuration, with the motivation to facilitate smoother insertion and displacement.
12. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheefel in view of Cummins (US6666526B1) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 above.
Regarding claim 12, Sheefel fails to disclose the retaining portion comprises a portion having one or more serrated edges.
Cummins, however, teaches a retaining portion comprises a portion having serrated edges (Refer to the retaining portion and serrated edges in the below annotated Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having 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 retaining portion 23 of the axle locking portion 24 of Sheefel by incorporating the serrated edges taught by Cummins as a known alternative edge configuration to provide additional resistance against unintended displacement of the retaining portion, thereby more securely retaining the axle locking device within the hub.
13. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheefel in view of Morris et al (US8590984B2; hereinafter “Morris”) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 above.
Regarding claim 13, Sheefel fails to disclose the axle locking device is made with stainless steel.
Morris, however, teaches a retaining element 430 of a hub assembly 400 is configured to operatively engage a groove 702 in an axle 700 and the retaining element comprises stainless steel (Col. 11, lines 62-67; Fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the axle locking device of Sheefel by fabricating from stainless steel as taught by Morris, as stainless is a well-known material for axle locking devices and similar mechanical components, with the motivation to improve corrosion resistance and durability while maintaining the desired resilient locking function.
14. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris as applied to claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 above.
Although Morris fails to disclose the axle locking device is integrally formed of a material having a tensile strength of about 50 to about 100 ksi and a maximum Brinell hardness of about 150 to about 275 as recited in claims 14 and 15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to optimize the tensile strength and maximum Brinell hardness of the material used to form the integrally formed axle locking device, as these material properties are result-effective variables that would have been routinely optimized to achieve the desired mechanical performance of the axle locking device.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. 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
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references, US666526B1 and FR3036313A1, disclose an axle locking device including a retaining portion, release portion, and axle locking portion.
17. 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
/Kip T Kotter/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights