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 spokes having a “thickness or cross-sectional area” that decreases continually from a “radial outer position at the outer rim to a radial inner position at the inner rim” as implied by the phrase “or vice versa”, as set forth in claim 4; the spokes having a variation in “material” as set forth in claims 5 and 10; and the wheel being “formed of a composition that varies along the length of the spokes” as set forth in claim 17; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2A-C, 3A-C, and 5A-B are incorrectly labelled. Namely, each individual figure should have its own proper label.
Figures 3A, 4B, 5A, and 5B all lack reference characters.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “52” has been used to designate both the spokes in Figure 3B and the width of the wheel in Figure 3C.
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. 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.
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: 210 (in Figure 3C).
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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal terms (see below). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprising”, “means”, and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “A” should be replaced with the term - -The- - prior to the term “wheel” at the beginning of line 1 of claims 2-20.
The term - -is- - should be inserted prior to the term “radiused” in line 2 of claim 13.
These corrections are for grammatical and/or antecedent clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 10, and 17 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 5 and 10 set forth that a “material” of the spokes may vary along the length thereof. Claim 17 sets forth that the “composition” of the wheel may vary along the length of the spokes. However, such a feature is not shown in the drawings, nor explicitly described in the specification. Therefore, this limitation is not enabled.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 2 and 4 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what element of the invention is being referred to by the term “its”.
Claim 5 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what elements of the invention are being referred by the terms “their” and “they”.
Claim 20 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the limitation that the inner and outer spokes are “radially offset”. Namely, by their very nature, radially inner spokes are “radially offset” from radially outer spokes. It appears that the Applicant is attempting to claim that the inner and outer spokes are “circumferentially offset” from one another.
The term “small” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” 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 quantitative or qualitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the force required to bring the knees into contact" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “between 3 and 50cm”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 10 and 40cm”, and also recites “most preferably between 18 and 28cm” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 and 5-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cislo (3,219,090).
Per claim 1, Cislo shows wheel 1 having an inner hub 5 that connects to an axle, an outer rim 3 that engages the ground, and a plurality of spokes 7 extending between the hub 5 and the rim 3. The spokes 7 are flexible.
Per claim 2, a thickness or cross-sectional area of the spokes 7 varies along the length thereof (column 2, lines 20-25).
Per claim 3, the spokes 7 have a thickness that decreases from a radially inner position to a radially outer portion. Namely, the inner spoke end 33 is disclosed as “gradually thickening” as the end blends into the hub 5 (column 2, lines 23-25), thus meaning that the thickness of the inner spoke end 33 decreases from a thick portion at the junction with the hub 5 to a thinner portion radially outwardly thereof.
Per claim 5, the variation in thickness of the spokes 7 provides a “two stage suspension effect” (namely, the spokes 7 have a first shape when unloaded, and a second shaped when loaded).
Per claim 6, under a first load, any deformation of the spokes 7 is in a radially outer region between the rim 3 and an annular shape between the rim 3 and the hub 5.
Per claim 7, the annular shape is a circle.
Per claim 8, the variation in thickness of the spoke 7 results in the formation of a knee when the spoke 7 deforms.
Per claim 9, the defined knee contacts an adjacent spoke 7 (see Figure 3 and/or 5).
Per claim 10, when the knee contacts the adjacent spoke 7, the remainder of the spoke 7 will contact the remainder of the adjacent spoke if the force acting on the wheel 1 exceeds a defined threshold higher than the force required to bring the knee into contact with the adjacent spoke 7.
Per claim 11, each spoke 7 connects to the inner hub 5 at a first circumferential position, and to the outer rim 3 at a second different circumferential position such that the spoke 7 is sloped therebetween to define an acute angle between a tangent to the hub 5 or rim 3.
Per claims 12-13, the connection between the spokes 7 and the rim 3 and hub 5 is radiused.
Per claims 14-15, the wheel 1 is unitary.
Regarding claims 14-15, the limitation that the wheel 1 is “moulded” is a method limitation in a product claims, and therefore receives no patentable weight (see MPEP 2113).
Per claim 16, the wheel 1 is a uniform composition throughout.
Per claim 17, the wheel 1 may be formed of a composition that varies along the length of the spokes (column 2, lines 39-41).
Claim(s) 1-2 5-8, 12-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohm (6,615,885).
Per claim 1, Ohm shows wheel 10 having an inner hub 30 that connects to an axle, an outer rim 46 that engages the ground, and a plurality of spokes 20 extending between the hub 30 and the rim 46. The spokes 20 are flexible.
Per claim 2, a thickness or cross-sectional area of the spokes 20 varies along the length thereof (the spokes are thicker at connections 22 and 24 to the hub and rim, respectively, than along the central portion 26 thereof).
Per claim 5, the variation in thickness of the spokes 20 provides a “two stage suspension effect” (namely, the spokes 20 have a first shape when unloaded, and a second shaped when loaded).
Per claim 6, under a first load, any deformation of the spokes 20 is in a radially outer region between the rim 46 and an annular shape between the rim 46 and the hub 30.
Per claim 7, the annular shape is a circle.
Per claim 8, the variation in thickness of the spoke 20 results in the formation of a knee when the spoke 20 deforms.
Per claims 12-13, the connection between the spokes 20 and the rim 46 and hub 30 is radiused.
Per claims 14-15, the wheel 10 is unitary.
Regarding claims 14-15, the limitation that the wheel 10 is “moulded” is a method limitation in a product claims, and therefore receives no patentable weight (see MPEP 2113).
Per claim 16, the wheel 10 may have a uniform composition throughout.
Per claim 18, the wheel 10 has a diameter between 3 and 50cm (column 3, lines 24-25).
Per claim 19, the wheel 10 includes a first annular region of radially inner spokes 20, and a second annular region of radially outer spokes 52, with an intermediate rim 44 therebetween.
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cislo. Cislo does not disclose the diameter of the wheel 1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date or the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the wheel of Cislo with a diameter suitable for the size of the vehicle on which the wheel is to be used, with the purpose of allowing the wheel to support the intended loads to be imparted thereon without failing during use.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cislo as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-18 above, and further in view of Craig (1,055,447).
Cislo does not show or disclose the thickness of the spokes decreasing continuously from a radially inner position at the connection with the inner hub to a radial outer position at the connection with the outer rim.
Craig teaches the use of a wheel having spokes 21 with a thickness that decreases continuously from a radially inner position at the connection with the inner hub 14 to a radial outer position at the connection with the outer rim 10.
Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date or the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the spokes with a thickness in the manner taught by Craig, as a substitute equivalent configuration, dependent upon the desired resiliency and load handling characteristics of the wheel.
Claim(s) 20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohm as applied to claims 1-2, 5-8, 12-16, 18-19 above, and further in view of Lung et al (2020/0376789).
Ohm shows the radially inner spokes 20 being “radially offset” from the radially outer spokes 52. However, Ohm does not show the radially inner spokes 20 being “circumferentially offset” from the radially outer spokes 52.
Figure 4A of Lung et al teaches the use of a wheel 1101 having a plurality of radially inner spokes (located between adjacent openings 118B) that are “circumferentially offset” from a plurality of radially outer spokes (located between adjacent openings 118A) with an intermediate rim therebetween.
Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date or the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the radially inner and outer spokes of Ohm “circumferentially offset” from each other, as a substitute equivalent configuration, dependent upon the desired resiliency and load handling characteristics of the wheel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show wheels having flexible spokes extending between a hub and rim.
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