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
1. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
· 353a and 353b in Figs. 32, 34
· 343´ in Fig. 35
· 516c˝ in Fig. 49, the reference character is shown in the bottom-right corner.
· 789 in Fig. 56
· 776b˝ in Fig. 58
· 841 in Fig. 59
· 1085´ in Fig. 66
· 1254´ in Fig. 78
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1758” has been used to designate both “a cylinder body” and “a cylinder mount”.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 18-25 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 18 recites the limitation "the hub" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
· Claim 18 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemeny (US 2020/0353774 A1) in view of Dixon et al (US 11279194 B2; hereinafter “Dixon”).
Regarding claim 1, Kemeny discloses a wheel assembly 30 to be coupled to a hub 21 of a vehicle 20 (Fig. 1), the wheel assembly 30 comprising: an inner rim 31 to be coupled to the hub 21 (Fig. 2) of the vehicle 20; an outer rim 33 surrounding the inner rim 31 (Fig. 2); a plurality of gas springs 50 operatively coupled between the inner rim 31 and the outer rim 33 to provide a gas suspension for relative movement between the inner rim 31 and the outer rim 33 (Abstract; para [0084]), each of the plurality of gas springs 50 comprising a cylinder body 51 and an associated piston 52 moveable therein (evident from Figs. 2-4) and dividing the cylinder body 51/551 into cylinder-side and piston-side gas chambers (Refer to the cylinder-side and piston-side gas chambers in the annotated Fig. 44 below; Note that the Examiner relies on this figure because it shows the internal structure of the cylinder body 51/551 of the gas spring 50),
PNG
media_image1.png
407
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 44 of Kemeny
but fails to disclose a respective gas damper mounted on an exterior of each gas spring and operatively coupled to the piston-side gas chamber.
Dixon, however, teaches a damper assembly 120 including a main damper assembly 122 and secondary damper assembly 124 as shown in Fig. 4 (Lines 43-60 of col. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified each gas spring of the wheel assembly of Kemeny by including a respective gas damper, as taught by Dixon, with a reasonable expectation of success in damping oscillations of the respective gas springs, thereby providing improved control of the relative movement between the inner and outer rims while maintaining a compact arrangement.
Regarding claim 2, Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, discloses the wheel assembly of claim 1 and Dixon further discloses the gas damper 124 comprises a damper cylinder body (Refer to the damper cylinder body in the annotated Fig. 4 below) having a gas port (Refer to the gas port in the below annotated Fig. 4; “The secondary working piston 68 is provided with suitable flow channels and valve mechanisms 70, such as ports and disc valves, for controlling the flow of fluid through the secondary working piston in a well-known manner” per lines 21-32 of col. 4; Note that the same valve mechanisms 70 is shown in both Figs. 2 and 4) therein coupled to the piston-side gas chamber (Refer to the piston-side gas chamber in the below annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
597
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 of Dixon
Regarding claim 3, Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, discloses the wheel assembly of Claim 2 and Dixon further discloses the gas damper 124 comprises a damping adjustment valve coupled to the gas port (Refer to the valve and gas port in the annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 5, Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, discloses the wheel assembly of Claim 1 and Kemeny further discloses each piston comprises a piston rod and a piston head coupled to an end of the piston rod (Refer to the piston rod and piston head in the annotated Fig. 44 below; Note that Dixon also discloses this limitation, as shown in the annotated Fig. 4 above, with respect to claim 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
438
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 44 of Kemeny
Regarding claim 7, Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, discloses the wheel assembly of Claim 1 and Dixon further discloses a cylinder mount 186 (“a connecting flange, bracket or any suitable connector, frame member, or structural element 186 or plurality of structural elements” per lines 55-57 of col. 5) coupling the respective gas damper 124 to a corresponding gas spring 122 in a piggy-back configuration (Fig. 4; Lines 43-60 of col. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, discloses the wheel assembly of Claim 1 and Kemeny further discloses each cylinder body 51/551 has a piston opening therein to permit passage of the piston therethrough (As shown in Fig. 44, the gas cylinder 551 includes the piston 552 disposed therein, which necessarily requires the piston opening through which the piston extends; Note that Dixon also discloses this limitation as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, discloses the wheel assembly of Claim 1 and Kemeny further discloses an outer ring 340 coupled to the outer rim 333 and defining a closable gap 341 with adjacent portions of the inner rim 331 (Fig. 32; Para [0127]).
Regarding claim 11, Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, discloses the wheel assembly of Claim 10 and Kemeny further discloses the plurality of gas springs 350 each has an operating stroke permitting the outer ring 340 to define a mechanical stop (Fig. 32; Para [0131]).
Regarding claim 12, the following limitations are disclosed by Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, as discussed above with respect to claims 1, 7, and 10: a wheel assembly to be coupled to a hub of a vehicle, the wheel assembly comprising: an inner rim to be coupled to the hub of the vehicle; an outer rim surrounding the inner rim; an outer ring coupled to the outer rim and defining a closable gap with adjacent portions of the inner rim; a plurality of gas springs operatively coupled between the inner rim and the outer rim to provide a gas suspension for relative movement between the inner rim and the outer rim, each of the plurality of gas springs comprising a cylinder body and an associated piston moveable therein and dividing the cylinder body into cylinder-side and piston-side gas chambers; a respective gas damper mounted on an exterior of each gas spring and operatively coupled to the piston-side gas chamber; and a cylinder mount coupling the respective gas damper to a corresponding gas spring in a piggy-back configuration.
Regarding claim 13, the following limitations are disclosed by Dixon as discussed above with respect to claim 2: each gas damper comprises a damper cylinder body having a gas port therein coupled to the piston-side gas chamber.
Regarding claim 14, the following limitations are disclosed by Dixon as discussed above with respect to claim 3: each gas damper comprises a damping adjustment valve coupled to the gas port.
Regarding claim 16, the following limitations are disclosed by Kemeny as discussed above with respect to claim 5: each piston comprises a piston rod and a piston head coupled to an end of the piston.
Regarding claim 17, the following limitations are disclosed by Kemeny as discussed above with respect to claim 8: each cylinder body has a piston opening therein to permit passage of the piston therethrough.
Regarding claim 18, the following limitations are disclosed by Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, as discussed above with respect to claim 1 discloses a method of making a wheel assembly comprising an inner rim to be coupled to the hub of the vehicle and an outer rim surrounding the inner rim, the method comprising: operatively coupling a plurality of gas springs between the inner rim and the outer rim to provide a gas suspension for relative movement between the inner rim and the outer rim, each of the plurality of gas springs comprising a cylinder body and an associated piston moveable therein and dividing the cylinder body into cylinder-side and piston-side gas chambers; and mounting a respective gas damper on an exterior of each gas spring and operatively coupled to the piston-side gas chamber.
Regarding claim 19, the following limitations are disclosed by Dixon as discussed above with respect to claim 2: each gas damper comprises a damper cylinder body having a gas port therein coupled to the piston-side gas chamber.
Regarding claim 20, the following limitations are disclosed by Dixon as discussed above with respect to claim 3: each gas damper comprises a damping adjustment valve coupled to the gas port.
Regarding claim 22, the following limitations are disclosed by Dixon as discussed above with respect to claim 7: coupling a cylinder mount to couple the respective gas damper to a corresponding gas spring in a piggy-back configuration.
Regarding claim 23, the following limitations are disclosed by Kemeny as discussed above with respect to claim 8: each cylinder body has a piston opening therein to permit passage of the piston therethrough.
Regarding claim 24, the following limitations are disclosed by Kemeny as discussed above with respect to claim 10: coupling an outer ring to the outer rim to define a closable gap with adjacent portions of the inner rim.
Regarding claim 25, the following limitations are disclosed by Kemeny as discussed above with respect to claim 11: the plurality of gas springs each has an operating stroke permitting the outer ring to define a mechanical stop.
9. Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22-25 above, and further in view of Semmens (WO9511392A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, discloses the wheel assembly of claims 5 and 8, but fails to disclose each piston comprises at least one seal carried by the piston head and a piston seal carried within the piston opening in sliding contact with the piston.
Semmens, however, teaches a piston 88/60 (Fig. 12) comprises at least one seal 90 (Fig. 12) carried by its piston head (Refer to the piston head in the annotated Fig. 12 below) and a piston seal 74 (Fig. 12) carried within a piston opening 72 (Fig. 12) in sliding contact with the piston 88/60.
PNG
media_image4.png
607
445
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 12 of Semmens
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas spring of Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, by incorporating the seals, as taught by Semmens, since the use of seals in piston assemblies is well-known for reducing leakage and preventing ingress of contaminants, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the operational reliability and service life of the assembly.
10. Claims 4, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22-25 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al (US 2010/0072009 A1; hereinafter “Yamazaki”).
Regarding claims 4, 15, and 21, Kemeny, as modified by Dixon, discloses the wheel assembly of claims 2 and 13 and the method of claim 19, but fails to disclose the damper cylinder body has a charging gas port therein.
Yamazaki, however, teaches a cylinder body 160 (Fig. 8) having a charging gas port 176 (Fig. 8) therein for charging a gas chamber 178 to a desired pressure (Fig. 8; Para [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the secondary damper assembly of Dixon by including a charging gas port, as taught by Yamazaki, since such a charging gas port is a conventional means for supplying compressed gas to the gas chamber and permitting the gas chamber to be charged to a desired pressure, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the desired gas pressure within the gas chamber.
Double Patenting
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12325264. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims and the patented claims substantially encompass the same subject matter. Namely, the pending claims appear to recite the same invention as the patented claims, with the corresponding limitations merely recited in a different order and distributed among different claims. Therefore, it is obvious that the Applicant is claiming the same invention in different and/or broader terms.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose a piston assembly including a secondary damper.
14. 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
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights