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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “108” has been used to designate both the washer and the hub spoke in Figure 2.
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 do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1308 (as used in paragraph [0048] of the specification).
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: A comma - - , - - should be inserted following the terms “hub” and “bore” in line 3 of claim 1, and line 4 of claim 9. This correction is to make it clear that the wheel hub is rotatable about a main axis.
The term - -of- - should be inserted following the term “face” in line 3 of claim 11. This correction is for grammatical clarity.
The limitation “wherein the wheel hub includes a main axle bore rotatable about the main axis” in lines 17-18 and 24-25 of claim 9 should be removed due to the fact that this limitation has been previously set forth in the claim. Therefore, the aforementioned instances of this phrase are redundant.
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.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11, 13-14, and 16-19 are indefinite due to the fact it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the term “cross”. Namely, it is unclear whether this term refers to a direction or orientation, or is meant to convey some physical structure of the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrases “configured to receive” and “adapted about”. These phrases are generally narrative (see section 7 below) and fail to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is being claimed by the limitation that the plurality of “cross” roller sub-assemblies are “overmolded with the wheel hub”.
Claims 2 and 11 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrases “configured to interlock” and “adapted to place”. These phrases are generally narrative (see section 7 below) and fail to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claims 4 and 13 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what element of the invention is being referred to by the phrase “the other” in line 2.
Claims 4 and 13 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the limitation that “the cross roller sub-assembly midline is a bisector of a central angle formed by each wheel hub spoke bisector and each wheel hub spoke bisector at the main axis”. Namely, it is unclear whether the “each wheel hub spoke bisector” mentioned twice in this limitation are the same element or different elements.
Claim 9 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrases “configured to receive”, “configured to form”, and “adapted about”. These phrases are generally narrative (see section 7 below) and fail to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 9 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “a main axle bore” in lines 17-18 is a double recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “main axle bore” set forth in lines 17-18 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The term “close” in claims 2 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claims, 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.
Claims 4 and 13 recite the limitation "wheel hub spoke bisectors" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claims 4 and 13 recite the limitation "omnidirectional roller wheel" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claims 4 and 13 recite the limitation "cross roller sub-assembly midlines" in line 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claims 5 and 16 recite the limitation "the overmolded wheel hub" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the overmolded wheel hub" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
The term “slightly” in claims 18 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “slightly” is not defined by the claims, 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 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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guile (6,857,707).
Per claim 1, Guile shows a wheel assembly 50 including a plurality of wheels (see Figure 9), with each wheel having a wheel hub 35 with a plurality of spokes 39 and a main axle bore 37. Each wheel further includes a plurality of roller sub-assemblies 25 that include a plurality of pre-roller assemblies having a plurality of symmetrical axles on which a plurality of solid bushings 26 are mounted, and are overmolded with a plurality of peripheral rollers 32. A peripheral axle ring 20 is disposed about each wheel and radially spaced from the main axis. The plurality of roller sub-assemblies 25 are overmolded with the wheel hub 35 and form (i.e. are mounted one) the peripheral axle ring 20.
Per claim 5, the roller sub-assemblies 25 are mounted between two adjacent spokes 39 of the wheel hub 35.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-10, 14-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKinnon et al (9,248,698).
Per claim 1, McKinnon et al shows a wheel assembly 180 including a plurality of wheels 160 (see Figure 20), with each wheel having a wheel hub 100 with a plurality of spokes 110 and a main axle bore 101. Each wheel 160 further includes a plurality of roller sub-assemblies 120 that include a plurality of pre-roller assemblies having a plurality of symmetrical axles 50 on which a plurality of solid bushings 140 are mounted, and are overmolded with a plurality of peripheral rollers 129. A peripheral axle ring 80 is disposed about each wheel 160 and radially spaced from the main axis. The plurality of roller sub-assemblies 120 are overmolded with the wheel hub 100 and form (i.e. are mounted one) the peripheral axle ring 80.
Per claims 5 and 16, the roller sub-assemblies 120 are mounted between two adjacent spokes 110 of the wheel hub 100.
Per claim 8, the axles 50 are rolling pins.
Per claim 9-10, the wheel assembly 180 is formed by the method of forming the roller sub-assemblies 120 on the axle ring 80 within a mold, and overmolding the roller sub-assemblies with the wheel hub 100.
Per claims 14-15, first and second shut-off regions are provided in the mold to prevent overmolding material from interfering with the rotatability of the roller bushings on the axle ring, such that the roller sub-assemblies 120 are capable of rotating about the axle ring.
Per claim 18, the solid bushings 140 are formed with an inside diameter larger than the axles 50. Each bushing 140 has a cylindrical outer diameter.
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinnon et al.
McKinnon et al does not show the outer diameter of the bushings being spherical. However, 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 outer diameter of the bushings of McKinnon et al with a spherical shape, as a substitute equivalent (and well-known) shape, dependent upon the desired traction profile of the rollers and the type of surface on which the omnidirectional wheel is to be used.
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, 6-7, 8, 9-10, and 14-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3, 4-5, 8, 11-12, and 14-20, respectively of copending Application No. 18/622,667 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims fully encompassed the co-pending claims. Namely, all of the limitations of the pending claims are contained within the co-pending claims. Therefore, it is obvious that the Applicant is claiming the same invention in different and/or broader terms.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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
