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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 31 March 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; Japanese Patent JP 3059726 was not provided. This appears to be a wrong patent number because the examiner entered it in the search tool and it didn’t bring up the listed patent. The Japanese patent has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 15, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11, “first bearing 110” should be --first bearing--
Claim 2, line 2, “a nut” should be --of a nut--
Claim 3, line 2, “use a nut.” should be --use of a nut.--
Claim 15, line 3, “the use additional” should be --the use of additional--
Claim 17, line 1, “the first roller” should be --the first roller--
Claim 17, line 2, “supports” should be --support--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0214614 to Sharp et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,389,047 to Hall and Isreal Patent IL 28869 to Cohn et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Sharp teaches an animal treadwheel assembly, comprising: a self-supporting rigid cylindrical animal treadwheel (Sharp Fig. 1 #14, a circular drum that rests on four rollers satisfies self-supporting since applicant doesn’t claim the structural features that make it self-supporting and applicants treadwheel drum also rests on four rollers); a roller assembly comprising a stationary base (Sharp Fig. 2 #12), the stationary base configured to rest upon a horizontal surface, the stationary base comprising a first roller support (Sharp Fig.6 left side of #12 receives axel #20 for roller #18) disposed opposite a second roller support (Sharp Fig. 6 right side of #12 receives axel #20 for roller pair #18, claim language does not require these supports to be separate pieces) connected to one another via an extension part (Sharp floor of #12); wherein the first roller support includes at a first top a first, second, third, and fourth roller recess (Sharp Fig. 2 recess in top surface #30 for rollers #18) disposed opposite a second roller recess; wherein the first, second, third and fourth roller recess includes a first outer through hole disposed opposite a first inner through hole (Sharp Fig. 4 #28 that receives axle #20 claim doesn’t differentiate that there are two separate spaced apart holes the claimed inner and outer hole is merely the hole on the outside surface of #12 and the hole on the inside surface of #12); including a first, second, third, and fourth roller (Sharp Fig.2 #18) wherein the first, second, third, and fourth roller are disposed within the first, second, third, fourth roller recess respectively aligned with the first outer through hole and the first inner through hole, a first, second, third, fourth roller axle disposed through the first, second, third, fourth outer through hole and the first, second, third, fourth inner through hole (Sharp Fig. 2 #20, each portion of the axel #20 that passes through the first, second, third, fourth roller is considered to be the corresponding first, second, third, and fourth axle).
Sharp is silent on explicitly teaching including the first, second, third, fourth roller having at least one bearing, a roller axle disposed through the at least one bearing. However, Hall teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide roller bearing where a roller axle is disposed through at least one first bearing (Hall Fig. 3 #52 roller, #49 bearing, #42 axle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the teachings of Sharp with the teachings of Hall before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide friction free rotation as taught by Hall. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Sharp as modified is silent on wherein the first, second, third, fourth roller axle includes an annular channel disposed at a distal end; wherein at least a portion of the roller support is configured to engage the annular channel preventing the roller axle from backing out during treadwheel use. However, Cohn teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a roller axle with an annular channel disposed at a distal end; wherein at least a portion of the roller support is configured to engage the first, second, third, fourth annular channel preventing the first and second roller axle from backing out during treadwheel use (Cohn Fig. 3 #11 annular channel in axle #8). In addition, duplication of the annular channel to all axle and roller support connections is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize safety of operation and is merely duplicating for a multiple effect performing the same intended function [In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Sharp with the teachings of Cohn before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent escape from the support as taught by Cohn. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Sharp as modified teaches each of the four rollers are
connected to their respective roller supports without the use a nut (Sharp Fig.12 #20 no nuts)
Regarding Claim 3, Sharp as modified teaches each of the four rollers are
connected to their respective roller supports without the use a nut capture feature (Sharp Fig. 12 #20 no nut capture feature).
Regarding Claim 4, Sharp as modified teaches each roller axle includes an elongated main shaft (Sharp #20) with the annular channel at the distal end (Cohn Fig. 3 #11 at both ends of each axel of Sharp) and an enlarged head at a proximal end (Cohn Fig. 3 #8 left portion past #11 that abuts #9, Sharp has been modified by Cohn to have this enlarged head and annular channel on both ends of both axles which satisfies there being an enlarged head at a proximal end, claim language does not exclude an enlarged head being at both ends, but merely requires it to be at a minimum at a proximal end).
Regarding Claim 5, Sharp as modified teaches the respective roller axle rotatably secures its respective roller to its respective roller support without the use additional parts or additional tooling (Sharp Fig. 12 #20 and #12 no additional parts or tooling).
Regarding Claims 6, 16 and 17, Sharp as modified teaches the first roller support and the second roller support are injection molded plastic (Sharp paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 7, Sharp as modified teaches on the at least the first portion of the first roller support that is configured to engage the first annular channel is a rib that is formed in the first roller support (Cohn Fig. 3 #1 is support and #9 is rib).
Claim(s) 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0214614 to Sharp et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,389,047 to Hall and Isreal Patent IL 28869 to Cohn et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brazil Patent BR 20016018120 to Emerson et al.
Regarding Claims 13, 14, 15, Sharp as modified is silent on a first thumb screw having a
first male threaded end configured to threadably engage with a first female threaded
end of the extension part capturing the first roller support therebetween; including a second thumb screw having a second male threaded end configured to threadably engage with a second female threaded end of the extension part capturing the second roller support
therebetween; wherein the first and second thumb screws can manually secure their respective first and second roller supports to the extension part without the use additional parts or additional tooling.
However, Emerson teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to connect a pair of extension parts via a male and female connection that doesn’t use additional parts or additional tooling (Emerson Figs. 2 and 3 #31a, there is a pair of #31a and the male part of #31a inserts into female part #32d of #32c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Sharp with the teachings of Emerson before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for ease of assembly and storage. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement and/or the simple substation of one known base unit for another to obtain predictable results. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and notoriously well-known to provide threaded connection between male and female components and/or the use of a thumb screw and takes official notice that it would have been an obvious engineering design choice to further modify the teachings of Sharp as modified by Emerson with a threaded connection before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a secure connection. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement and/or “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 are 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of record is a teaching of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to wheel and roller engagement structures:
U.S. Patent No. D1,027,335; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0312739; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0235920; U.S. Patent No. 5,551,375; U.S. Patent No. 5,107,797; U.S. Patent No. 4,120,264; PCT WO 2020/166892; Korean Patent KR 20190130987; China Patent CN 204146153; Japanese Patent JP 3274679.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
26 January 2026