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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1 and 5, the second recitation of “a first stem” in line 8, is redundant as this limit first appears in line 6. Examiner suggests deleting the second recitation in line 8.
Regarding Claim 5, the second recitation of “a first stem” in line 3, is redundant as this limit first appears in line 6. Examiner suggests deleting the second recitation in line 3.
Regarding Claims 2-15, the recitation of “A wheel”, has prior antecedent basis in Claim 1. It is suggested by the Examiner to change the recittations to “the wheel”, for greater 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 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.
.
Claim 3, 7-10 and 15 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation “rectilinear shape”, is indefinite because claim 3 depends from Claim 1, which has the recitation ”a suspension portion having a C-shape that curves“, and it is unclear how the suspension portion can have a C-shape and a rectilinear shape. For the purposes of Examining, Examiner has interpreted the limit as a rectangular shape, such as a rectangular cross section of the suspension portion.
Regarding Claim 7, the recitations of “the first part” in line 2, and “the third part” in line 3, lack prior antecedent basis, because claim 7 depeds from claim 1 and the first and third parts are introduced in claim 2. It is suggested by the Examiner t change the recitations to “a first part” and “a third part” for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation “preferably five spokes”, is indefinite because the word preferably suggests the quantity of five could be optional, making it unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim. Examiner suggests deleting the recitation from the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA-2847032-A1 to Meersschaert (“Meersschaert”), and further in view of GB-1527261-A to Ware (“Ware”).
Regarding Claim 1, Meersschaert discloses a wheel (102 “wheel assembly” with wheel 104 “wheel member”) rotatably coupled to (Page 11 line 5, Fig 4, 5) a luggage case (100 “luggage case/item”, Fig 1) and having an axis of rotation (Page 11 line 5, Fig 3, 4) defining an axial direction, comprising: a hub, an outer rim positioned radially from the hub, and a plurality of spokes, each connected between the hub and the outer rim (underlined limits shown Figs 2,4,5 show a hub, rim and a plurality of spokes each connected between the hub and the rim extending from hub to rim).
Meersschaert does not disclose the wheel including at least one of the spokes includes a first stem, a suspension portion having a C-shape that curves and is concave to the axis of rotation, and wherein the suspension portion at least partially resiliently deflects under an impact load to the wheel.
Ware discloses a wheel (10) including a hub (13) , rim (12) and a plurality of spokes (15), at least one of the spokes includes a first stem (16 “root portion”), a suspension portion (middle portion of 15, not embedded in 13, or 12) having a C-shape that curves and is concave (“uniformly curved”, Page 2 lines 8-12, 91-98) to the axis of rotation (center of 14 “hole” in hub, Fig 1), and wherein the suspension portion at least partially resiliently deflects under an impact load (“uniformly curved”, “bow in same circumferential direction, Page 2 lines 118-121) to the wheel.
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel and the wheel having spokes including spokes having a first stem, a suspension portion having a C-shape that curves and is concave to the axis of rotation, and wherein the suspension portion at least partially resiliently deflects under an impact load to the wheel, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel of Meersschaert and the wheel having spokes including spokes having a first stem, a suspension portion having a C-shape that curves and is concave to the axis of rotation, and wherein the suspension portion at least partially resiliently deflects under an impact load to the wheel of Ware, to modify the wheel (of Meersschaert) such that it is formed and configured like the wheel of Ware, having spokes (formed and configures like Ware), each having a first stem, a suspension portion having a C-shape that curves and is concave to the axis of rotation, and wherein the suspension portion at least partially resiliently deflects under an impact load to the wheel (like Ware) with the motivation to enable the wheel to be resilient with spokes that deform under loading, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware discloses a first part (where radially inner end of 15 abuts 16, adjacent to hub, Ware Fig 1) extending circumferentially (counterclockwise Ware Fig 1), a second part (15 spoke, Ware Fig 1) extending from the first part, and a third part (radially outer end of 15 where joins to 12, adjacent to rim, Ware Fig 1) extending from the second part circumferentially in the opposite direction (clockwise, Ware Fig 1) to the first part.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware disclose wherein the first part, second part and third part define a rectilinear shape (the cross section of 15 as strip shape of spring steel, having a width thicker than its thickness, forming a rectilinear shape, Col 19-12, Ware Fig 1, 3).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware discloses is resiliently deflectable both radially and axially (15 being a thin strip unrestrained between its ends, deflects radially, and capable of twisting thus deflecting axially) in response to the impact load.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware discloses wherein the suspension portion extends circumferentially (radially inner end of 15 abuts 16 extends circumferentially counterclockwise Ware Fig 1) in a single direction relative to the first stem
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware discloses at least two spokes (ten of 15 ”spokes” shown Ware Fig 1), each having a suspension portion and wherein the at least two suspension portions both extend in the same direction relative to the hub, or wherein the at least two suspension portions extend in opposite directions relative to the hub. Specifically, the former case of the or, each having a suspension portion and wherein the at least two suspension portions both extend in the same direction (Ware, Page 2 lines 25, Fig 1) relative to the hub.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware discloses first part is adjacent the hub (where radially inner end of 15 abuts 16, adjacent to hub, Ware Fig 1) and the a third part is adjacent the outer rim (radially outer end of 15 where joins to 12, adjacent to rim, Ware Fig 1) and are connected together and defining an interior gap (Annotated Fig 1 “AF1”) therebetween; and the first part and the third part move relative to one another (deflection of 15 spoke as described in paragraph 12 of this document) and change the dimension of the interior gap (deflection of 15, implicitly would change the dimension of the gap) when the suspension portion at least partially resiliently deflects responsive to an impact load (as described in paragraph 12 of this document) .
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware discloses wherein the first part and the third part have the same curvature (Ware 15 is “uniformly curved” Ware Page 2, line 95 and as described in paragraph 12 of this document).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware discloses an inner gap (AF1), and the third part is spaced away from the outer rim defining an outer gap (AF1), and at least one or more of the inner gap, outer gap, and/or interior gap change size or shape when the suspension portion resiliently deflects due to the impact load (deflection of 15, implicitly would change the dimension of the gaps).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware discloses an inner gap (AF1), and the third part is spaced away from the outer rim defining an outer gap (AF1), and the first part and third part engage, or the first part and hub engage, and/or the third part and outer rim engage when the suspension portion resiliently deflects due to the impact load (not shown, but under sufficient loading the spokes would resiliently deform accordingly, and implicitly would deform such that: the first part and third part engage, or the first part and hub engage, and/or the third part and outer rim engage, deformation as described in paragraph 12 of this document)
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware discloses a flange (Ware 18 “rubber/stretched/body springs”, Page 3, lines 32, Fig 1) extending from one of the first part or third part toward the other of the first part or third part; and wherein responsive to an angled impact load, the other of the first part or third part deflects and engages the flange, which resists (Ware: 18 provides resistance to deformation” Page 2 lines 123-126) the axial movement of the deflecting part.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware discloses the flange is positioned across the interior gap (Ware partially across gap, as shown AF1) between the first part and third part and overlaps at least a portion of the other of the first part or the third part, specifically overlaps with the third part ( Ware as shown AF1).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware discloses positioned along at least a portion of (Ware as shown AF1) a length of the interior gap and overlaps at least a portion of the other of the first part or the third part, specifically overlaps with the third part ( Ware as shown AF1).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware discloses wherein the flange extends from an inner and/or outer side of the first part , or from an inner and/or outer side of the third part, specifically the flange extends from an outer side of the third part (Ware as shown AF1).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Meersschaert and Ware discloses does not disclose wherein the at least one spoke includes three to seven spokes
The quantity of spokes (s) is/are not an inventive concept, but rather a design choice made from many possible dimensional choices, made as a part of routine design optimization giving proper consideration of use, fit, aesthetics, design loads, material and manufacturing requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a quantity between 3 to 7 for the number of spokes of the wheel of the combination of Meersschaert and Ware, and to modify the wheel to have 3 to 7 spokes and with the motivation to ensure wheel and spokes were sufficiently designed to meet the design parameters just described, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed on PTO-892 is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights