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 because:
· Fig. 1 includes multiple views within a single figure without clearly separating or identifying the individual views. Fig. 1 further includes excessive textual matter and text/reference characters that are less than the minimum required height and are not clearly legible. As a result, the individual components and their structural relationships are not clearly shown. Applicant is required to revise Fig. 1 to separately and clearly identify the individual views, remove unnecessary textual matter, and provide clear and legible depictions of the relevant structure.
· Figures 3, 4, 7-11, 13, and 14 fail to include reference characters for the illustrated elements. Applicant is required to provide appropriate reference characters to clearly identify the elements shown in the drawings.
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.
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
· The specification inconsistently identifies the elements associated with reference characters 105 and 505 as a “drive line” in some instances a “drive axis” in other instances. Applicant is required to revise the specification to consistently identify these elements throughout the disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
· “adapter” should be replaced with --an adapter-- for clarity in line 3
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 2-15 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.
6. Claims 2-7 are indefinite because the claim includes multiple recitations of the same element without clarity as to whether the recited elements refer to the same element previously set forth in the claim or to an additional element. Applicant is suggested to replace the phrase “with an associated vehicle having an associated chassis” with --with the associated vehicle having the associated chassis-- in lines 1 and 2.
7. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the associated chassis" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
8. Claim 15 is indefinite because the claim includes multiple recitations of the same element without clarity as to whether the recited elements refer to the same element previously set forth in the claim or to an additional element. Applicant is suggested to replace the phrase “a wheel hub” and “a wheel set” with --the wheel hub-- and --the wheel set-- in lines 1 and 2.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 8 because claim 8 already recites a wheel hub operationally engaged to the tail shaft and a wheel set operationally engaged to the wheel hub. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
13. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fliearman (US 11884150 B2; hereinafter “Fliearman”).
Regarding claim 1, Fliearman discloses a dual wheel assembly (Fig. 1; “It should be noted that any left/right wheel pairs may be arranged as dual wheels on each left/right lateral side of the work vehicle 10” per lines 35-38 of col. 5) for engagement with an associated vehicle 10 (Fig. 1) having an associated chassis (Refer to the associated chassis in the annotated Fig. 3 below), the assembly (Fig. 8) comprising: an output support (Refer to the output support in the annotated Fig. 8 below) having a bell housing (Refer to the bell housing in the annotated Fig. 8 below) adapted to operationally mount to the associated chassis (Refer to the annotated Fig. 3), and a tail shaft (160 “output shaft”; Fig. 8) rotatably mounted within the bell housing (Refer to the annotated Fig. 8), the tail shaft 160 defining and being rotatable about a drive axis 148 (Fig. 8), the tail shaft 160 being adapted to transmit operational drive work by rotation (Lines 23-26 of col. 9; lines 63-67 of col. 9; lines 1-13 of col. 10) about the drive axis 148, the tail shaft 160 being adapted to transmit and support an operational support load transverse to the drive axis (The shaft 160 is capable of transmitting and supporting an operational support load transverse to the drive axis); a transmission (Refer to the transmission in the annotated Fig. 8 below) operationally engaged to the output support (Refer to the annotated Fig. 8 below), the transmission having transmission shaft (136 “input shaft”; Fig. 8), the transmission shaft 136 defining a transmission shaft axis (The claimed transmission shaft axis corresponds to the wheel end axis 148 as shown in Fig. 8), being operationally engaged (Refer to the annotated Fig. 8 below) with the tail shaft 160, and adapted to transmit the operational drive work (lines 63-67 of col. 9; lines 1-13 of col. 10; Fig. 8) to the tail shaft 160.
PNG
media_image1.png
451
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Fliearman
PNG
media_image2.png
452
623
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Fliearman
Regarding claim 2, Fliearman discloses the dual wheel assembly for engagement with an associated vehicle having an associated chassis of claim 1, wherein the transmission is part of a transaxle (Refer to the transmission in the annotated Fig. 8 above; Fig. 9; Note that the Examiner interprets the term “transaxle” as “a unit that consists of a combination of a transmission and an axle's differential gear used especially in front-wheel-drive automobiles” consistent with the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transaxle).
Regarding claim 3, Fliearman discloses the dual wheel assembly for engagement with an associated vehicle having an associated chassis of claim 1, wherein the output support is engaged to an adapter mount (Refer to the adapter mount in the annotated Fig. 8 below) wherein the adapter mount is adapted to operationally mount to the associated chassis (Refer to the annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
446
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Fliearman
PNG
media_image4.png
478
597
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Fliearman
Regarding claim 4, Fliearman discloses the dual wheel assembly for engagement with an associated vehicle having an associated chassis of claim 3, wherein the transmission is engaged to the output support through the adapter mount (Refer to the annotated Fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
478
597
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Fliearman
Regarding claim 5, Fliearman discloses the dual wheel assembly for engagement with an associated vehicle having an associated chassis of claim 4, wherein the transmission is part of a transaxle (Refer to the annotated Fig. 8 above; The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 2).
Regarding claim 6, Fliearman discloses the dual wheel assembly for engagement with an associated vehicle having an associated chassis of claim 1, wherein the transmission shaft axis is coaxial with the drive axis (The claimed transmission shaft axis corresponds to the drive axis 148 as shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Fliearman discloses the dual wheel assembly for engagement with an associated vehicle having an associated chassis of claim 1, wherein the tail shaft 160 (Figs. 5 and 8) is operationally engaged to a wheel hub 144 adapted to operationally mount a wheel set (The claimed wheel set is not explicitly shown in Fig. 2, but Fliearman describes that the left/right wheel pairs may be arranged as dual wheels on each left/right lateral side of the work vehicle; Lines 35-38 of col. 5. Further, it is inherent that the wheel hub 144 is adapted to operationally mount the dual wheels, i.e., components of the claimed wheel set, as is well known in the art).
Regarding claim 8, the following limitations are discussed and disclosed by Fliearman above with respect to claim 1: a vehicle comprising a chassis; a dual wheel assembly having an output support having a bell housing operationally engaged to the associated chassis, and a tail shaft rotatably mounted within the bell housing, the tail shaft defining and being rotatable about a drive axis, the tail shaft being adapted to transmit an operational drive work by rotation about the drive axis, the tail shaft being adapted to transmit and support an operational support load transverse to the drive axis, a transmission operationally engaged to the output support, the transmission having a transmission shaft, the transmission shaft defining a transmission shaft axis, being operationally engaged with the tail shaft, and adapted to transmit operational drive work to the tail shaft.
The following limitations are not discussed above with respect to claim 1: a wheel hub 144 (Figs. 2 and 3) operationally engaged to the tail shaft 160 (Fig. 8), and adapted to operationally mount one 38/40/42/44 (Fig. 2) or more associated wheels thereto; a wheel set operationally engaged to the wheel hub 144, and adapted to support the vehicle while operational motion (The claimed wheel set is not explicitly shown in Fig. 2, but Fliearman describes that the left/right wheel pairs may be arranged as dual wheels on each left/right lateral side of the work vehicle; Lines 35-38 of col. 5. Further, the dual wheels, i.e., components of the claimed wheel set, are capable of supporting the vehicle while in operational motion).
Regarding claim 9, Fliearman discloses the vehicle of claim 8, wherein the transmission is part of a transaxle (The limitation is discussed above with respect to claims 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 10, Fliearman discloses the vehicle of claim 8, wherein the output support is engaged to an adapter mount (The limitation is discussed as above with respect to claim 3).
Regarding claim 11, Fliearman discloses the vehicle of claim 10, wherein the adapter mount is operationally mounted to the chassis (The limitation is discussed as above with respect to claim 3).
Regarding claim 12, Fliearman discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the transmission is engaged to the output support through the adapter mount (The limitation is discussed as above with respect to claim 4).
Regarding claim 13, Fliearman discloses the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the transmission is part of a transaxle (The limitation is discussed above with respect to claims 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, Fliearman discloses the vehicle of claim 8, wherein the transmission shaft axis is coaxial with the drive axis (The limitation is discussed above with respect to claim 6).
Regarding claim 15, Fliearman discloses the vehicle of claim 8, wherein the tail shaft is operationally engaged to a wheel hub adapted to operationally mount a wheel set (The limitation is discussed above with respect to claims 7 and 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fliearman.
Regarding claim 16, the following limitations are discussed and disclosed by Fliearman above with respect to claims 1 and 8: a vehicle comprising a chassis; adapter mount operationally engaged to the chassis; and a dual wheel assembly having an output support having a bell housing operationally mounted to the adapter mount, and a tail shaft rotatably mounted within the bell housing, the tail shaft defining and being rotatable about a drive axis, the tail shaft being adapted to transmit an operational drive work by rotation about the drive axis, the tail shaft being adapted to transmit and support an operational support load transverse to the drive axis, a transmission operationally engaged to the adapter mount, the transmission having a transmission shaft, the transmission shaft defining a transmission shaft axis, being operationally engaged with the tail shaft through a transmission hub and a coupler, adapted to transmit operational drive work to the tail shaft, and a wheel hub operationally engaged to the tail shaft, and adapted to operationally mount one or more associated wheels thereto, but fails to disclose the tail shaft through a transmission hub and a coupler (i.e., separable components).
Fliearman, however, teaches portions being functionally equivalent to the claimed transmission hub and coupler (Refer to the annotated Fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
520
588
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Fliearman
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 wheel end gear train 138 (Figs. 8 and 9) of Fliearman, which provides the functional equivalent of the claimed transmission hub and coupler, by providing the transmission hub and coupler as separable components, with a reasonable expectation of success in facilitating the removal and replacement of the individual transmission components. Note MPEP 2144.04 V. C.: In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
Regarding claim 17, Fliearman discloses the vehicle of claim 16 and Fliearman further discloses a wheel set (The claimed wheel set is not explicitly shown in Fig. 2, but Fliearman describes that the left/right wheel pairs may be arranged as dual wheels on each left/right lateral side of the work vehicle; Lines 35-38 of col. 5) operationally engaged to the wheel hub 144 (Fig. 2; it is inherent that the wheel hub 144 is operationally engaged to the dual wheels, i.e., components of the claimed wheel set, as is well known in the art), and adapted to support the vehicle 10 while in operational motion (The dual wheels, i.e., components of the claimed wheel set, are capable of supporting the vehicle while in operational motion).
Regarding claim 18, Fliearman discloses the vehicle of claim 17 and Fliearman further discloses the wheel set is a dually arrangement having two tire (The claimed wheel set is not explicitly shown in Fig. 2, but Fliearman describes that the left/right wheel pairs may be arranged as dual wheels on each left/right lateral side of the work vehicle; Lines 35-38 of col. 5) and wheel assemblies simultaneously operationally engaged to the wheel hub 144 (The dual wheels, which correspond to the claimed wheel assemblies, are inherently simultaneously operationally engaged to the wheel hub 144).
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose a vehicle having a dual wheel assembly.
19. 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
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights