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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 12, 14-16, 19, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120286562 to Ono in view of JP 2012091576A to Nosaka et al. (previously cited by Applicant; hereinafter “Nosaka”) and JP 2008137562A to Yoshimura.
Regarding claim 1, Ono discloses a wheel 10 comprising: a disc face 6; and a rim 8 circumscribing the disc face and extending between the disc face and an open end thereof (as evident from Figs. 1, 2(a) and 2(b)), the rim including: an outer tire side (radially outer side of rim 8), wherein the outer tire side has a tire side profile, wherein the tire side profile includes an open end flange (flange on the right as viewed in Fig. 1), a disc face flange (flange on the left as viewed in Fig. 1), a first angle wall extending from the disc face flange toward the open end flange (as evident from Fig. 1, namely the obliquely extending rim portion extending axially inward from the disc face flange); a second angle wall extending from the open end flange toward the disc face flange (as evident from Fig. 1, namely the obliquely extending rim portion extending axially outward from the open end flange); and a drop well connecting the first angle wall and the second angle wall (as evident from Fig. 1), an inner side (radially inner side of rim 8) opposite the outer tire side, a rib 13b extending radially inward from the rim (as evident from Fig. 2(a)), wherein the rib extends circumferentially continuously around the inner side (Figs. 2(a) and 2(b)), wherein the rib is not part of the tire side profile (evident from Fig. 2(a) which shows the rib 13b being at the inner side of the rim instead of the outer tire side with the tire side profile), wherein the rib includes an axial inboard side (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2(a)), an axial outboard side (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2(a)), and a face (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2(a)) extending from the axial inboard side to the axial outboard side in a first direction (Figs. 2(a)), and wherein the first direction extends toward the open end of the wheel (evident from Fig. 2(a)).
Ono fails to disclose the first direction being oblique relative to a second direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the wheel. Instead, the face of the rib of Ono extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the wheel in Fig. 2(a).
Nosaka, however, teaches a rib 7, 7a that extends radially inward from the rim at 3, wherein the rib includes an axial inboard side, an axial outboard side opposite the axial inboard side, and a face extending from the axial inboard side to the axial outboard side in a first direction (note at least Figs. 1(e), 2(a), 2(b), 3(e), 5(b)-5(g)), wherein the first direction is oblique relative to a second direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the wheel (note at least Figs. 1(e), 2(a), 2(b), 3(e), 5(b)-5(g)). Nosaka further teaches that the first direction being oblique relative to a second direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the wheel, as opposed to a construction in which the face of the rib extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the wheel as shown in Fig. 2(a) of Ono and Fig. 1(c) of Nosaka, provides the wheel with improved lateral or horizontal rigidity (Abstract; Figs. 4(b) and 6(a)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rib of Ono so that the first direction of the face of the rib is oblique relative to a second direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the wheel, such as taught by Nosaka, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the lateral or horizontal rigidity of the wheel.
Although Ono further discloses a rim section at 13 including the rib having a second moment of area, wherein the second moment of area is 0.0120 in4 to 0.06 in4 (see Example 1, which corresponds to Fig. 2(a) per paragraph [0128], in Table 4 and Table 5 where the disclosed second moment of area is 0.0408in4 in Table 4 and 0.0183 in4 in Table 5 using a conversion factor of 0.0000024), wherein the rim section extends a first distance from a centroid of the rib to the open end (i.e., an inward axial distance from a radially extending virtual center line that bisects 13b) and a second distance substantially equal to the first distance from the centroid of the rib toward the disc face (as evident in the case that the first distance extends from the bisecting center line one direction and the second distance extends the opposite direction), and wherein the centroid of the rib is located proximate (i.e., very near) a longitudinal center of the rim section (evident from Fig. 2(a) and “example 1” of Fig. 16), Ono does not expressly disclose that the rib extends 0.0394 in to 0.591 in radially inward. Yoshimura, however, discloses a rib that extends 6 mm or 0.23622 inches radially inward (see [0013] of the translation disclosing that the rib of Yoshimura extends 6 mm or 0.23622 inches radially inward). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate such with the motivation of optimizing the weight and rigidity of the wheel (e.g. see [0162]).
Regarding claim 2, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the wheel of claim 1, wherein the rib includes at least one rib, wherein the open end includes at least one open end, and wherein the at least one rib is proximate to a corresponding one of the at least one open end (as evident from Fig. 2(a) of Ono).
Regarding claim 4, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the wheel of claim 1 but not that the weight of the wheel is between 34 to 39 lbs. However, as disclosed among other areas in Yoshimura, the weight of a wheel “varies greatly depending on whether they are cast or forged and also on the design” ([0013]). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or a “recitation of relative dimensions” are not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. Thus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve such weight with the motivation of achieving a balance between strength and weight in view of fuel consumption and durability requirements of the vehicle supported by the wheel.
Regarding claim 5, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the wheel of claim 4, but does not expressly disclose that the rib extends between 0.276 in to 0.591 in radially inward. Instead, the rib of Yoshimura extends 0.23622 inches radially inward. However, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or a “recitation of relative dimensions” are not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. Thus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve such weight with the motivation of achieving a balance between strength and weight in view of fuel consumption and durability requirements of the vehicle supported by the wheel.
Regarding claim 6, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the wheel of claim 5, but does not expressly disclose that the rib extends between 0.276 in to 0.394 in radially inward. Instead, the rib of Yoshimura extends 0.23622 inches radially inward. However, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or a “recitation of relative dimensions” are not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. Thus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve such weight with the motivation of achieving a balance between strength and weight in view of fuel consumption and durability requirements of the vehicle supported by the wheel.
Regarding claim 7, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the wheel of claim 4, wherein the rim section has a second moment of area between 0.0150 in4 to 0.0600 in4 (see Example 1, which corresponds to Fig. 2(a) per paragraph [0128], in Table 4 and Table 5 where the disclosed second moment of area is 0.0408in4 in Table 4 and 0.0183 in4 in Table 5 using a conversion factor of 0.0000024).
Regarding claim 8, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the wheel of claim 7, wherein the rim section has a second moment of area between 0.0170 in4 to 0.0400 in4 (see Example 1, which corresponds to Fig. 2(a) per paragraph [0128], where the disclosed second moment of area is 0.0183 in4 in Table 5 using a conversion factor of 0.0000024).
Regarding claim 12, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the wheel of claim 1 but not that the weight of the wheel is between 50 pounds to 52 pounds. However, as disclosed among other areas in Yoshimura, the weight of a wheel “varies greatly depending on whether they are cast or forged and also on the design” ([0013]). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or a “recitation of relative dimensions” are not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. Thus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve such weight with the motivation of achieving a balance between strength and weight in view of fuel consumption and durability requirements of the vehicle supported by the wheel.
Regarding claim 14, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the wheel of claim 12, but does not expressly disclose that the rib extends between 0.0787 in to 0.157 in radially inward. Instead, the rib of Yoshimura extends 0.23622 inches radially inward. However, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to the size” or a “recitation of relative dimensions” are not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. Thus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve such weight with the motivation of achieving a balance between strength and weight in view of fuel consumption and durability requirements of the vehicle supported by the wheel.
Regarding claim 15, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the wheel of claim 12, wherein the rim section has a second moment of area between 0.0120 in4 to 0.04 in4 (see Example 1, which corresponds to Fig. 2(a) per paragraph [0128], where the disclosed second moment of area is 0.0183 in4 in Table 5 using a conversion factor of 0.0000024).
Regarding claim 16, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the wheel of claim 15, does not expressly disclose that the rim section has a second moment of area between 0.0120 in4 to 0.0140 in4 (see Example 1, which corresponds to Fig. 2(a) per paragraph [0128], where the disclosed second moment of area is 0.0183 in4 in Table 5 using a conversion factor of 0.0000024). Nonetheless, it is well-known in the art, including Ono, that second moment of area is a result effective variable that reflects a shape’s resistance to bending. As such, 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 of Ono, as modified by Nosaka and Yoshimura, to have a second moment of area between 0.0120 in4 to 0.0140 in4, as a matter of routine optimization, to ensure that the wheel has a desired rigidity for its intended use while also minimizing the weight thereof.
Regarding claim 19, Ono discloses a method for making a wheel 10 comprising: at least one of forging, casting, or machining a wheel (e.g. see [0074] – [0077]), the wheel having a disc face 6, a rim 8 circumscribing the disc face, the rim having an open end distal to the disc face and extending between the disc face and the open end (e.g. see [0061], Fig. 1, Fig. 2(a),(b)), the rim including: an outer tire side (radially outer side of rim 8), wherein the outer tire side has a tire side profile, wherein the tire side profile includes an open end flange (flange on the right as viewed in Fig. 1), a disc face flange (flange on the left as viewed in Fig. 1), a first angle wall extending from the disc face flange toward the open end flange (as evident from Fig. 1, namely the obliquely extending rim portion extending axially inward from the disc face flange); a second angle wall extending from the open end flange toward the disc face flange (as evident from Fig. 1, namely the obliquely extending rim portion extending axially outward from the open end flange); and a drop well connecting the first angle wall and the second angle wall (as evident from Fig. 1), an inner side (radially inner side of rim 8) opposite the outer tire side, a rib 13b extending radially inward from the inner side (as evident from Fig. 2(a)), wherein the rib extends circumferentially continuously around the inner side (Figs. 2(a) and 2(b)), wherein the rib is not part of the tire side profile (evident from Fig. 2(a) which shows the rib 13b being at the inner side of the rim instead of the outer tire side with the tire side profile), wherein the rib includes an axial inboard side (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2(a)), an axial outboard side (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2(a)), and a face (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2(a)) extending from the axial inboard side to the axial outboard side in a first direction (Figs. 2(a)), and wherein the first direction extends toward the open end of the wheel (evident from Fig. 2(a)).
Ono fails to disclose the first direction being oblique relative to a second direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the wheel. Instead, the face of the rib of Ono extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the wheel in Fig. 2(a).
Nosaka, however, teaches a rib 7, 7a that extends radially inward from the rim at 3, wherein the rib includes an axial inboard side, an axial outboard side opposite the axial inboard side, and a face extending from the axial inboard side to the axial outboard side in a first direction (note at least Figs. 1(e), 2(a), 2(b), 3(e), 5(b)-5(g)), wherein the first direction is oblique relative to a second direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the wheel (note at least Figs. 1(e), 2(a), 2(b), 3(e), 5(b)-5(g)). Nosaka further teaches that the first direction being oblique relative to a second direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the wheel, as opposed to a construction in which the face of the rib extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the wheel as shown in Fig. 2(a) of Ono and Fig. 1(c) of Nosaka, provides the wheel with improved lateral or horizontal rigidity (Abstract; Figs. 4(b) and 6(a)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rib of Ono so that the first direction of the face of the rib is oblique relative to a second direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the wheel, such as taught by Nosaka, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the lateral or horizontal rigidity of the wheel.
Although Ono further discloses a rim section at 13 including the rib having a second moment of area, wherein the second moment of area is 0.0120 in4 to 0.06 in4 (see Example 1, which corresponds to Fig. 2(a) per paragraph [0128], in Table 4 and Table 5 where the disclosed second moment of area is 0.0408in4 in Table 4 and 0.0183 in4 in Table 5 using a conversion factor of 0.0000024), wherein the rim section extends a first distance from a centroid of the rib to the open end (i.e., an inward axial distance from a radially extending virtual center line that bisects 13b) and a second distance substantially equal to the first distance from the centroid of the rib toward the disc face (as evident in the case that the first distance extends from the bisecting center line one direction and the second distance extends the opposite direction), and wherein the centroid of the rib is located proximate (i.e., very near) a longitudinal center of the rim section (evident from Fig. 2(a) and “example 1” of Fig. 16), Ono does not expressly disclose that the rib extends 0.0394 in to 0.591 in radially inward. Yoshimura, however, discloses a rib that extends 6 mm or 0.23622 inches radially inward (see [0013] of the translation disclosing that the rib of Yoshimura extends 6 mm or 0.23622 inches radially inward). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate such with the motivation of optimizing the weight and rigidity of the wheel (e.g. see [0162]).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the wheel of claims 1 and 19, respectively, wherein the rib does not intersect any of the disc face flange, the first angle wall, or the drop well (evident from Fig. 1 of Ono).
3. Claim(s) 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of Nosaka.
Regarding claim 21, Ono discloses a wheel 10 comprising: a disc face 6; and a rim 8 circumscribing the disc face and extending between the disc face and an open end thereof (as evident from Figs. 1, 2(a) and 2(b)), the rim including: an outer tire side (radially outer side of rim 8), wherein the outer tire side has a tire side profile, wherein the tire side profile includes an open end flange (flange on the right as viewed in Fig. 1), a disc face flange (flange on the left as viewed in Fig. 1), a first angle wall extending from the disc face flange toward the open end flange (as evident from Fig. 1, namely the obliquely extending rim portion extending axially inward from the disc face flange); a second angle wall extending from the open end flange toward the disc face flange (as evident from Fig. 1, namely the obliquely extending rim portion extending axially outward from the open end flange); and a drop well connecting the first angle wall and the second angle wall (as evident from Fig. 1), an inner side (radially inner side of rim 8) opposite the outer tire side, a rib 13b extending radially inward from the inner side (as evident from Fig. 2(a)), wherein the rib extends circumferentially continuously around the inner side (Figs. 2(a) and 2(b)), wherein the rib is not part of the tire side profile (evident from Fig. 2(a) which shows the rib 13b being at the inner side of the rim instead of the outer tire side with the tire side profile), wherein the rib includes an axial inboard side (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2(a)), an axial outboard side (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2(a)), and a face (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2(a)) extending from the axial inboard side to the axial outboard side in a first direction (Figs. 2(a)), wherein the first direction extends toward the open end of the wheel (evident from Fig. 2(a)), and a rim section at 13, wherein the rim section includes the rib (evident from Fig. 2(a)), wherein the rim section extends a first distance from a centroid of the rib to the open end (i.e., an inward axial distance from a radially extending virtual center line that bisects 13b) and a second distance substantially equal to the first distance from the centroid of the rib toward the disc face (as evident in the case that the first distance extends from the bisecting center line one direction and the second distance extends the opposite direction), and wherein the centroid of the rib is located proximate (i.e., very near) a longitudinal center of the rim section (evident from Fig. 2(a) and “example 1” of Fig. 16).
Ono fails to disclose the first direction being oblique relative to a second direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the wheel. Instead, the face of the rib of Ono extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the wheel in Fig. 2(a).
Nosaka, however, teaches a rib 7, 7a that extends radially inward from the rim at 3, wherein the rib includes an axial inboard side, an axial outboard side opposite the axial inboard side, and a face extending from the axial inboard side to the axial outboard side in a first direction (note at least Figs. 1(e), 2(a), 2(b), 3(e), 5(b)-5(g)), wherein the first direction is oblique relative to a second direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the wheel (note at least Figs. 1(e), 2(a), 2(b), 3(e), 5(b)-5(g)). Nosaka further teaches that the first direction being oblique relative to a second direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the wheel, as opposed to a construction in which the face of the rib extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the wheel as shown in Fig. 2(a) of Ono and Fig. 1(c) of Nosaka, provides the wheel with improved lateral or horizontal rigidity (Abstract; Figs. 4(b) and 6(a)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rib of Ono so that the first direction of the face of the rib is oblique relative to a second direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the wheel, such as taught by Nosaka, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the lateral or horizontal rigidity of the wheel.
Regarding claim 24, Ono in view of Nosaka discloses the wheel of claim 21, wherein the rib does not intersect any of the disc face flange, the first angle wall, or the drop well (evident from Fig. 1 of Ono).
4. Claims 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura, as applied to claims 1, 4, 12 and 19, and in further view of US 20150217599 to Zehnder et al. (hereinafter “Zehnder”).
Regarding claim 11, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the wheel of claim 4, but does not disclose that the wheel is formed from a 6xxx aluminum alloy. Zehnder discloses such (second-to-last sentence of [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate such material with the motivation of achieving light weight yet durable material for the rim.
Regarding claim 18, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the wheel of claim 12, but does not disclose that the wheel is formed from a 6xxx aluminum alloy. Zehnder discloses such (second-to-last sentence of [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate such material with the motivation of achieving light weight yet durable material for the rim.
Regarding claim 20, Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura discloses the method of claim 19, but Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura does not explicitly disclose that the wheel is forged or cast from a 6xxx aluminum alloy. Zehnder discloses such (second-to-last sentence of [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate such material with the motivation of achieving light weight yet durable material for the rim.
Response to Arguments
5. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 25 August 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of independent claims 1 and 19 under 35 USC 103 based upon Ono in view of Nosaka and Yoshimura and independent claim 21 under 35 USC 103 based upon Ono in view of Nosaka as set forth in the last Office action because:
It refer(s) only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. Thus, there is no showing that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.
Nonetheless, in response to Declarant’s argument in paragraph 5 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The present application describes single-piece heavy-duty wheels having high load rating and high tire inflation pressure rate for use with vehicles such as semi-trucks, buses, and other vehicles that require exceptionally strong wheels” and “The present application further describes reducing wheel weight while maintaining load ratings, tire pressure ratings, and part life…”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Nonetheless, the Examiner notes that both Ono and Nosaka are directed to wheels with improved rigidity while minimizing the weight thereof (See at least the Abstract, paragraphs [0001], [0036], [0064] and [0066] of Ono; See at least the Abstract and paragraph [0028] of Nosaka).
In response to Declarant’s opinion in paragraph 6 that “A person of ordinary skill in the art would not assume that a flange geometry developed for improving passenger-car cornering stability could simply be applied to a commercial or heavy-duty wheel without design adjustments and validation”, it is unclear what Declarant is attempting to argue as no such assertion was made in the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103. Instead, the wheel of Ono, which is a light alloy wheel that can be used for passenger automobiles (See Abstract and paragraph [0003]) is being modified in view of the teachings of Nosaka, which also teaches a light alloy wheel that can be used for passenger automobiles (See Abstract and paragraph [0002]).
In response to Declarant’s opinion in paragraph 9 that “It is not possible to know the precise impacts of the suggested design changes without computer modeling and/or testing”, the Examiner notes that such computer modeling and/or testing is well-within the ability of the one of ordinary skill in the art. In fact, Nosaka expressly discloses the testing and comparing of the rim flange of Ono (i.e., the rim flange shown in Fig. 1 (c) of Nosaka) with Nosaka’s improved rim flange design (i.e., the rim flange shown in Fig. 1(e) of Nosaka).
In response to Declarant's opinions in paragraphs 10 and 11 against the Nosaka reference individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Declarant's argument in paragraph 12 that “The present application follows a different structural approach from Ono and Nosaka”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to Declarant’s opinion in paragraph 13 that “Changing the angle of Ono’s inner rim flange structure to incorporate the shape shown by Nosaka…would have the effect of decreasing the rigidity in that section of the rim”, it is noted that Declarant has provided no factual proof to support this opinion. Instead, as previously noted by Declarant, Nosaka expressly teaches that the disclosed oblique flange geometry improves the rigidity of the wheel (See at least the Abstract, paragraphs [0012] and [0014]).
In response to Declarant’s opinion in paragraph 15 that the teachings of Ono “would have led to a skilled person to preserve Ono’s compact perpendicular flange design, not to redesign it into Nosaka’s oblique protrusion”, the Examiner notes that Declarant has provided no factual evidence to support the opinion that modifying the face of the rib of Ono to be oblique would not allow flange to be compact or compliant with JATMA/ETRTO standards. Further, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is abundantly clear from the teachings of Nosaka that one of ordinary skill in the art would have an incentive to modify the flange design of Ono (i.e., the flange design shown in Fig. 1(c) of Ono) to improve the lateral or horizontal rigidity of the rim flange as Nosaka expressly teaches and encourages such modification. Nosaka further implies that such modification is compliant with JATMA/ETRTO standards and would still be compact (note paragraph [0013]).
In response to Declarant’s opinion in paragraph 16 that “the proposed combination also lacks a reasonable expectation of success because simply changing the orientation of Ono’s inner circumferential flange 13b would not predictably produce Nosaka’s cornering-force benefits”, the Examiner notes that the rejection under 35 USC 103 made no such assertion. Instead, as noted above, the Examiner asserted that the modification of Ono’s rib would have a reasonable expectation of success in improving the lateral or horizontal rigidity of the wheel. Nonetheless, Nosaka expressly discloses via test results that modifying the rim flange so that the orientation of the rib is angled (i.e., having the orientation shown in Fig. 1(e) of Nosaka instead of the orientation shown in Fig. 1(c) of Nosaka and Fig. 2(a) of Ono) provides cornering-force benefits (note Figs. 4(b) and 4(c)).
In response to Declarant’s opinion in paragraph 17 that the proposed modification “would introduce uncertainty regarding rigidity, clearance, and rim-flange performance, rather than providing a predictable improvement”, again it is noted that Declarant has provided no factual evidence to support this opinion (e.g., Declarant has provided no factual proof that modifying the face of the rib of Ono to be oblique result would result in issues with clearance, Declarant has provided no factual proof that modifying the face of the rib of Ono to be oblique would not improve rigidity, etc..). Instead, Nosaka expressly teaches, in at least paragraphs [0012] and [0014], that an angled rib configuration improves the rigidity of the wheel at the rim flange.
In response to Declarant’s opinion in paragraph 19 that “applicant’s wheel…solves a different engineering problem from the passenger-car rim-flange rigidity problem addressed by Ono and Nosaka”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Applicant's arguments filed 25 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant’s arguments are substantially identical to the arguments presented in the Declaration and have been discussed above.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had an articulated reason, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify Ono’s inner circumferential flange 13b using Nosaka’s different oblique rim-flange protrusion geometry, Applicant is directed to Fig. 1(c) of Nosaka which shows a prior art wheel having an identical rim-flange protrusion geometry as Fig. 2(a) of Ono. Paragraph [0017] of Nosaka further describes such prior art rim flange with rib or projection 5 as improving the longitudinal rigidity of the rim flange but acknowledges that such prior art shape “does not have much effect on improving lateral rigidity” (paragraph [0003]). Nosaka then compares such prior art rim flange (i.e., the prior art rim flange of Ono) and other prior art rim flange arrangements (i.e., Figs. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(d)) with Nosaka’s rim flange and angled rib shape shown in Fig. 1(e) and concludes that Nosaka’s rim flange and angled rib shape provides additional benefits over the prior art rim flange and rib arrangement disclosed in Fig. 2(a) of Ono and Fig. 1(c) of Nosaka (note at least Figs. 4(b) and 4(c); the Abstract; paragraphs [0011-0015]).
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
