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
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rib being “axially spaced from the tire side profile” as set forth in claims 1, 19 and 21 (note Fig. 1H clearly shows Applicant’s rib 129 being within the axially confines of the tire side profile), and the rib does not intersect the second angle wall or the open end flange (note Fig. 1H clearly shows Applicant’s rib 129 intersecting with both the second angle wall 117 and the open end flange 113) as set forth in claims 22-24 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12, 14-16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 21, there is no support in the original disclosure for the newly added limitation “the rib…is axially spaced from the tire side profile”. Note Fig. 1H clearly shows Applicant’s rib 129 being within the axially confines of the tire side profile defined by the opposing flanges 111, 113 of the tire side profile.
Regarding claims 22-24, there is no support in the original disclosure for the newly added limitation “the rib does not intersect the…open end flange…the second angle wall…”. Note Fig. 1H clearly shows Applicant’s rib 129 intersecting with both the second angle wall 117 and the open end flange 113. Furthermore, inasmuch as the negative limitation set forth in each of these claims lacks basis in the original disclosure, these claims fail to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (See MPEP 2173.05(i)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 12, 14-16 and 19 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) and is axially spaced from the tire side profile (rib 13b is considered to be “axially spaced” from the tire side profile in the same manner that Applicant’s substantially identically arranged rib is also considered to be axially spaced from the tire side profile, e.g., rib 13b is at least axially spaced from the disc face flange, the first angle wall and the drop well), 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(c)-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(c)-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 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 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 therefrom (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) and is axially spaced from the tire side profile (rib 13b is considered to be “axially spaced” from the tire side profile in the same manner that Applicant’s substantially identically arranged rib is also considered to be axially spaced from the tire side profile, e.g., rib 13b is at least axially spaced from the disc face flange, the first angle wall and the drop well), 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(c)-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(c)-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 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 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]).
6. Claim(s) 21 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 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) and is axially spaced from the tire side profile (rib 13b is considered to be “axially spaced” from the tire side profile in the same manner that Applicant’s substantially identically arranged rib is also considered to be axially spaced from the tire side profile, e.g., rib 13b is at least axially spaced from the disc face flange, the first angle wall and the drop well), 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(c)-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(c)-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 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 rigidity of the wheel.
7. 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
8. Applicant's arguments filed 30 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Ono, Yoshimura, and/or Nosaka does not disclose, teach, or suggest at least the limitation “wherein the rib is not part of the tire side profile and is axially spaced from the tire side profile”, the Examiner again notes that is evident from Fig. 2(a) of Ono that rib 13b is not part of the tire side profile inasmuch as the rib 13b is located at the inner side of the rim instead of the outer tire side with the claimed tire side profile. In other words, the rib 13b of Ono is separate from the claimed tire side profile structures on the outer tire side. Further, rib 13b of Ono is considered to be “axially spaced” from the tire side profile in the same manner that Applicant’s substantially identically arranged rib 129 is also considered to be axially spaced from the tire side profile. More specifically, both Ono’s rib 13b and Applicant’s rib 129 are axially spaced from the disc face flange, the first angle wall and the drop well. However, both Ono’s rib 13b and Applicant’s rib 129 at least partially overlap the second angle wall and open end flange in the axial direction.
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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