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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second region and the third region define a frustoconical shape or a frustum” as set forth in claim 7 in combination with “an outer surface of the third region defines a curve from the second region to the first region and the curve is concave” as set forth in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Also, the “bore extends along the longitudinal axis a distance beyond a position of at least a portion of the first tire bead seat along the longitudinal axis” as set forth in new claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Note Figs. 9 and 10 clearly show the bore configured to receive a valve stem (i.e., valve stem mount bore 134) to be positioned radially outward of the longitudinal axis a1. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 7 and 21 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 claim 7, there is no support in the original disclosure for a single embodiment of Applicant’s wheel having both “an outer surface of the third region defines a curve from the second region to the first region and the curve is concave” as set forth in claim 1 and the “second region and the third region define a frustoconical shape or a frustum” as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 21, there is no support in the original disclosure for “bore extends along the longitudinal axis a distance beyond a position of at least a portion of the first tire bead seat along the longitudinal axis” as newly set forth. Applicant’s Figs. 9 and 10 clearly show the bore 134, which is configured to receive a valve stem as required by claim 11, being positioned radially outward of the longitudinal axis a1. Instead, it is readily apparent that opening 124 defined in the hub surface 126 extends along the longitudinal axis a1 as evident from Applicant’s drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 7, 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeGeorge et al. (US D773,974 S; newly cited and applied; hereinafter “DeGeorge”).
Regarding claim 1, DeGeorge discloses a vehicle wheel (Figs. 1-7) comprising: a generally annular first region (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below) comprising a first flange (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below), a second flange (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below) opposite the first flange, a continuous wall (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below) disposed about a longitudinal axis of the vehicle wheel and extending from the first flange to the second flange (Fig. 7), the continuous wall comprising an inner surface (evident from Fig. 7) and an outer surface (evident from Fig. 7), and a first tire bead seat (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below) and a second tire bead seat (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below) defined on the outer surface; a second region (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below) configured to mount to a vehicle axle (evident from Fig. 2), wherein the second region is offset from the first flange by an offset distance (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below), wherein the offset distance is in a direction away from the second flange (Fig. 7); and a third region (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below) connecting the first region and the second region, the third region extending inwardly towards the longitudinal axis from an attachment location on the first region to the second region (Fig. 7),wherein the third region comprises a first thickness (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below), the second region comprises a second thickness (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below), and the first thickness is no greater than 75% of the second thickness (clearly shown in Fig. 7),wherein an outer surface of the third region defines a curve (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below) from the second region to the first region and the curve is concave (Fig. 7), and wherein the first region, the second region, and the third region are integral without any welds (Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
742
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, DeGeorge further discloses the second region and the third region define a frustoconical shape or a frustum (Fig. 7) in the same manner that Applicant’s second region and concave third region are considered to define a frustoconical shape or a frustum.
Regarding claim 9, DeGeorge further discloses the second region transitions into the third region at an inflection point (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided above).
Regarding claim 22, DeGeorge further discloses the inflection point is above radially outward from the second region (evident from the reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickels (US 2016/0221389 A1; previously cited and applied) in view of DeGeorge.
Regarding independent claim 1, Rickels discloses a vehicle wheel 10 comprising: a generally annular first region 12 comprising a first flange 14, a second flange 18 opposite the first flange, a continuous wall (comprised of 16, 20, 21, 22 and 23) disposed about a longitudinal axis of the vehicle wheel and extending from the first flange to the second flange (Fig. 2), the continuous wall comprising an inner surface and an outer surface (Fig. 2), and a first tire bead seat 22 and a second tire bead seat 20 defined on the outer surface (Fig. 2); a second region 26 configured to mount to a vehicle axle (paragraph [0019]; Fig. 2), wherein the second region is offset from the first flange by an offset distance (paragraph [0019]; Fig. 2), wherein the offset distance is in a direction away from the second flange (paragraph [0019]; Fig. 2); and a third region 24 connecting the first region and the second region (Fig. 2), the third region extending inwardly towards the longitudinal axis from an attachment location (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2) on the first region to the second region (Fig. 2), wherein the third region comprises a first thickness (Fig. 2), the second region comprises a second thickness defined between the axially outboard surface of 26 and the axially inboard surface at 30 (Fig. 2), and the first thickness is no greater than 75% of the second thickness (clearly shown in Fig. 2), and wherein the first region, the second region, and the third region are integral without any welds (paragraph [0018]; Fig. 2).
Regarding independent claim 20, Rickels discloses a vehicle wheel 10 comprising: a generally annular first region 12 comprising a first flange 14, a second flange 18 opposite the first flange, a continuous wall (comprised of 16, 20, 21, 22 and 23) disposed about a longitudinal axis of the vehicle wheel and extending from the first flange to the second flange (Fig. 2), the continuous wall comprising an inner surface and an outer surface (Fig. 2), and a first tire bead seat 22 and a second tire bead seat 20 defined on the outer surface (Fig. 2), the first tire bead seat comprising a bead seat width (Fig. 2); a second region 26 configured to mount to a vehicle axle (paragraph [0019]; Fig. 2), wherein the second region is offset from the first flange by an offset distance (paragraph [0019]; Fig. 2), wherein the offset distance is in a direction away from the second flange (paragraph [0019]; Fig. 2); and a third region 24 connecting the first region and the second region (Fig. 2), the third region extending inwardly towards the longitudinal axis from an attachment location (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2) on the first region to the second region (Fig. 2), wherein the attachment location is at a first distance from a point at an intersection of a radius of the first flange and an angle defined by the first tire bead seat (Fig. 2), wherein the first distance is at least 50% of the bead seat width (evident from Fig. 2), and wherein the first region, the second region, and the third region are integral without any welds (paragraph [0018]; Fig. 2), wherein the vehicle wheel is a forged vehicle wheel (paragraph [0018] states, in part, “Wheel 10 is forged and machined from a single piece of aluminum, or other alloy forging to create a wheel that is stiff, strong and lightweight”).
Rickels fails to expressly disclose an outer surface of the third region defining a concave curve from the second region to the first region as required by independent claims 1 and 20.
DeGeorge, however, as noted above, teaches a third region (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided above) having a concave outer surface which extends from the second region to the first region as shown in Fig. 7.
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 vehicle wheel of Rickels by forming the outer surface of the third region to be concave from the second region to the first region, such as taught by DeGeorge, as a well-known alternative disc shape that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing sufficient strength and rigidity for supporting loads during use of the wheel.
Regarding claims 2-4, Rickels further discloses the first tire bead seat comprises a bead seat width (Fig. 2) and the attachment location is at a first distance from a point at an intersection of a radius of the first flange and an angle defined by the first tired bead seat (Fig. 2), wherein the first distance is in a range of at least 50% of the bead seat width to no greater than 100% of the bead seat width (evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Rickels further discloses the second region and the third region define a frustoconical shape or a frustum (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Rickels further discloses the second region transitions into the third region at an inflection point (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Rickels further discloses the first region comprises a bore 40 configured to receive a valve stem (paragraph [0020]), wherein the bore is adjacent to the attachment location (Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 13, Rickels further discloses the vehicle wheel comprises at least one of a metal, a metal alloy, and a composite material (paragraph [0018] states, in part, “Wheel 10 is forged and machined from a single piece of aluminum, or other alloy forging to create a wheel that is stiff, strong and lightweight”).
Regarding claim 14, Rickels further discloses the vehicle wheel comprises at least one of aluminum and an aluminum alloy, and wherein the vehicle wheel is a forged vehicle wheel (paragraph [0018] states, in part, “Wheel 10 is forged and machined from a single piece of aluminum, or other alloy forging to create a wheel that is stiff, strong and lightweight”).
Regarding claim 19, Rickels further discloses the offset distance is at least 0.394 inches (paragraph [0019] describes a spacing of “0.5 to 2.0 inches”).
Regarding claim 21 (as best understood by the Examiner in light of the section 112 issue noted above), Rickels further is considered to disclose the bore extends along the longitudinal axis a distance beyond a position of at least a portion of the first tire bead seat along the longitudinal axis inasmuch as the bore 40 shown in Fig. 4 is positioned in the same manner that Applicant’s bore is positioned (i.e., radially outward of the longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 22, Rickels further discloses the inflection point is radially outward from the second region (Fig. 2).
11. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickels in view of DeGeorge, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abe (US 5,577,810; previously cited and applied; hereinafter “Abe”).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, although Rickels appear to show the first thickness being no greater than 50% of the second thickness in Fig. 2, Rickels fails to expressly disclose the first thickness being in a range of at least 20% of the second thickness to no greater than 50% of the second thickness.
Abe, however, teaches a vehicle wheel with the first thickness being in a range of at least 20% of the second thickness to no greater than 50% of the second thickness (first thickness at portion 13 can be 50% of the second thickness at portion 15 as described in lines 48-63 of col. 2).
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 vehicle wheel of Rickels, as modified by DeGeorge, so that the first thickness is in a range of at least 20% of the second thickness to no greater than 50% of the second thickness, such as taught by Abe, with a reasonable expectation of success in minimizing the weight of the wheel while ensuring the wheel is sufficiently strong for its intended use.
12. Claims 10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickels in view of DeGeorge, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the Ultra One® with MagnaForce Alloy Aluminum Wheels Data Sheet (previously cited non-patent literature by Applicant; hereinafter “MagnaForce”).
Regarding claim 10, Rickels, as modified by DeGeorge, fails to expressly disclose the wheel having a load rating to mass ratio being at least 200.
MagnaForce, however, on page 5, teaches a wheel that a load rating to mass ratio of at least 200 (12,800 lb. load rating for a 52 lbs wheel).
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 vehicle wheel of Rickels, as modified by DeGeorge, by forming the vehicle wheel to have a load rating to mass ratio of at least 200, such as taught by MagnaForce, with a reasonable expectation of success in permitting the use of the wheel in high load applications while minimizing the weight of the wheel.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, although Rickels further discloses the “wheel 10 may have a diameter of 16 to 24 inches” (paragraph [0018]), Rickels, as modified by DeGeorge, fails to expressly disclose the claimed nominal rim width.
MagnaForce, however, teaches a vehicle wheel on page 3 in which the first region comprises a nominal rim diameter in a range of 16 inches to 24 inches (22.5” on page 3) and a nominal rim width in a range of 5.5 inches to 17 inches (8.25” on page 3).
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 vehicle wheel of Rickels, as modified by DeGeorge, by forming the vehicle wheel to have a nominal rim diameter in a range of 16 inches to 24 inches and a nominal rim width in a range of 5.5 inches to 17 inches, such as taught by MagnaForce, as a well-known vehicle wheel size that would have a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the use of the vehicle wheel in a number of different applications.
13. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickels in view of DeGeorge and MagnaForce, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 2,975,511; previously cited and applied).
Rickels, as modified by DeGeorge and MagnaForce, fails to expressly disclose the first thickness being no greater than 0.394 inches.
Johnson, however, teaches a vehicle wheel in which the first thickness at 25 is no greater than 0.394 inches (lines 28-32 of col. 2).
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 vehicle wheel of Rickels, as modified by DeGeorge and MagnaForce, by forming the first thickness to be no greater than 0.394 inches, such as taught by Johnson, with a reasonable expectation of success in minimizing the weight of the wheel.
14. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickels in view of DeGeorge and MagnaForce, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Weinmann (US 4,708,397; previously cited and applied).
Rickels, as modified by DeGeorge and MagnaForce, fails to expressly disclose the second thickness being at least 0.630 inches.
Weinmann, however, teaches a vehicle wheel in which the second thickness can be at least 0.630 inches (lines 19-23 of col. 1; lines 15-21 of col. 3; Fig. 1).
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 vehicle wheel of Rickels, as modified by DeGeorge and MagnaForce, by forming the second thickness to be at least 0.630 inches, such as taught by Weinmann, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the wheel is sufficiently strong and rigid at a portion thereof that is subject to high stresses and loads.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
15. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 10 November 2025 and Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
16. 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