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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-22 are pending
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn, belonging to unelected Group I.
Claim 14 is cancelled.
Claim 13 is amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 13, 15-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170129279-A1 to Stebbins (“Stebbins”), and further in view of US-20070018496-A1 to McCorquodale (“McCorquodale”).
Regarding Claim 13, Stebbins discloses a vehicle wheel, comprising: a wheel (10) defined by a wheel substrate (32 “cast allow wheel”; BRI: substrate “as surface to which a substance adheres”, en.wiktionary.org) including a face (24 primary surface of spokes and outboard face of 14, Fig 1) and a rim portion (12 “rim element”); said face defined by a central portion (14 “central element”) and a plurality of spokes (22) extending radially outwardly between said central portion and said rim portion (Fig 1); a polymer over-coating (including 34 “first polymeric coating or primer”, 36 “intermediate polymeric coating”, 38 “metallic layer”, and 40 “third polymeric coating”, 42 “final clear polymeric coating” , Para 16-22, Figs 3-5) being substantially transparent (specifically third layer 40 is “clear with no pigmentation” and layer 42 “clear “ Para 19) extending and said face portion of said wheel substrate thereby defining a continuous polymer surface and said face portion of said wheel substrate.
Stebbins does not disclose an applique being affixed to said face portion of said wheel at said mating portion; an applique being affixed to said face portion of said wheel; a polymer over-coating being substantially transparent extending over said applique and said face portion of said wheel substrate thereby defining a continuous polymer surface over said face portion of said wheel substrate, and presenting a same gloss level over said applique and sad face portion of said wheel..
McCorquodale discloses a wheel (10) having and a central portion (15 “outer side with circular disc shape [i.e. face portion], having a plurality of openings [45 “openings” i.e. holes between spokes, Para 11, 12], with 70 grooves in spokes, Para 12, Fig 1, 5) an applique (a plurality of 140 “decorative cover”, overlayed on 70 groove, [shape shown Fig 1, 5, i.e. a two dimensional shape] Para 13 being affixed to said face portion of said wheel (affixed via 150 “adhesive layer, [thus a layer with adhesive, [i.e. applique is a decal] on groove 70 on outward face of spokes Para 13), having an cover of a polymeric layer (145 Para 14, Fig 4; i.e. a polymer overcoating).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the vehicle wheel and the polymer applique affixed via adhesive to a face portion of wheel, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the vehicle wheel of Stebbins and the polymer applique with adhesive layer, affixable to a face portion of McCorquodale, to modify the wheel of Stebbins such that it includes an applique (like McCorquodale), adhered to the mating portions on the spokes (of Stebbins), such that it is placed over 34 primer layer, and under layers 36, 38, 40 and 42 [“final clear polymeric coating” i.e. a continuous and substantially transparent polymer overcoating extending over applique and face of wheel, [thus presenting a same gloss level over applique and face portion of wheel the thereby defining a continuous polymer surface over said applique and said face portion of said wheel (since 42 covers both), with the motivation to enhance via aesthetically pleasing design patterns and/or color (McCorquodale Abstract and Claim 2); to ensure good adhesion [by being over primer layer]; and to be protected from the environment by [being under layers 36-42], having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Stebbins and McCorquodale discloses the vehicle wheel set forth fourth in claim 13, wherein said polymer over-coating includes coloring (layer 34 includes pigment, Para 16 and layer 36 can be pigmented, Stebbins Para 17).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Stebbins and McCorquodale discloses the vehicle wheel set forth fourth in claim 13, wherein said polymer over-coating includes a plurality of polymer layers (5 layers: 34, 36, 38, 40 , and 42 all but layer 38 are polymeric, as described in paragraph 5 of this document).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Stebbins and McCorquodale discloses the vehicle wheel set forth fourth in claim 13, further including a primer polymer coating (34 as described in paragraph 6 of this document) being adhered to said wheel substrate beneath at least one of said applique and said polymer over-coating (layers 36-42 being over applique, as described in paragraph 5 of this document).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Stebbins and McCorquodale discloses the vehicle wheel set forth in claim 17, further including an intermediate coating (36) disposed between said primer polymer coating beneath at least one of: said applique and said polymer over-coating (specifically 36 is beneath layers 38-42, Stebbins Paras 18-21) .
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Stebbins and McCorquodale discloses the vehicle wheel set forth in claim 17, further including a metal layer (38, Para 18) disposed between said primer polymer layer and said at least one of: said applique and said polymer coating (38 is between 34 and layers 40-42 are over 38, Stebbins Para 18).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Stebbins and McCorquodale discloses the vehicle wheel set forth in claim 17, wherein said wheel substrate is visible through said polymer over-coat (due to milling operations to removed first polymer coating, “exposing the cast alloy substrate”, Para 24).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Stebbins and McCorquodale discloses the (vehicle wheel set forth in claim 13, wherein said applique is a two-dimensional decal (applique with adhesive [i.e. a decal] as described in paragraph 5 of this document).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbins, and further in view of McCorquodale, as applied to claim 13, and further in view of FR-3044590-A1 to Bove (“Bove”).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Stebbins and McCorquodale discloses the vehicle wheel set forth in claim 13, but does not disclose wherein said applique is three dimensional.
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel with applique and the three dimensional applique of Bove in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel with applique of the combination of Stebbins and McCorquodale and teaching of the three dimensional applique of Bove, to modify applique of the wheel (the combination of Stebbins and McCorquodale) such that it is a three dimensional applique (like Bove), with the motivation to further enhance the aesthetically pleasing design pattern of the applique such that its patter is a raised three dimensional pattern, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 03/27/2026 with respect to rejection of claims 13-20 and 22 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (Remarks Pages 6-7) state that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicants arguments rely (listed in a-d below), 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).
Stebbins discloses opposite of claim 13: paint removal, two tone appearance Remarks page 6, Para 3;
Applique must be chemically and thermally resistant due to bake oven curing; [Remarks Page 6 Page 2];
McCorquodale’s specification is only 6 paragraphs, does not provide much information as to the ultimate function of the concept
McCorquodale’s polymer vinyl cannot withstand the rigors of weathering and environmental degradation.
McCorquodale’s decorative covering does not and cannot include same gloss level as the wheel over which decorative covering is applied.
Examiner responds to applicant's argument as follows:
Arguments a-d are not persuasive, because they rely on limits 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).
Argument e is not persuasive, because the modification/combination of Stebbins by the teaching of McCorquodale, relies on McCorquodale for the teaching of an applique applied to a wheel, and then applying a polymer coating over the applique and the wheel surface, as detailed in nonfinal rejection of 10/28/2025 Pages 3-4, Para 6 and Para 7, and repeated in this document with modification for amended claim 13 now including limits of claim 14 now cancelled. Furthermore, applicant gives no explanation as to why it is claimed the same gloss level “does not and cannot” included in the modification combination of Stebbins and McCorquodale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joe Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights