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 Objections
Claims 37 and 47 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 37 includes an incorrect punctuation at the end of the last line thereof. Namely, the last line includes a forward slash mark (/) and not a period (.), making it unclear whether the claim is complete.
The term “which” should be replaced with the term - -the- - or - -said- - in line 2 of claim 47, for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 44 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 44 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear whether the phrase “the area” set forth in line 4 is the same element as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claim 50 recites the limitation "the at least one corrugation peak" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 37-46 and 48-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaski et al in view of Drieux et al (5,634,993).
Per claim 37, Nakaski et al shows a wheel rim 2 having inner and outer flanges 13, inner and outer rim shoulders (i.e. bead seats) 12, a rim well 11 having a well base and inner and outer well flanks. The rim well 11 is located between the inner and outer rim shoulders 12. The rim 2 includes a transition section adjoining the inner well flank and an inner hump (HP) having a hump peak located between the transition section and the inner rim shoulder 12, which are rotationally symmetrical around a wheel axis. The rim 2 includes a material thickness in “the area” of the transition section. The rim 2 is rotationally symmetrical around a wheel axis. The transition section includes at least one rotationally symmetrical stiffening section (P) with a radially offset wall section. A maximum radial offset of the radially offset wall section is greater than the material thickness in “the adjoining area” of the transition section. The stiffening section has a diameter over an entire axial extent that is equal to or greater than the diameter of the well base, and smaller than the diameter of the hump peak of the hump (HP).
Per claim 40, an intermediate section (PP) of the stiffening section (P) lies radially further inward than a remaining section (adjacent element (H)) of the transition section.
Per claim 46, the rim 2 is made of metal. It should be noted that the limitations that the metal rim is “manufactured in a casting process and/or by means of forming” and a steel rim is “manufactured by means of forming” are methods of making a rim set forth in a product claim, and therefore receive no patentable weight (see MPEP 2113).
Per claim 50, the stiffening section (P) has a corrugated curve profile with at least one corrugation peak formed adjacent the hump (HP), and merges directly into a hump flank with one peak flank.
Regarding claim 37, Nakaski et al does not show the stiffening section forming a “box profile” with an inner and outer offset sections and an intermediate section. Drieux et al teaches the use of a wheel rim having a stiffening section 26 that forms a “box profile” including inner and outer offset sections and an intermediate section. The intermediate section extends in a straight line between the inner and outer offset sections.
Regarding claim 41, the intermediate section lies radially further away than a remaining section 21 of a transition section.
Regarding claim 42, the intermediate section of the stiffening section 26 has an axial length smaller than an axial distance between a hump 24 peak and a transition point between the intermediate section and the inner offset section.
Regarding claim 43, a bridging section merges into the hump (HP), is formed between the inner offset portion and the hump.
Regarding claim 44, a bridging section has essentially the same diameter as a section (H) of the transition section on a well base 11 side of the rim 2.
Regarding claim 45, the bridging section has a larger diameter than a section of the transition section lying on the well base 11 side of the stiffening section (P).
Regarding claim 48, the straight line of the intermediate section of the stiffening section 26 runs axially parallel to the wheel axis over an entire length thereof.
Therefore, from these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the stiffening section of Nakaski et al in the manner taught by Drieux et al, as a substitute equivalent configuration, dependent upon the desired resiliency of the wheel rim.
Regarding claims 37-38, Nakaski et al as modified by Drieux et al does not disclose the maximum radial offset of the intermediate section of the stiffening section 26 being at least 2 or 3 to 15 times as great as the wall thickness in the transition section. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the intermediate section with a radial offset sufficient to support the load of the vehicle and prevent failure of the wheel rim during use.
Regarding claims 39, Nakaski et al as modified by Drieux et al does not show the intermediate section being angled with respect to the wheel axis. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the intermediate section in such a manner, for the purpose of increasing the radial space on the interior inboard area of the wheel, thus allowing more space for braking and/or suspension components.
Regarding claim 49, Nakaski et al as modified by Drieux et al does not show the intermediate section having a radial offset 3 to 8 times greater than the wall thickness of the transition section. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the intermediate section with a radial offset sufficient to support the load of the vehicle and prevent failure of the wheel rim during use.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaski et al in view of Drieux et al as applied to claims 37-46 and 48-50 above, and further in view of Heck et al (5,188,429).
Nakaski et al (as modified by Drieux et al) does not disclose the structure of a wheel disk on which the wheel rim is mounted. Heck et al teaches the use of a wheel 80 having a rim 86 mounted to a disk 84, with the disk including a hub connection flange with a plurality of bolts hole arranged in a hole circle, a transition area provided with ventilation holes therein, and a disk edge 82. The hub connection flange, transition area, and outer rim flange form the front side of the wheel.
Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the wheel disk to which the rim of Nakaski et al (as modified by Drieux et al) is attached in the manner taught by Heck et al, dependent upon the desired aesthetic and structural features of the completed wheel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 37-50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference shows a wheel rim having a box profile stiffening section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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) 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights