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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 30 September 2025 and 21 October 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
The lined through references have either been previously cited by the Examiner, and are thus already of record, or are not pertinent to the claimed invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 30 September 2025. These drawings are approved.
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 20-36 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.
Claims 20 and 32 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what element(s) is/are being referred to by the term “which” in lines 5 and 2, respectively.
Claim 20 is further indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear whether the “material thickness” set forth in lines 10-11 is the same “material thickness” set forth in lines 6-7, given the fact that the first mentioned “material thickness” (lines 6-7) is associated with “the area of the transition section” while the second mentioned “material thickness” (lines 10-11) is associated with “the adjoining area of the transition section”, due to the fact it is unclear whether these “areas” are the same or different portions of the transition section.
Claim 20 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is being claimed by the phrase “its an” in line 12. Furthermore, it is unclear what element of the invention is being referred to by the term “its”. It is unclear whether the claim is complete.
Claim 27 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear whether “the section” (of the transition section” and “the area” (of the transition section) set forth in lines 2 and 3, respectively, are the same element as previously set forth in the claims, or additional elements of the claimed invention.
Claim 32 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “with and” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether the claim is complete.
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) 20-28, 31, and 33-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaski et al in view of Saito et al (2012/0086263).
Per claim 20, 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 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 24, the stiffening section (P) has a corrugated curve profile with at least one corrugation peak.
Per claim 25, the corrugation peak is formed adjacent the hump (HP).
Per claim 26, the corrugation peak is spaced from the hump (HP) and positioned between the stiffening section (P) and a bridging section merging into the hump (HP).
Per claim 28, the corrugation peak has a radial offset relative to adjacent areas of the transition section, which is greater than a radial elevation of the hump peak relative to the inner rim shoulder 12.
Per claim 31, 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 36, the corrugation peak is adjacent the hump (HP) and merges directly into the hump peak with one peak flank.
Regarding claim 20, Nakaski et al does not show the stiffening section forming a “box profile” with an inner and outer offset sections and an intermediate section. Figure 3 of Saito et al teaches the use of a wheel rim 52 having a stiffening section that forms a “box profile” including inner and outer offset sections 63 and an intermediate section 62b. The intermediate section 62b extends in a straight line between the inner and outer offset sections 63.
Regarding claim 23, the intermediate section 62b lies radially further away than a remaining section 30b of a transition section 19.
Regarding claim 27, a bridging section (i.e. the area between the hump 18b and inner offset section 63) has essentially the same diameter as a section 30b of the transition section 19 on a well base side of the rim 52.
Regarding claim 33, the straight line of the intermediate section 62b run 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 Saito et al, as a substitute equivalent configuration, dependent upon the desired resiliency of the wheel rim.
Regarding claim 21, Nakaski et al as modified by Saito et al does not show the radial offset of the intermediate section being 2 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 22 and 35, Nakaski et al as modified by Saito 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 34, Nakaski et al as modified by Saito 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) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaski et al in view of Saito et al as applied to claims 20-28, 31, and 33-36, and further in view of Tavazza et al (4,502,521).
Regarding claim 29, Nakaski et al does not show the stiffening section including “several” corrugation peaks. Tavazza et al teaches the use of a wheel rim having a stiffening section including more than one corrugation peaks 9-10. 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 provide the stiffening section of Nakaski et al with more than one corrugation peaks, dependent upon the desired resiliency of the wheel rim.
The limitation regarding the radial offset is addressed in section 7 above.
Regarding claim 30, Nakaski et al as modified by Tavazza et al does not disclose the radial offset of each corrugation peak relative to a section of the transition section on the well base side being 2 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 corrugation peaks with a radial offset sufficient to support the load of the vehicle and prevent failure of the wheel rim during use.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaski et al in view of Saito et al as applied to claims 20-28, 31, and 33-36 above, and further in view of Heck et al (5,188,429).
Nakaski 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 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 filed 30 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “none of the cited references, alone or in proper combination, discloses or suggest such a rim” as set forth in claims 20-36. However, it should be noted that newly added claims 20-36 are essentially identical to claims 1-19 that were rejected in the previous Office action. Therefore, the rejection above (retained from the previous Office action) still applies. It should be noted that the Applicant did not provide any arguments against the art rejections in the previous Office action.
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 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