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 “the plurality of spokes are positioned on…the outboard-facing surface of the rim wall” as newly set forth in claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Note Fig. 1 appears to show the radially outer ends of spokes 14-18 being positioned on an inboard-facing surface of an axially inboard rim wall 24 and the radially outer ends of spokes 19-23 being positioned on an inboard-facing surface of an axially outboard rim wall 24. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “24” has been used to designate both an axially inboard rim wall and an axially outboard rim wall in Fig. 1.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not describe the rim wall “extending radially toward the hub, the rim wall having an outboard-facing surface and an inboard-facing surface” as newly set forth in claim 15. Nor does the specification describe “the plurality of spokes are positioned on the rim web…” as newly set forth in claim 15. Instead, paragraph [0057] of the specification describes the spokes being “fastened within a rim edge 24” which, as best understood, merely implies the spokes are axially inward or inboard of the rim edge instead of being positioned on the rim wall.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 15-34 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 15, there is no support in the original disclosure for the plurality of spokes being positioned “on the outboard-facing surface of the rim wall” as newly set forth. As noted above, Fig. 1 appears to show the radially outer ends of spokes 14-18 being positioned on an inboard-facing surface of an axially inboard rim wall 24 and the radially outer ends of spokes 19-23 being positioned on an inboard-facing surface of an axially outboard rim wall 24.
7. 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 15-34 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.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the plurality of spokes are positioned on the rim wall, or on the outboard-facing surface of the rim wall, or on the inboard-facing surface of the rim wall” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the plurality of spokes can be positioned on the rim wall, but not on either the outboard-facing surface of the rim wall or the inboard-facing surface of the rim wall as implied by this limitation. As such, the metes and bounds of this limitation is unascertainable.
Regarding claim 16, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the functional installation state of the wheel in the vehicle” and “the vehicle transverse direction”.
Regarding claim 17, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the vehicle transverse direction”.
Regarding claim 27, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the functional installation state of the wheel in the vehicle”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 15-24, 26-29, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 106274268 A; previously cited) in view of Van Houten et al. (US 2019/0184735 A1; hereinafter “Van Houten”; newly cited).
Regarding claim 15, Huang discloses a wheel for a vehicle (Abstract), comprising: a rim 1; a hub 3; a plurality of spokes 2 arranged in a distributed manner in a circumferential direction and each having a radially inner end and a radially outer end (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the hub is arranged asymmetrically to a vertical wheel center plane extending perpendicularly to a rotation axis direction of the wheel (Fig. 2), and each spoke is connected to the rim by its radially outer end and to the hub by its radially inner end, such that the rim is connected to the hub by the spokes (Figs. 1 and 2).
While Fig. 1 of Huang appears to show the rim comprising a rim wall extending radially inwardly toward the hub, Huang fails to expressly disclose a rim wall extending radially inwardly toward the hub, the rim wall having an outboard-facing surface and an inboard-facing surface, and the plurality of spokes are positioned on the rim wall.
Van Houten, however, in the embodiment shown in Figs. 6-9, teaches a wheel for a vehicle in which the rim comprises a rim wall 127 extending radially inwardly toward the hub (best shown in Figs. 7 and 8), the rim wall having an outboard-facing surface and an inboard-facing surface (best shown in Fig. 8), and the plurality of spokes 124 are positioned on the rim wall (Figs. 7 and 8).
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 Huang by forming the rim with a rim wall such that the plurality of spokes are positioned on the rim wall, such as taught by Van Houten, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the spokes are adequately secured to the rim in a desired position during use of the wheel while also facilitating the assembly and disassembly of such spokes, if needed, by making such attachment removable.
Regarding claim 16, Huang further discloses with respect to the functional installation state of the wheel in the vehicle, two spokes arranged adjacently in the circumferential direction are fastened to the rim by their radially outer end at different positions in the vehicle transverse direction (Fig. 2; Abstract) and/or to the hub by their radially inner end at different positions in the vehicle transverse direction (Fig. 2; Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Huang further discloses the wheel comprises at least two groups of spokes: a first group of spokes (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 2 provided below) whose radially outer end is fastened to the rim at a first position in the vehicle transverse direction along a first rim circumferential circle, and at least one second group of spokes (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 2 provided below) whose radially outer end is fastened to the rim at a second position in the vehicle transverse direction along a second rim circumferential circle (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
718
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Huang further discloses the wheel comprises at least two groups of spokes: a first group of spokes (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 2 provided above) whose radially inner end is fastened to the hub at a first position in the vehicle transverse direction along a first hub circumferential circle, and at least one second group of spokes (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 2 provided above) whose radially inner end is fastened to the hub at a second position in the vehicle transverse direction along a second hub circumferential circle (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Huang further discloses at least one first spoke of the first group is fastened to the rim by its radially outer end along the first rim circumferential circle and to the hub by its radially inner end along the first hub circumferential circle (shown in labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 2 provided above), and at least one second spoke of the second group arranged adjacently to a first spoke in the circumferential direction is fastened to the rim by its radially outer end along the second rim circumferential circle and to the hub by its radially inner end along the second hub circumferential circle (shown in labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 2 provided above).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Huang further discloses the spokes of the first group and the spokes of the second group are arranged in a regularly alternating manner (Fig. 2; Abstract).
Regarding claim 23, Huang further discloses at least one first spoke extends from the hub up to the rim with its longitudinal axis at a first defined angle to the rotation axis (Fig. 2), and at least one second spoke arranged adjacently to a first spoke in the circumferential direction extends from the hub up to the rim with its longitudinal axis at a second defined angle to the rotation axis (Fig. 2), wherein the at least one first spoke and/or the at least one second spoke extend or extends in a plane which is common with the rotation axis (evident from Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 24, Huang further discloses the at least one first spoke extends from the hub obliquely radially outward and toward a vehicle interior up to the rim (shown in labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 2 provided above); and the at least one second spoke extends from the hub obliquely radially outward and toward a vehicle exterior up to the rim (shown in labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 2 provided above).
Regarding claim 26, Huang further discloses the first defined angle and the second defined angle have different angular magnitudes (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 27 , Huang further discloses with respect to the functional installation state of the wheel in the vehicle, a distance in the vehicle transverse direction between the first rim circumferential circle and the second rim circumferential circle and also a distance between the first hub circumferential circle and the second hub circumferential circle and also the first defined angle and the second defined angle are each chosen such that: when considering a radial section through the wheel along a section plane containing the rotation axis of the wheel, and with a projection in the circumferential direction of two adjacently arranged spokes into the section plane, these spokes form an X, a V, an inverted V or, together with a portion of the rim and a portion of the hub, a quadrangle (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 28, Huang further discloses a width of at least one spoke in the circumferential direction increases outwardly in the radial direction at 6 with increasing distance from the rotation axis of the wheel (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 29, Huang further discloses the increase is symmetrical relative to a spoke longitudinal axis (evident from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 33, Huang further discloses a motor vehicle (“car” per Abstract) comprising the wheel.
Regarding claim 34, Huang further discloses the motor vehicle is a two-track motor vehicle (“car” per Abstract).
13. Claims 25, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Van Houten, as applied to claims 15, 17, 18 and 23 above, and further in view of Knappen (US 1,383,405; previously cited).
Regarding claim 25, Huang fails to disclose the first defined angle and the second defined angle have a same angular magnitude.
Knappen, however, teaches a wheel in which the first defined angle of the first spoke (spoke at 20 in Fig. 2) and the second defined angle of the second spoke (spoke at 2 in Fig. 2) have a same angular magnitude (Fig. 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 wheel of Huang, as modified by Van Houten, so that the first defined angle and the second defined angle have a same angular magnitude, such as taught by Knappen, as a well-known alternative spoke configuration that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a light weight and durable wheel with good rigidity and stiffness that is able to uniformly distribute loads during use of the wheel.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Huang fails to disclose a width of at least one spoke in the circumferential direction decreases outwardly in the radial direction with increasing distance from the rotation axis of the wheel, wherein the decrease is symmetrical relative to a spoke longitudinal axis.
Knappen, however, teaches a wheel wherein a width of at least one spoke in the circumferential direction decreases outwardly in the radial direction with increasing distance from the rotation axis of the wheel (Fig. 1), wherein the decrease is symmetrical relative to a spoke longitudinal axis (evident from 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 wheel of Huang, as modified by Van Houten, so that a width of at least one spoke in the circumferential direction decreases outwardly in the radial direction with increasing distance from the rotation axis of the wheel, wherein the decrease is symmetrical relative to a spoke longitudinal axis, such as taught by Knappen, as a well-known alternative spoke configuration that would have a reasonable expectation of success in enhancing the stiffness and durability of the spoke at the hub-end of the spoke.
14. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Van Houten, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Fauser et al. (US 2018/0272798 A1; previously cited; hereinafter “Fauser”).
Huang fails to expressly disclose at least one spoke of the wheel has an aerodynamic feature.
Fauser, however, teaches a wheel which comprises an aerodynamic feature cover element 2 attached to the spoke 1b as shown in 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 wheel of Huang, as modified by Van Houten, so that at least one spoke has an aerodynamic feature, such as taught by Fauser, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the aerodynamic properties of the wheel.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant's arguments filed 15 September 2026 with respect to the newly added limitations being supported by the disclosure have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Fig. 1 shows the plurality of spokes being positioned on rim wall 24 on its opposing surfaces. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and again notes Fig. 1 appears to show the radially outer ends of spokes 14-18 being positioned on an inboard-facing surface of an axially inboard rim wall 24 and the radially outer ends of spokes 19-23 being positioned on an inboard-facing surface of an axially outboard rim wall 24.
In response to Applicant’s opinion that “Figure 1 depicts spoke 21 positioned on the outboard-facing surface of rim wall 24”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that while it appears from Fig. 1 that spoke 21 is positioned on an inboard-facing surface of an axially outboard rim wall 24, it is clear from Fig. 1 that spoke 21 is axially spaced from the outboard-facing surface of the axially inboard rim wall 24. Moreover, Fig. 1 clearly shows the axially spacing between the axially inboard rim wall 24 and the axially outboard rim wall 24 being much greater than the thickness of spoke 21 in the axial direction such that it would not be possible for spoke 21 to be positioned on both the inboard-facing surface of the axially outboard rim wall 24 and the he outboard-facing surface of the axially inboard rim wall 24.
To help facilitate Applicant’s understanding of Applicant’s Fig. 1, annotated and reproduced Fig. 1 is provided below:
PNG
media_image2.png
810
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 15 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
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
