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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Claims 15-24, 26-29, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (CN 106274268 A; previously 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), 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), with respect to a functional installation state of the wheel in the vehicle, at least two of the spokes are fastened to the rim by their radially outer end at different positions in a vehicle transverse direction (Fig. 2) and/or at least two of the spokes are fastened to the hub by their radially inner end at different positions in the vehicle transverse direction (Fig. 2), and each spoke has a respective centerline extending along the longitudinal axis of each spoke, and each respective centerline of each spoke is disposed at a different angular position about the rotation axis of the wheel (evident from Figs. 1 and 2).
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 angle and the second 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 angle and the second 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 25, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Knappen (US 1,383,405; previously cited).
Regarding claim 25, Huang fails to disclose the first angle and the second angle have a same angular magnitude.
Knappen, however, teaches a wheel in which the first angle of the first spoke (spoke at 20 in Fig. 2) and the second 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 so that the first angle and the second 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 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.
7. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang 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 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
8. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim 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
9. 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.
10. 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
Prosecution Insights