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 .
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 19 February 2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE 10 2020 104 305.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
2. 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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“a width of at least one spoke in the circumferential direction increases outwardly in the radial direction with increasing distance from the rotation axis of the wheel” as set forth in claim 28.
“at least one spoke of the wheel has an additional further aerodynamic feature” as set forth in claim 32.
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. No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 newly added limitation “the rim includes two axially spaced, annular rim wall portions” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “two axially spaced, annular rim wall portions” refers to “two axially spaced, annular rim wall portions” previously recited in line 4 of claim 15, or if “two axially spaced, annular rim wall portions” is distinct therefrom (i.e., refers to two other axially spaced, annular rim wall portions) as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 15, the newly added limitation “at least two spokes” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “at least two spokes” refers to the “at least two of the spokes” previously recited in claim 15 or if “at least two spokes” is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 15, the newly added limitation “different rim wall portions” in the last line renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “different rim wall portions” refers to the previously recited “the two axially spaced, annular rim wall portions each extend circumferentially around the wheel at a different position along the vehicle transverse direction”, or the previously recited “two axially spaced, annular rim wall portions that are integral to the rim and located at different positions in the vehicle-transverse direction”, or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction because there is no inclusion of the term “said” or “the” before the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 15-20, 23-25, 27, 30, 31, 33 and 34, as best understood in light of the section 112 issues noted above, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knappen (US 1,383,405).
Regarding claim 15, Knappen discloses a wheel (Figs. 1-3) for a vehicle, comprising: a rim 1; a hub (comprised of 30, 40, 3 and 4); two axially spaced annular rim wall portions 10 (best shown in Fig. 3); and a plurality of spokes (unlabeled spokes of spoke members 2 and 20 shown in Figs. 1-3) arranged in a distributed manner in a circumferential direction and each having a radially inner end and a radially outer end (unlabeled radial ends of spokes shown in Figs. 1-3), wherein the hub is arranged asymmetrically to a vertical wheel center plane extending perpendicularly to a rotation axis direction of the wheel (best shown in 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. 1-3), 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 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), the two axially spaced annular rim wall portions each extend circumferentially around the wheel at a different position along the vehicle transverse direction (Fig. 3; lines 59-61 of page 1), and each of the at least two of the plurality of spokes terminates at a different one of the rim wall portions (evident from Fig. 2 that each of the unlabeled spokes of spoke member 2 terminates at the axially inboard rib or annular rim wall portion 10 while each of the unlabeled spokes of spoke member 20 terminates at the axially outboard rib or annular rim wall portion 10), the rim includes two axially spaced, annular rim wall portions 10 that are integral to the rim and located at different positions in the vehicle-transverse direction (Figs. 2 and 3), and at least two spokes terminate at different rim wall portions (evident from Fig. 2 that each of the unlabeled spokes of spoke member 2 terminates at the axially inboard rib or annular rim wall portion 10 while each of the unlabeled spokes of spoke member 20 terminates at the axially outboard rib or annular rim wall portion 10).
Regarding claim 16, Knappen 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 and to the hub by their radially inner end at different positions in the vehicle transverse direction (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Knappen further discloses the wheel comprises at least two groups of spokes (a first group comprises the unlabeled spokes of spoke member 2 and a second group comprises the unlabeled spokes of spoke member 20): a first group of spokes whose radially outer end is fastened to the rim at a first position in the vehicle transverse direction along a first rim circumferential circle (Fig. 2), and at least one second group of spokes 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).
Regarding claim 18, Knappen further discloses the wheel comprises at least two groups of spokes (a first group comprises the unlabeled spokes of spoke member 2 and a second group comprises the unlabeled spokes of spoke member 20): a first group of spokes whose radially inner end is fastened to the hub at a first position in the vehicle transverse direction along a first hub circumferential circle (Fig. 2), and at least one second group of spokes 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, Knappen further discloses at least one first spoke (spoke at 2 in Fig. 2) 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 (Fig. 2), and at least one second spoke (spoke at 20 in Fig. 2) 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 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 23, Knappen further discloses at least one first spoke (spoke at 20 in Fig. 2) 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 (spoke at 2 in Fig. 2) 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 Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Knappen further discloses the at least one first spoke extends from the hub obliquely radially outward and toward a vehicle interior up to the rim (evident from Fig. 2 and lines 83-89 of page 1); and the at least one second spoke extends from the hub obliquely radially outward and toward a vehicle exterior up to the rim (evident from Fig. 2 and lines 83-89 of page 1).
Regarding claim 25, Knappen further discloses the first angle and the second angle have a same angular magnitude (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Knappen 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 30, Knappen further discloses 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).
Regarding claim 31, Knappen further discloses the decrease is symmetrical relative to a spoke longitudinal axis (evident from Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 33, Knappen further discloses a motor vehicle (“car” per line 89 of page 1) comprising the wheel.
Regarding claim 34, Knappen further discloses the motor vehicle is a two-track motor vehicle (“car” per line 89 of page 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 21, 22, 26, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knappen in view of Huang (CN 106274268).
Regarding claims 21, 22 and 26, Knappen fails to disclose the spokes of the first group and the spokes of the second group are arranged in alternating manner, wherein the first angle and the second angle have different angular magnitudes.
Huang, however, teaches a wheel (Figs. 1 and 2) for a vehicle (Abstract), comprising: a rim 1; a hub 3; and 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 (Fig. 2), and 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 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), wherein the spokes of the first group and the spokes of the second group are arranged in a regularly alternating manner (evident from Fig. 2), and wherein the first angle and the second angle have different angular magnitudes (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 Knappen so that the spokes of the first group and the spokes of the second group are arranged in alternating manner wherein the first angle and the second angle have different angular magnitudes, such as taught by Huang, 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 to resist loads during use.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Knappen fails to disclose a width of at least one spoke in the circumferential direction increases outwardly in the radial direction with increasing distance from the rotation axis of the wheel, wherein the increase is symmetrical relative to a spoke longitudinal axis.
Huang, however, teaches a wheel in which a width of at least one spoke 2 in the circumferential direction increases outwardly in the radial direction at 6 with increasing distance from the rotation axis of the wheel (Fig. 1), wherein the increase 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 Knappen so that a width of at least one spoke in the circumferential direction increases outwardly in the radial direction with increasing distance from the rotation axis of the wheel, wherein the increase is symmetrical relative to a spoke longitudinal axis, such as taught by Huang, 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 rim-end of the spoke.
12. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knappen in view of Fauser et al. (US 2018/0272798 A1; previously cited by Applicant; hereinafter “Fauser”).
Knappen 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 Knappen 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
13. Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the drawing objections of claims 28 and 32 that “a person having ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood the subject matter sought to be patented without the need for definition thereof. Thus, there is no need to depict the subject matter erroneously objected to”, the Examiner again notes that 37 CFR 1.83(a), excerpted below, requires every features of the invention specified in the claims to be shown with exception of conventional features, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, which should be illustrated in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation. Applicant has not shown the features of claims 28 and 32 in the drawings. Nor has Applicant admitted on the record that such features are merely conventional features with such features illustrated in the drawings in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation.
1.83 Content of drawing.
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
In response to Applicant’s opinion that “Knappen does not disclose (or even suggest) the newly added ‘two annular rim wall portions’ and ‘spokes terminate at different rim wall portions’ limitations”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Knappen discloses two axially spaced annular rim wall portions 10 (best shown in Fig. 3) each extending circumferentially around the wheel at a different position along the vehicle transverse direction (Fig. 3; lines 59-61 of page 1), and each of at least two of the plurality of spokes terminates at a different one of the rim wall portions (evident from Fig. 2 that each of the unlabeled spokes of spoke member 2 terminates at the axially inboard rib or annular rim wall portion 10 while each of the unlabeled spokes of spoke member 20 terminates at the axially outboard rib or annular rim wall portion 10).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that “Knappen discloses only a single groove/channel, not two axially spaced annular rim wall portions as claimed”, first note the claims do not preclude a construction in which the two axially spaced annular rim wall portions define a single groove. As clearly shown in Figs. 2 and 3, and described in lines 59-61 of page 1, Knappen discloses two distinct annular rim wall portions (i.e., ribs 10) that are spaced apart along the vehicle’s transverse direction.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that “Knappen does not disclose ‘at least two spokes terminate at different rim wall portions’”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is evident from Fig. 2 that each of the unlabeled spokes of spoke member 2 terminates at the axially inboard rib or annular rim wall portion 10 while each of the unlabeled spokes of spoke member 20 terminates at the axially outboard rib or annular rim wall portion 10. Figs. 2 and 3 of Knappen clearly show the spokes of spoke member 2 being positioned axially adjacent the spokes of spoke member 20. In other words, the respective spokes of the different spoke members 2, 20 do not engage the same axial position as Applicant alleges.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that “Knappen cannot be interpreted as disclosing or suggesting Applicant’s features” because “it discloses a single groove/channel formed by ribs for receiving the wheel center’s outer periphery and it discloses the spoke sets being secured together at their outer ends…”, the Examiner notes that the claims do not preclude such a construction.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Knappen does not disclose the hub being “arranged asymmetrically to a vertical wheel center plane extending perpendicularly to a rotation axis direction of the wheel” as claimed because the sets of spoke members are mirror-images about the wheel’s center plane, the Examiner notes that the spokes of the wheel refer to different structure than the hub of the wheel. Fig. 2 of Knappen clearly shows the hub being arranged asymmetrically to the vertical wheel center plane. Specifically, the hub (comprised of 30, 40, 3 and 4) of Knappen is shown to not be identical (i.e., it is asymmetric) on both sides of the vertical wheel center plane in Fig. 2.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 16 that “Each group of spokes terminates along the same hub band 22 and the same outer riveted joint; there is no disclosure that adjacent spokes of differing groups occupy distinct axial planes”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and has provided annotated Fig. 2 of Knappen showing the two distinct attachment planes at the hub and the two distinct attachment planes at the rim in which to help facilitate Applicant’s understanding.
PNG
media_image1.png
375
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claims 17 and 18 that there are no multiple circumferential planes of attachment, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant to annotated Fig. 2 of Knappen provided above which clearly shows spoke members 2 having different circumferential planes of attachment from spoke members 20.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 27 that Knappen “merely teaches: 1) two parallel, non-intersecting sheets of spokes; 2) uniform radial orientation of all spokes; and no geometry forming an X, V, inverted V, or quadrilateral in radial projection”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As is clearly shown in Figs. 2 and 3 of Knappen, spoke members 2 and spoke members 20 converge as they extend from the hub to the rim forming what can be reasonably considered a V or inverted V.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claims 30 and 31 that Knappen does not disclose the width of at least one spoke increases or decreases outwardly in the radial direction because “The drawing’s narrowing toward the rim is an artifact of perspective, not an intentional or described variation”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Fig. 1 is a side view which clearly shows the claimed features. Further, it is noted that it does not matter that the feature is unintended or unexplained in the specification (See MPEP 2125 I.).
Conclusion
14. 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