Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 27-32, 34-36, and 38-41 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 27, 34, 36, and 41 each recite the fulcrum engaging the wheel such that the bead ring pivots relative to a respective bolt about the minor axis of the respective elongated pilot hole. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure teaches the bead ring pivoting around a pivot point defined by the fulcrum and pivoting around the bolt which can move within the elongated pilot hole during a clamping operation (see figures 5-7 of Applicant’s drawings; see also ¶ [0060] & [0067] of Applicant’s originally filed specification). The portion of the bead ring that includes the elongated pilot hole moves/pivots with respect to the bolt and fulcrum during clamping (see Applicant’s figures 6-7). Thus, one of skill in the art would not reasonably believe Applicant had possession of this limitation.
For prior art purposes and compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as: “the bead ring pivots about the bolt”.
Claim 40 recites the bead ring seat and the elongated pilot hole are racetrack shaped. While original claims are generally viewed as part of the written description, "issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing." See MPEP 2163(1)(A). In addition, "The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings." See MPEP 2163(I).
Applicant's drawings and specification illustrate and describe the bead ring seat shape 12 being circular/ball shaped in order to complement the ball seat of the bolt, and the elongated pilot hole 9 to be racetrack shaped (figs. 8-10 & 13, para. [0058] & [0063]). For example, as illustrated in figs. 5-7 and 16-18, the spherical ball seat of the bolt fills the entire ring seat, while the shaft of the bolt does not fill the entire hole 9 because it is elongated in the described racetrack shape. Applicant's disclosure teaches the pivoting of the bolt with respect to the bead ring 5 being due to the spherical nature of the ball seat 2 and bead ring seat, along with the elongated hole 9. Thus, one of skill in the art would not believe the Applicant had possession of the bead ring seat shape being racetrack shaped.
Claim 41 further recites the continuous clamping surface of the clamping portion forms an angle with the bolt axis in a range of 86 degrees to 94 degrees. Applicant’s originally filed specification and drawings do not support this range. The specification and drawings also do not support any singular angle since the drawings cannot be assumed to be drawn to scale or present exact angles and proportions of the parts.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending from one of claims 27, 34, or 36.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 27-32 and 34-35 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 27 recites a respective elongated pilot hole in line 17, a respective threaded hole in line 18, and a respective bead ring ball seat in line 20. It is unclear if these are introducing new pilot holes, threaded holes, and ball seats, or are referring to the previously introduced pilot holes, threaded holes, and ball seats. The examiner recommends amending this claim to recite: a respective one of the plurality of elongated pilot holes, a respective one of the plurality of threaded holes, and a respective one of the plurality of bead ring ball seats.
Claim 27 also recites about the minor axis of the respective elongated pilot hole axis. This limitation is confusing. The examiner recommends removing the second “axis”.
Claim 34 recites a respective elongated pilot hole in lines 6 and 9. It is unclear if these are introducing new pilot holes, or are referring to the previously introduced pilot holes. The examiner recommends amending this claim to recite: a respective one of the plurality of elongated pilot holes.
Claim 34 also recites the respective minor axis in the third to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this specific minor axis.
Claims 28-32 and 35 are rejected for depending from claim 27 or 34.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 34-36, 38, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2018/0104985 (“Buck”) in view of US Pat. No. 1,216,240 (“Lowe”) and FR-650873-A (“FR873”).
Regarding claim 34, Buck teaches a bead ring assembly consisting of: a wheel (14 & 28) (fig. 2, ¶ [0009] & [0012], wherein element 28 may be integral with element 14 or welded thereto); a bead ring (30) having a clamping portion (i.e. the convex surface above section 58) (figs. 3-4) …, the bead ring defining a plurality of … pilot holes (48) (fig. 3) …, the clamping portion defining a continuous clamping surface configured to clamp a tire bead of a tire to the wheel (figs. 3-4, wherein the convex clamping surface is continuous, i.e. annular, and is capable of helping clamp a tire bead of a tire to the wheel 14/28); and a plurality of bolts (72) disposed through a respective pilot hole and spaced apart from the fulcrum (figs. 2 & 4-5, ¶ [0020], wherein the fulcrum is explained below), the plurality of bolts configured to secure the bead ring to the wheel (figs. 2 & 4-5, ¶ [0020]).
Buck fails to explicitly teach the pilot holes being elongated, a plurality of bead ring ball seats positioned radially inward from the clamping portion, each bead ring ball seat disposed about a respective elongated pilot hole, each elongated pilot hole defining a major axis and a minor axis perpendicular to the major axis, each bolt comprising a bolt ball seat having a profile that pivotally engages the bead ring ball seat of the respective elongated pilot hole. However, this would have been obvious in view of Lowe and FR873.
Lowe is also directed to fastening a component 14/15 of a wheel with a bolt 17, wherein the component is configured to tilt around the bolt at a fulcrum point 16 (fig. 1, page 2 lines 14- 36 & 68-89). The component configured to tilt with respect to the bolt has a spherical/ball seat 25 configured to seat a spherical/ball portion 19 of the fastener, and, an elongated pilot hole 24 wherein the ball portion 19 is nestled at least partially within the ball seat 25 and elongated hole 24 (figs. 1 & 3, page 2 lines 62-78). This design can more firmly couple the elements together and prevent the bolt and/or other portions of the assembly from bending (page 1 lines 37-49).
While Lowe teaches the spherical ball seat of the fastener being on a washer, FR873 teaches that it is known to form a ball and socket joint with the ball seat located below the head of the bolt (figs. 5-6, lines 60-63, wherein all references to the FR873 specification refer to the machine translation provided with the Office action mailed on December 18, 2024). FR873 is also directed to attaching a tire f to a wheel (figs. 5 & 6, lines 13-15).
In this case, each of Buck, Lowe, and FR873 are directed to fastening parts of a wheel with a bolt wherein a component to be fastened can tilt with respect to the bolt during installation. Lowe teaches a known structure between the bolt and the tilting component so that undue stress is not put on the bolt, wherein the structure comprises a spherical seat configured to receive a corresponding spherical portion of the fastener, and an elongated hole of the component receives the bolt shaft. FR873 further teaches that it is predictable to form a ball socket joint by providing the ball seat on the bottom of the head of the bolt, i.e. with no washer between the bead ring seat and head of the bolt. Lowe teaches one of skill in the art that the combination of the elongated hole and the ball and socket joint will better allow the component to tilt with respect to the bolt without putting undue stress on the bolt. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Buck so that the bolt comprises a bolt ball seat below the head configured to mate within a corresponding ball seat of the bead ring disposed about the pilot hole, and, the shaft of the bolt being within an elongated pilot hole of the bead ring.
Claim 34 also recites a fulcrum positioned opposite the clamping portion, the bead ring configured to pivot relative to a respective bolt of the plurality of bolts about the respective minor axis when the clamping portion of the bead ring clamps the tire to the wheel. The edge 66 of ledge 56 of Buck can contact lower portion of wheel 28 such that the bead ring is rotated about the edge 66 of ledge 56 (figs. 3 & 4 of Buck). Due to the bolts of Buck et al. applying an inward force to a radially inner end of the bead ring, and, the tire bead applying an outward force to a radially outer end of the tire bead (see fig. 4 of Buck), the ledge 56 of the bead ring is capable of contacting the wheel before the bead ring is fully tightened such that the bead ring pivots about the fulcrum to further clamp the tire bead (this is also admitted to in para. [0007] of Applicant’s originally filed specification). As such, ledge 56 can be interpreted as the fulcrum. The examiner also notes that “fulcrum” is interpreted as a distinct and raised structure of the bead ring that allows the bead ring to pivot as claimed. As illustrated in figs. 3 & 4, this fulcrum 56 is opposite the convex clamping portion at the radially outer end of the bead ring.
Regarding claim 35, Buck et al. further teach the plurality of elongated pilot holes and the plurality of bead ring ball seats located between the clamping portion and the fulcrum (see figs. 3-4, wherein the holes 48, and thus also the ball seats, will be at least partially between the fulcrum 56 and the convex clamping portion).
Each of the limitations of claim 36 are found in claims 34 and 35. Thus, claim 36 is rejected for the same reasons detailed in the rejections to claims 34 and 35 above.
Regarding claim 38, Buck teaches a system comprising: a wheel (14/28) (fig. 2, ¶ [0009] & [0012], wherein element 28 may be integral with element 14 or welded thereto); a tire (12) having a tire bead (22) (fig. 4, ¶ [0009] & [0010]). Claim 38 further recites a bead ring assembly according to claim 36 secured to the wheel and clamping the tire to the wheel. As detailed in the rejection to claim 36, above, Buck in view of Lowe and FR873 teach the bead ring of claim 36. Buck further teaches the bead ring secured to the wheel to clamp the tire to the wheel (fig. 4, ¶ [0018]-[0021]).
Claim 38 also recites the wheel defining an outer lip, the tire bead received on the outer lip of the wheel. “Lip” is interpreted as the edge of an opening or a raised/protruding edge portion. Thus, the outer lip is interpreted as the outer surface of portion 28 of the wheel that has bolt holes 38 therein and contacts/receives the tire bead 22 and bead ring since this outer surface/lip defines and is an edge of the central opening in portion 28 of the wheel (fig. 2). As illustrated in fig. 4, this outer lip receives the tire bead 22 thereon.
Claim 41 recites the bolt defines a bolt axis perpendicular to the minor axis of the elongated pilot hole, the bead ring configured to pivot about the minor axis when the bead ring clamps the tire bead to the wheel such that the continuous clamping surface of the clamping portion forms an angle with the bolt axis in a range of 86 degrees to 94 degrees. As illustrated in figures 2 & 4 of Buck, the bolt axis is substantially perpendicular to the axes of the elongated pilot hole. As further illustrated in fig. 4 of Buck, since the clamping portion is convex and leads into a radially extending surface that is substantially perpendicular to the bolt, the bottom of the convex portion has a tangent that is substantially perpendicular to the bolt axis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and to overcome the 112(a) rejection to claim 27. Claim 39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(a) rejection to claim 36, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter of claim 27: the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the structure of the bead ring and bolts along with the wheel having an outer lip configured to receive a tire bead and radially outward from the threaded holes, in combination with the other limitations of claim 27. As stated in the rejections above, fulcrum is interpreted as a distinct and raised structure of the bead ring that allows the bead ring to pivot as claimed. In addition, as also stated in the above rejections, lip is interpreted as the edge of an opening or a raised/protruding edge portion.
Regarding claim 39, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the gap radially inward of the outer lip, in combination with the other limitations of claims 36, 38, and 39.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. Applicant argues that Buck fails to teach a continuous clamping portion. As illustrated in figs. 3-4 of Buck, the upper convex surface of the bead ring is continuous (i.e. annular) and is configured to contact/press on the tire to help clamp the tire to the wheel.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights