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 Objections
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the colon after the term “substrate” in line 6 should be replaced with a semicolon for clarity.
Regarding claim 4, each occurrence of the term “coat” should be replaced with the term -- coating -- for clarity and consistency with independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, each occurrence of the term “coat” should be replaced with the term -- coating -- for clarity and consistency with independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “defining said first gloss rating said second gloss rating” in the last line should be replaced with -- defining said first gloss rating and said second gloss rating -- to correct an apparent typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-10 and 14-17 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 1, the limitation “an applied second liquid polymeric clear coating” renders the claim indefinite because there is no previous recitation of an applied first liquid polymeric clear coating as implied by this limitation.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “a step of curing” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a step of curing” refers to “curing the first polymeric clear coating in an oven” previously set forth in independent claim 11 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “applying a mask” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “applying a mask” refers to “applying a mask” previously set forth in independent claim 11 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a first polymeric clear coating” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a first polymeric clear coating” refers to “a first polymeric clear coating” previously set forth in claim 11 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the newly cited article from Powder Coating: The Complete Guide entitled “Spraying Multiple Coats” (hereinafter “Multiple Coats”) in view of Archibald et al. (US 6,158,820; hereinafter “Archibald”), the previously cited non-patent literature titled CCW WHEELS FINISHES (hereinafter “CCW”) or the newly cited article from Powder Coating: The Complete Guide entitled “Powders” (hereinafter “Powders”), and DE 102010017196 A1 (newly cited; hereinafter “Erfinder”).
Regarding claim 1, Multiple Coats discloses a vehicle wheel (shown in photo of wheels on page 4), comprising: a face portion including a central portion defining a wheel axis and a plurality of spokes extending radially outwardly from said face portion (shown in photo of wheels on page 4); a rim portion circumscribing said wheel axis and being interconnected to said face portion by said plurality of spokes thereby defining a continuous substrate (shown in photo of wheels on page 4); said face portion and said rim portion defining a first surface (axially-extending surface with red color at the radial underside of rim lip/flange shown in the photo on page 4) and a second surface of said continuous substrate (surface at the face of the spokes with metallic silver color shown in the photo on page 4); and said first surface including an applied powder first coating (metallic silver color powder coating) implicitly defining a first gloss rating and said second surface including an applied second coating (red powder coating) implicitly defining a second gloss rating.
Multiple Coats fails to expressly disclose the continuous substrate being a continuous cast alloy substrate.
Archibald, however, teaches a vehicle wheel which can be made of a continuous cast alloy substrate (lines 16-19 and lines 54-59 of col. 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 vehicle wheel of Multiple Coats by forming its continuous substrate from a continuous cast alloy, such as taught by Archibald, as a well-known type of vehicle wheel that would have a reasonable expectation of success of being lightweight yet strong, highly corrosion resistant, and easily formed with a desired wheel profile.
Although Multiple Coats discloses the use of different coatings for the first and second surfaces as noted above, Multiple Coats fails to disclose the first coating being a first polymeric clear coating defining a first gloss rating and the second coating being a second polymeric clear coating defining a second gloss rating being different than the first gloss rating.
CCW, however, teaches the vehicle wheel can be customized by coating the various surfaces thereof (i.e., “Outer Step Lips, Wheel Face Centers, and Inner Barrels”) with any of the listed polymeric powder coat wheel finishes, including clear coatings with different gloss ratings (i.e., “BRUSHED CLEAR GLOSS” and “BRUSHED CLEAR MATTE”).
Likewise, Powders teaches the vehicle wheel can be customized by selecting from thousands of different kinds of powders having “different colors, textures, and gloss levels” (note the first paragraph on page 1) including polymeric clear coatings having different gloss ratings (note the second paragraph on page 2 and the last paragraph on page 3, which states, in part, “Clears are available in different gloss levels and some have added metallic flakes, this allows you to make very unique colors that wouldn’t normally be available”).
From either of these teachings, 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 vehicle wheel of Multiple Coats, as modified by Archibald, by substituting its coatings on the respective first and second surfaces for the claimed first and second polymeric clear coatings having different gloss ratings, such as taught by CCW or Powders, with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the user to customize the wheel to achieve a desired and predictable appearance while providing improved durability.
Multiple Coats, as modified by Archibald, and CCW or Powders, fails to expressly disclose the second polymeric clear coating being a liquid coating. Instead, both Multiple Coats and CCW utilize powder coatings for the second coating.
Erfinder, however, teaches a vehicle wheel in which the second coating applied to the wheel can either be a powder polymeric clear coating or a liquid polymeric clear coating (note the fifth to ninth full paragraphs on page 3 of the English language machine translation).
From this teaching, 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 vehicle wheel of Multiple Coats, as modified by Archibald, and CCW or Powders, by utilizing a liquid polymeric clear coating for the second polymeric clear coating as a well-known alternative type of clear coating that would have a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the user to customize the wheel to achieve a desired and predictable appearance while allowing for a more easily achieved thinner coating, if so desired.
Regarding claim 2, Multiple Coats further discloses said first surface presents a plane of curvature that extends generally in a direction of said wheel axis (evident from the photo on page 4 which shows the axially-extending first surface with red color at the radial underside of rim lip/flange) and said second surface present a plane of curvature that extends generally in a direction that is perpendicular to said wheel axis (evident from the photo on page 4 which shows the second surface at the face of the spokes with metallic silver color).
Regarding claim 3, Multiple Coats further discloses a transition (shown in the photo on page 4) is defined between said first surface and said second surface.
Regarding claim 4, Multiple Coats further discloses said first coating and said second coating are separated at said transition (shown in the photo on page 4).
Regarding claims 5-7, Multiple Coats, as modified by Archibald, CCW or Powders, and Erfinder fails to expressly disclose the claimed gloss ratings.
Nonetheless, to have used first and second polymeric clear coatings having the claimed gloss ratings would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a mere design choice to achieve a desired appearance as the pros and cons regarding appearance, durability and maintenance of coatings with different gloss ratings are well-known in the art. Official Notice is hereby given. It is further noted that it is clear from Applicant’s specification (note at least paragraph [0017] which states, in part, “It should be understood that any combination of gloss ratings may be selected to derive a wheel 10 with a multi-gloss or dual gloss appearance”) that the claimed gloss levels for the first and second polymeric clear coatings are not critical for the practice of Applicant’s invention.
It is noted that Applicant’s failure to traverse the taking of Official Notice in the reply dated 3 October 2025 has resulted in the admission that the subject matter of the Official Notice statement repeated above is known to be prior art as set forth in MPEP 2144.03C., as noted below:
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate
Regarding claim 8, Multiple Coats, CCW and Powders further disclose one of said applied first polymeric clear coat and said applied second polymeric clear coat is pigmented or tinted (evident from the different colors disclosed for the clear coatings)
Regarding claim 9, Multiple Coats further discloses said transition is considered to be disposed upon one of said first surface and said second surface (shown in the photo on page 4).
Regarding claim 10, Multiple Coats further discloses said transition is considered to be disposed between said first surface and said second surface (shown in the photo on page 4).
8. Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Multiple Coats in view of Archibald and CCW or Powders.
Regarding claim 11, Multiple Coats discloses a method of coating a vehicle wheel, comprising the steps of: providing a vehicle wheel (shown in photo of wheels on page 4) having a face portion and a rim portion (shown in photo of wheels on page 4), said face portion including a central portion and a plurality of spokes extending radially outwardly to said rim portion defining a continuous substrate (shown in photo of wheels on page 4); coating said wheel with a first coating (step 2 described on page 3; metallic silver powder coating shown and described on page 4) implicitly defining a first gloss rating; applying a mask (“masking” described on page 4) after curing the first coating in an oven (“partial cure” of the metallic silver powder coating described on page 4) with said mask abutting said wheel at a transitional area of said wheel between said face portion and said wheel portion (“Then mask off the lip, face of the spokes, barrel, and backside of the wheel” per page 4); applying a second coating (red powder coating shown and described on page 4) implicitly defining a second gloss rating over a portion of said first coating (“Then you would shoot the unmasked areas red” per page 4) and removing the mask (mask is removed after the additional partial cure per step 7 of page 4) from the wheel after curing the second coating in the oven (“do another partial cure” per page 4) thereby providing said vehicle wheel with a multi-tone appearance (page 4).
Multiple Coats fails to expressly disclose the continuous substrate being a continuous cast alloy substrate.
Archibald, however, teaches a vehicle wheel which can be made of a continuous cast alloy substrate (lines 16-19 and lines 54-59 of col. 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 method of coating the vehicle wheel of Multiple Coats by forming its continuous substrate from a continuous cast alloy, such as taught by Archibald, as a well-known type of vehicle wheel that would have a reasonable expectation of success of being lightweight yet strong, highly corrosion resistant, and easily formed with a desired wheel profile.
Although Multiple Coats discloses the use of different coatings for the first and second surfaces as noted above, Multiple Coats fails to disclose the first coating being a first polymeric clear coating defining a first gloss rating and the second coating being a second polymeric clear coating defining a second gloss rating being different than the first gloss rating.
CCW, however, teaches the vehicle wheel can be customized by coating the various surfaces thereof (i.e., “Outer Step Lips, Wheel Face Centers, and Inner Barrels”) with any of the listed polymeric powder coat wheel finishes, including clear coatings with different gloss ratings (i.e., “BRUSHED CLEAR GLOSS” and “BRUSHED CLEAR MATTE”).
Likewise, Powders teaches the vehicle wheel can be customized by selecting from thousands of different kinds of powders having “different colors, textures, and gloss levels” (note the first paragraph on page 1) including polymeric clear coatings having different gloss ratings (note the second paragraph on page 2 and the last paragraph on page 3, which states, in part, “Clears are available in different gloss levels and some have added metallic flakes, this allows you to make very unique colors that wouldn’t normally be available”).
From either of these teachings, 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 method of coating the vehicle wheel of Multiple Coats, as modified by Archibald, by substituting its coatings on the respective first and second surfaces for the claimed first and second polymeric clear coatings having different gloss ratings, such as taught by CCW or Powders, with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the user to customize the wheel to achieve a desired and predictable appearance, such as a multi-gloss appearance, while providing improved durability.
Regarding claim 12, Multiple Coats further discloses said face portion presents a first surface (e.g., the face of the spokes shown in the photo on page 4) and a second surface (i.e., the axially-extending surfaces of the spokes shown in the photo on page 4).
Regarding claim 13, Multiple Coats further discloses including a step of coating said first surface with said first coating defining said first gloss rating (i.e., the application of the metallic silver powder coating shown and described on page 4) and coating said second surface with said second coating defining said second gloss rating (i.e., the application of the red powder coating shown and described on page 4).
Regarding claim 14, Multiple Coats further discloses including a step of curing said first polymeric coating presenting said first gloss rating prior to applying said second coating defining said second gloss rating (“partial cure” of the metallic silver powder coating described on page 4).
Regarding claim 15, Multiple Coats further discloses a step of applying a mask over said first coating prior to applying said second coating thereby shielding a first portion of said first coating while applying the second coating (“Then mask off the lip, face of the spokes, barrel, and backside of the wheel. Then you would shoot the unmasked areas red” per page 4).
Regarding claim 16, Multiple Coats further discloses said step of applying said mask over said first coating is further defined by said mask defining a transition between said first surface and second surface of said face portion (evident from the photo of the wheels on page 4).
Regarding claim 17, Multiple Coats, CCW and Powders further disclose a step of applying a first polymeric clear coating and a step of applying said second polymeric clear coating is further defined by pigmenting or dyeing at least one of said first polymeric clear coating and said second polymeric clear coating (evident from the different colors disclosed for the clear coatings).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 8 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s assertion that Applicant amended the claims to overcome the claim objections set forth in the Final Rejection, the Examiner notes that no such amendments were made to overcome the claim objections repeated above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims 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.
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the Official Notice, the Examiner notes that Applicant previously foreclosed the opportunity to argue the Official Notice by failing to
to traverse the taking of Official Notice in the reply dated 3 October 2025. Such failure to traverse the taking of Official Notice has resulted in the admission that the subject matter of the Official Notice statement repeated above is known to be prior art as set forth in MPEP 2144.03C., as noted below:
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate
Nonetheless, in response to Applicant’s argument that “Manufacturing a wheel that includes two distinct gloss ratings has never before been achieved”, note that both CCW and Powders expressly teach that wheels can be customized by utilizing coatings having distinct gloss ratings to achieve a desired appearance.
Conclusion
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