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.
Regarding claim 12, the number “2481” after the status identifier “(Original)” should be deleted.
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 5-7, 16 and 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 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “said first gloss level”. Further, the limitation “a gloss rating” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a gloss rating” refers to “a first gloss rating” as previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “said second gloss level”. Further, the limitation “a gloss rating” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a gloss rating” refers to “a second gloss rating” as previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “said second gloss level”. Further, the limitation “a gloss rating” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a gloss rating” refers to “a second gloss rating” as previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a mask” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a mask” refers to “a mask” previously set forth in claim 15 or if it refers to a distinct mask as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 17, there is insufficient antecedent basis for both occurrences of “said step”. Further, 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. Moreover, the limitation “a second polymeric clear coating” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a second polymeric clear coating” refers to “a second 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 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited YouTube video by Speedkar99 entitled “How to Paint Your Car’s Wheels Two Tone” (hereinafter “Speedkar99”) in view of Archibald et al. (US 6,158,820; hereinafter “Archibald”) and the newly cited non-patent literature titled CCW WHEELS FINISHES (hereinafter “CCW”).
Regarding claim 1, Speedkar99 discloses a vehicle wheel, 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 “Key moments” photos); 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 “Key moments” photos); said face portion and said rim portion defining a first surface (surface with black background color shown at 6:17 of video) and a second surface of said continuous substrate (surface with silver color shown at 6:17 of video); and said first surface including an applied coating (Armor Coat Enamel Black Paint Gloss) defining a first gloss rating (“Gloss”) and said second surface including an applied second coating (Dupli-Color Silver Wheel Paint) defining a second gloss rating (“Reflective”).
Speedkar99 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 Speedkar99 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 Speedkar discloses the use of different coatings having gloss levels for the first and second surfaces as noted above, Speedkar 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”).
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 Speedkar99, 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, with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the user to customize the wheel to achieve a desired and predictable appearance while proving improved durability.
Regarding claim 2, Speedkar99 further discloses said first surface presents a plane of curvature that extends generally in a direction of said wheel axis (evident from at least 6:17 of video) and said second surface present a plane of curvature that extends generally in a direction that is perpendicular to said wheel axis (evident from at least 6:17 of video).
Regarding claim 3, Speedkar99 further discloses a transition (shown in at least 6:17 of video) is defined between said first surface and said second surface.
Regarding claim 4, Speedkar99 further discloses said first coating and said second coating are separated at said transition (shown in at least 6:17 of video).
Regarding claims 5-7, Speedkar99, as modified by Archibald and CCW, 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 Applicants’ 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 9, Speedkar99 further discloses said transition is considered to be disposed upon one of said first surface and said second surface (shown in at least 6:17 of video).
Regarding claim 10, Speedkar99 further discloses said transition is considered to be disposed between said first surface and said second surface (shown in at least 6:17 of video).
Regarding claim 11, Speedkar99 discloses a method of coating a vehicle wheel, comprising the steps of: providing a vehicle wheel having a face portion and a rim portion (shown in “Key moments” photos), 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 “Key moments” photos); coating said wheel with a first polymeric coating (Armor Coat Enamel Black Paint Gloss) defining a first gloss rating (implicit that “Gloss” would have a gloss rating); applying a second polymeric coating (Dupli-Color Silver Wheel Paint) defining a second gloss rating (implicit that “Reflective” silver wheel paint would have a second gloss rating) over a portion of said first polymeric coating thereby providing said vehicle wheel with a gloss appearance defining said first gloss rating and said second gloss rating (evident from at least 6:17 of video).
Speedkar99 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 Speedkar99 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 Speedkar discloses the use of different polymeric coatings defining first and second gloss ratings to provide the wheel with a gloss appearance as noted above, Speedkar fails to expressly disclose the first and second polymeric coatings being clear coatings to provide the wheel with a “multi-gloss” appearance.
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”) to provide the wheel with a multi-gloss appearance.
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 method of coating the vehicle wheel of Speedkar99, 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 to provide a multi-gloss appearance, such as taught by CCW, with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the user to customize the wheel to achieve a desired and predictable appearance while proving improved durability.
Regarding claim 12, Speedkar99 further discloses said face portion presents a first surface (e.g., the axially-extending surfaces of the spokes) and a second surface (i.e., the axially-outboard surface of the spokes).
Regarding claim 13, Speedkar99 further discloses including a step of coating (i.e., the application of the Armor Coat Enamel Black Paint Gloss beginning at 2:47 of video) said first surface with said first polymeric coating defining said first gloss rating and coating (i.e., the application of the Dupli-Color Silver Wheel Paint beginning at 4:47 of vide0) said second surface with said second coating defining said second gloss rating.
Regarding claim 14, Speedkar99 further discloses including a step of curing said first polymeric coating presenting said first gloss rating prior to applying said second polymeric coating defining said second gloss rating (beginning at 3:39 of video).
Regarding claim 15, Speedkar99 further discloses a step of applying a mask over said first polymeric coating prior to applying said second polymeric coating thereby shielding a first portion of said first polymeric coating while applying the second polymeric coating (beginning at 3:54 of video).
Regarding claim 16, Speedkar99 further discloses said step of applying a mask over said first polymeric coating is further defined by said mask defining a transition between said first surface and second surface of said face portion (beginning at 4:15 of video).
8. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speedkar99 in view of Archibald and CCW, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Clare (US 2,138,140; newly cited and applied).
Speedkar99, as modified by Archibald and CCW, fails to expressly disclose the first and second polymeric clear coatings being pigmented.
Clare, however, teaches that it is known in the art that polymeric clear coatings can be pigmented, if desired (lines 29-31 of col. 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 vehicle wheel of Speedkar99, as modified by Archibald and CCW, by pigmenting the first and second polymeric clear coatings, such as taught by Clare, with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the user to customize the wheel to achieve a desired appearance.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 11 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
10. 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.
11. 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