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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
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.
In this instance, the drawings fail to clearly show the structure of the wheel cover (such as the cover unattached to the wheel, how the displays are mounted on the cover, etc.).
It should also be noted that no new matter may be added to the drawings.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "61′ ", "61", and "41" have all been used to designate the same element in Figure 2.
Reference characters "62′ ", "24′ ", "42", and "62" have all been used to designate the same element in Figure 2.
Reference characters "25′ ", "43", "63", and "63′ " have all been used to designate the same element in Figure 2.
Reference characters "64′ ", "44", and "64" have all been used to designate the same element in Figure 2.
Reference characters "65", "45", and "65′ " have all been used to designate the same element in Figure 2.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 5.
It should be noted that a list of reference characters does not constitute a description of the reference character.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The title of the specification is not descriptive (see section 6 below).
The specification includes a list of reference characters. However, not all of the reference characters have been described in the Detailed Description section of the specification. Therefore, unless all reference characters are described in the Detailed Description section, the list of reference characters should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Wheel Cover having Integrated Display Elements.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: The last line of claim 19 lacks punctuation. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 19 is complete.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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 10-20 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.
Claims 10 and 19 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the cover element is “configured to cover” at least one interspace between adjacent spokes. The phrase “configured to cover” does not describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claims 10, 12, 16, and 19 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actual being claimed by the phrase “at least in regions”. This phrase does not describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 13 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the display element is “configured to represent” color displays. The phrase “configured to represent” does not describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 14 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to thereupon generate”. This phrase does not describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 14 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what elements are being referred to by the term “them”.
Claim 15 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the control unit is “configured to set” the color. This phrase does not describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 17 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the term “via”. This term does not describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 10-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (10,417,941).
Per claims 10-11 and 19-20, Green shows a wheel cover 104 that mounts on a vehicle wheel 120 having a hub and a rim 124 on which a tire 108 is mounted, with an intermediate portion connecting the hub to the rim 124. The cover 104 includes a bistable (i.e. E-Ink or e-paper) display element 128 on the outer surface thereof, and a control unit 516 using electric signals to control the display of the display element 128.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Green does not specify the structure of the intermediate element connecting the hub to the rim 124. However, it is well-known in the art for the intermediate element of a wheel to be formed as spokes extending from the hub to the rim, with open areas between adjacent spokes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the wheel of Green with spokes interconnecting the hub and rim, for the purpose of reducing the weight of the wheel. therefore, given the fact that the cover 104 of Green may extend over the entire outer surface of the wheel 120, the cover 104 would then cover the open areas between adjacent spokes.
Per claim 12, the display of the e-paper display element 128 covers the outer surface of the cover 104.
Per claim 13, the display element 128 allows representation of color displays thereon.
Per claim 14, the control unit 516 includes connection to an input device, allowing a user to select the colors and/or patterns on the display of the display element 128, which the control unit 516 then transmits thereto.
Per claim 15, the control unit 516 can set the color(s) displayed on the display element 128 to be alterable.
Per claim 17, a receiving coil of an inductive electrical power transmission device 508 is located on an inner surface of the cover 104, and connected to an electrical power supply 536. The power from the power supply 536 is capable of being transmitted wirelessly to the display element 128. The power supply 536 is an external power source to the display element 128.
Per claim 18, external power from the vehicle electrical system is capable of being provided to the display element 128 from port 624.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green as applied to claims 10-15 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Cooper (7,611,267).
Green does not show a solar element for generating electrical power for the display element. Cooper teaches the use of a solar element for providing electrical power to a display element on a wheel cover. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the wheel cover of Green with a solar panel as a substitute equivalent replacement electrical power generation device, for the purposes of reducing the complexity of the cover assembly, while also reducing the weight thereof.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-20 of copending Application No. 18/026,861 in view of Becker (9,428,007).
Copending Application 18/026,861 encompasses all of the limitations as set forth in the pending Application, except for the wheel including spokes interconnecting the hub and rim thereof. Becker teaches the use of a wheel 100 having a hub 108 and rim 104 interconnected by a plurality of spokes 114, and having a wheel cover 200 with a display device 222 covering the outer surface of the spokes (and opening therebetween). Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the 18/026,861 Application, and with a reasonable expectation of success, that the wheel cover with display device of the Copending Application could be installed on a wheel having spokes, as a functional equivalent cover.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show wheel covers having display elements thereon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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) 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615