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 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.
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, 12-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green (10,417,941) in view of Fisher et al (2018/013208).
Per claims 10 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. The bistable display element 128 does not consume further electrical energy after a change from a first display to a second display.
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.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Green does not show a receiving coil of an inductive electrical power transmission device located on an inner surface of the cover, and connected to an electrical power supply from the vehicle electrical system wirelessly. Fisher et al teaches the use of a display device on a wheel that receives electrical power by an inductive electrical power transmission device that includes a receiving coil provided on an inner surface of the wheel and a primary coil on a stationary part of the vehicle (paragraph [0057]), such that the receiving coil wirelessly receives electrical power from the vehicle’s electrical system to power the e-paper display element. 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 utilize an inductive electrical power transmission device as taught by Fisher et al to power the e-paper of Green, as a substitute equivalent power supply, for the purpose of reducing the number of parts, thus simplifying and reducing the weight, of the display.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of Fisher et al as applied to claims 10, 12-15, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Cooper (7,611,267).
Green as modified by Fisher et al 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 as modified by Fisher et al 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 and reducing the load on the vehicle’s electrical system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10, 12-16 and 19-20 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 this instance, Fisher et al teaches the use of an inductive electrical power transmission device that may wirelessly deliver power to an on-wheel display.
Applicant's arguments filed 13 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant continues to argue that the claimed invention “solves an existing problem in the art”, and that the claimed features “are not arbitrary, but are directly ties to solving the prior-art problems of costly replacement, repainting, and limited design flexibility” of wheel covers. However, the Applicant has not provided any evidence (in the form of an affidavit or declaration filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132) supporting this argument.
The Applicant argues that Green “does not solve and cannot solve the existing problem in the prior art”. Namely. The Applicant argues that Green lacks a “receiving coil of an inductive electrical power transmission device, or wireless receipt of electrical power from a vehicle electrical system”. However, Fisher et al teaches such a device.
The Applicant continues to argue that Green “does not disclose the claimed bistable e-paper arrangement”. However, as discussed in the previous Office actions, this is not the case. The Applicant is referred to the prior Office actions regarding this argument.
The Applicant continues to argues that different reference characters have not been used to designate the same elements in Figure 2. The Applicant is referred to the previous Office actions with respect to this argument. In short, the drawings fail to conform to proper drafting rules, and the addition of arrowheads at the end of the leader lines of certain reference characters would overcome the objection.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights