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 .
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are pending with claims 1-8 and 10-11 under examination (see below). Claims 12-14 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meggiolan (US 2002/0108249).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-5, Meggiolan discloses a tool device for manufacturing a rim (par. 0006, 0008) comprising: two molding devices (inner elements 8) and a circular device (outer element 9) (par. 0036-0037); wherein the molding devices each comprise contact surfaces (11) for forming at least part of a rim flank and rim flanges (“designed to delimit . . . the outer surface of the inner peripheral wall and the two sides (flanks) of the rim”), the circular device forms the rim well and the internal surfaces of the flanges (par. 0036-0037)(see Fig. 1-6), the circular device comprises an annular unit (Fig. 7, par. 0038 states that the ring can be split into sections), and the molding devices each comprise a molding unit; where in Fig. 9, the annular unit comprises a core of a less elastic material (the mold itself) and a “cover” (‘core’ in the reference) of a more elastic material (Fig. 9, par. 0041).
In Fig. 3, the “core” (14) is part of the outer element (9), while in Fig. 4 (and others), the “core” 14 is a separate element. In Fig. 9, this “core portion” is attached (or covers and thus is considered to be the cover within the claim) the extension of the mold which would map where the claimed “core” is located. To clarify further, the reference’s termed “core” would map to the claimed “cover.”
Meggiolan does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the cover being between 0.5 and 5 mm.
However, it has been held that changes in shape/size support a case of prima facie obviousness as well as a scaling up/down as to produce a scaled up/down product of the same type. A scaling up or down can involve producing a model of a much smaller or larger size than the original. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above to have specified that the cover is of an appropriate thickness to have molded an object as required to be sized. In the alternative, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the thickness of the silicone sheath as provided by Meggiolan as is required to fit into the apparatus for a size of a rim being manufactured.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Meggiolan discloses the subject matter of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the cover as required in claims 3 or 10. It is noted that claim 1 requires “at least one cover” but does not require “a mold cover” or “a ring cover.”
However, as is outlined in claim 1 above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the above to have specified the thicknesses of the parts are as to have produced an item of an appropriate size.
Regarding claim 6, Meggiolan discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that there are at least two spaced apart pressing rings (see Fig. 7) as to form the rim flanges.
Regarding claim 7, Meggiolan discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and the mold material is considered to be less elastic than the silicone as described in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Meggiolan discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the portion that is read to be the “cover” above (the core 14 as in par. 0041, Fig. 9) is a silicone sheath made in one piece or in sectors.
Regarding claim 11, this claim relates to the intended use of the claimed structure. As such, this is not limiting to the claimed device. See MPEP 2114.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed range of 0.1-5mm is critical, as demonstrated by the Instant Specification.
However, Examiner’s position is that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have scaled up or down the teachings of Meggiolan as to have produced a smaller or larger rim for a smaller or larger wheel rim. The claim is directed to “a thickness of the at least one cover” and the specification does not outline that this range is critical when the size of the entire system can be made to be smaller or larger as to produce model/toy wheel rims. It seems that the specific elasticity of the material being molded as well as the material of the mold itself, would also contribute to any pressure increase or decrease within the mold during operation. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained as updated above.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742