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 were received on 11 November 2025. These drawings are not approved, as they introduce new matter in newly added Figures 9-11.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ribs being formed on a “radially outer surface of the rim” as set forth in claim 7; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The amendment filed 11 November 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: All descriptions of Figures 9-11.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Renard et al (6,074,015).
Per claim 1, Renard et al shows a wheel having a rim 10 of sheet metal including axially inner and outer flanges, bead seats 14, and retaining humps, with a wheel well 17 connected to the retaining humps. A disc 20 of sheet metal includes a cover part (generally 25) and a connection part 26 axially protruding therefrom. The connection part 26 is fixed to a radially inner surface of the rim 10.
Regarding claim 1, it should be noted that the limitation of at least one formation of metal additive material “deposited in a plurality of layers” is a method step present in a product claim and therefore receives no patentable weight (see MPEP 2113). Furthermore, at least one formation 31 of metal additive material deposited in a plurality of layers (i.e. the formation 31 plus multiple layers of weld material on the edge portions thereof) is formed on at least one of the rim 10 and disc 20 to define a thickness change with respect to a surrounding region of sheet metal.
Per claim 2, the formation 31 is a rib.
Per claim 3, the formation 31 is a plurality of ribs extending radially (see Figure 10, element 51).
Per claim 4, the rib extends circumferentially (see Figure 10, element 51).
Per claim 5, the rib is arranged on an axially outer surface of the disc 20.
Per claim 6, the rib may be arranged on an axially inner surface of the disc 20 (see Figure 9, element 41).
Per claim 7, the rib may be arranged on a radially outer surface of the rim 10 inasmuch as is shown by the Applicant’s invention.
Per claim 8, the rib is arranged on a radially inner surface of the rim 10 (Figure 7, element 32).
Per claim 9, the rib 31 is arranged in a region of the disc 20 between a “flat” (i.e. planar) hub mounting part and the connection part 26.
Per claim 10, the rib is arranged in a region of the disc 20 between a “flat (i.e. planar) hub mounting part and the connection part 26 to a radially inner surface of the rim 10 (figure 7, element 32).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renard et al as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Wallace (11,738,595).
The wheel of Renard et al is formed by providing a sheet metal rim 10 and a sheet metal disc 20 and fixing the disc 20 to a radially inner surface of the rim 10. However, Renard et al does not disclose adding the metal formation 31 to either the rim or disc by additive manufacturing.
Wallace teaches the use of a disc wheel, including a formation 118, that may be formed by one or more methods including welding and/or additive manufacturing (see column 9, lines 51-56). 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 form at least the formation of the wheel of Renard et al by additive manufacturing, as a substitute equivalent production method, dependent upon the complexity of the wheel and/or formation design, cost, manufacturing time, and the desired chemical and physical properties of the wheel to not fail during use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that no new matter was added in the amendments to the drawings and specification. However, this is not the case, given the fact that not of the features shown in the proposed drawings were present in the originally filed drawings, nor explicitly described in the originally filed specification.
The Applicant argues that the welding operation disclosed in Renard et al is “a joining technique producing weld to fuse two components”, and that welding “merely fills a gap or produces a localized junction” and is “not an additive manufacturing process that builds a three-dimensional formation by controlled deposition of successive layers”. The Applicant also argues that a formation “made by a plurality of deposited layers can be easily distinguished from a welded piece”. However, these arguments are not persuasive. Namely, welding can actually produce “a three-dimensional formation by controlled deposition of successive layers” as shown below:
Multilayer Weld Feature (Wecobot Welding Solutions)
PNG
media_image1.png
807
1461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
800
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
https://weldingofwelders.com/multipass-welding/
As can clearly be seen, these welded formations are made from a plurality of deposited layers, and appear similar to the example of an additive manufactured formation provided by the Applicant. Therefore, a weld bead would be considered to be a “formation of additive metal material” per claim 1. Furthermore, the limitation that the formation is “deposited in a plurality of layers” is a method step in a product claim, and thus receives no patentable weight in claim 1 (see MPEP 2113).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose additive manufacturing with respect to welding.
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