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, 12, 17, 23 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 23 and 24, the phrase “the outboard groove defines the inner-most radial dimension of the rim” in each of these claims should be replaced with -- the outboard groove defines an inner-most radial dimension of the rim -- for clarity.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “the first radius is at least twice as greater than the second radius” should be replaced with a phrase, such as -- the first radius is at least twice as great as the second radius – for grammatical clarity.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “the wheel is drop center wheel” should be replaced with -- the wheel is a drop center wheel -- for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase “the transition portion is produced by a flow forming process has a circumferential corrugated profile” should be replaced with -- the transition portion is produced by a flow forming process and has a circumferential corrugated profile -- for grammatical clarity.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear what would be encompassed by the limitation “about 7% to about 30%”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-15, 17 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rode et al. (US 2023/0052941 A1; hereinafter “Rode”).
Regarding claim 1, Rode discloses a vehicle wheel 10 comprising: an annular rim 20 defining an axis A and inboard and outboard sides (at 29 and 21, respectively, as shown in Figs. 1 and 3), the rim including: an outboard bead seat 22; an inboard bead seat 28; an annular well flank 25 connected to the outboard bead seat and extending radially inwardly and towards the inboard side of the rim (Figs. 1 and 3); and a transition portion (comprised of well 23 and transition section 27) defined between the well flank and the inboard bead seat (Figs. 1 and 3), wherein the transition portion has a circumferential corrugated profile (Figs. 1 and 3; paragraph [0035]) having: a circumferentially concave-shaped outboard groove 24 connected to the well flank at a first tangency point (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided below), wherein the outboard groove DT defines the inner-most radial dimension of the rim (Figs. 1 and 3; paragraph [0035]); a circumferentially convex-shaped ridge (ridge at 27 between dotted lines as shown in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 below) directly connected to the outboard groove at a second tangency point at 26; and a circumferentially concave-shaped inboard groove (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided below) directly connected to the ridge at a third tangency point (point at dotted line to the right of the ridge at 27 in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided below), and wherein the inboard groove is connected to the inboard bead seat at a fourth tangency point at 31; and a wheel disc 1 secured to the rim (Fig. 1), wherein the wheel disc includes a hub 3 located centrally within the wheel disc and having a plurality of bolt holes 2 formed therein (Fig. 1; paragraph [0034]).
PNG
media_image1.png
213
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rode further discloses the transition portion has an outer surface and an inner surface defining a thickness T therebetween such that the thickness is constant between the first and fourth tangency points (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Rode further discloses the transition portion has an outer surface and an inner surface defining a thickness T therebetween such that the thickness of at least a portion of the transition portion varies between the first and fourth tangency points (evident from paragraph [0035] which states, in part, “the material thickness T in the area of the transition section 27…could be less than, for example, the material thickness in the rim well 23”).
Regarding claim 5, Rode further discloses an outboard side of the outboard groove adjacent the first tangency point has a greater thickness than an inboard side of the outboard groove adjacent the second tangency point at 26 (evident from paragraph [0035] which states, in part, “the material thickness T in the area of the transition section 27…could be less than, for example, the material thickness in the rim well 23”).
Regarding claim 6, Rode further discloses the ridge has a constant thickness between the second and third tangency points (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Rode further discloses the outboard groove has an arcuate shape defined by a first radius (“R1” as labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided above).
Regarding claim 9, Rode further discloses the ridge has an arcuate shape (shape at 27 between dotted lines as shown in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 above) defined by a second radius (“R2” as labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided above).
Regarding claim 10, Rode further discloses the inboard groove has an arcuate shape defined by a third radius (“R3” as labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided above).
Regarding claim 11, Rode further discloses the first radius is greater than either of the second and third radii (evident from reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided above).
Regarding claim 12, Rode further discloses the first radius is at least twice as greater than the second radius (evident from reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided above).
Regarding claim 13, Rode further discloses the second radius is greater than the third radius (evident from reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided above).
Regarding claim 14, Rode further discloses the rim includes an inboard bead seat retaining flange 29 connected to the inboard bead seat (Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 15, Rode further discloses the rim includes an outboard bead seat retaining flange 21 connected to the outboard bead seat (Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 17, Rode further discloses the wheel is drop center wheel such that the wheel disc is secured to the rim at the outboard groove (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Rode further discloses the rim is produced by forming a metallic blank (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 20, Rode further discloses the metallic blank is a steel blank (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 21, Rode further discloses the rim is formed into a final desired shape by a flow forming process (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 22, Rode further discloses the wheel disc is produced by forming a metallic blank by a flow forming process (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 23, Rode discloses a wheel rim 20 defining an axis A and inboard and outboard sides (at 29 and 21, respectively, as shown in Figs. 1 and 3), the rim including: an outboard bead seat 22; an inboard bead seat 28; an annular well flank 25 connected to the outboard bead seat and extending radially inwardly and towards the inboard side of the rim (Figs. 1 and 3); and a transition portion (comprised of well 23 and transition section 27) defined between the well flank and the inboard bead seat (Figs. 1 and 3), wherein the transition portion has a circumferential corrugated profile (Figs. 1 and 3; paragraph [0035]) having: a circumferentially concave-shaped outboard groove 24 connected to the well flank at a first tangency point (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided below), wherein the outboard groove DT defines the inner-most radial dimension of the rim (Figs. 1 and 3; paragraph [0035]); a circumferentially convex-shaped ridge (ridge at 27 between dotted lines as shown in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 below) directly connected to the outboard groove at a second tangency point at 26; and a circumferentially concave-shaped inboard groove (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided below) directly connected to the ridge at a third tangency point (point at dotted line to the right of the ridge at 27 in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided below), and wherein the inboard groove is connected to the inboard bead seat at a fourth tangency point at 31.
PNG
media_image1.png
213
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Rode discloses a method for producing a vehicle wheel 10 comprising the steps of: providing an annular rim 20 defining an axis A and inboard and outboard sides (at 29 and 21, respectively, as shown in Figs. 1 and 3), the rim including: an outboard bead seat 22; an inboard bead seat 28; an annular well flank 25 connected to the outboard bead seat and extending radially inwardly and towards the inboard side of the rim (Figs. 1 and 3); and a transition portion (comprised of well 23 and transition section 27) defined between the well flank and the inboard bead seat (Figs. 1 and 3), wherein the transition portion is produced by a flow forming process and has a circumferential corrugated profile (Figs. 1 and 3; paragraph [0035]) having: a circumferentially concave-shaped outboard groove 24 connected to the well flank at a first tangency point (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided below), wherein the outboard groove DT defines the inner-most radial dimension of the rim (Figs. 1 and 3; paragraph [0035]); a circumferentially convex-shaped ridge (ridge at 27 between dotted lines as shown in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 below) directly connected to the outboard groove at a second tangency point at 26; and a circumferentially concave-shaped inboard groove (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided below) directly connected to the ridge at a third tangency point (point at dotted line to the right of the ridge at 27 in reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 provided below), and wherein the inboard groove is connected to the inboard bead seat at a fourth tangency point at 31; and securing a wheel disc 1 to the rim to produce the vehicle wheel (Fig. 1), wherein the wheel disc includes a hub 3 located centrally within the wheel disc and having a plurality of bolt holes 2 formed therein (Fig. 1; paragraph [0034]).
PNG
media_image1.png
213
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rode.
Regarding claim 4, although Rode further discloses the at least a portion of the transition portion has a thinning with respect to the thickness of the well flank (evident from paragraph [0035] which states, in part, “the material thickness T in the area of the transition section 27…could be less than, for example, the material thickness in the rim well 23”), Rode fails to expressly disclose the thinning being between about 7% to about 30% the thickness of the well flank.
Nonetheless, inasmuch as Rode further implicitly teaches that the thinning is a result-effective variable (evident from paragraph [0035] which states, in part, “the transition section 27 can be thinned by a shaping method during profiling; nevertheless, the rim 20 of the vehicle wheel 1 retains a sufficiently high inherent rigidity”), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the wheel of Rode so that the thinning of the at least a portion of the transition portion is between about 7% to about 30% the thickness of the well flank to have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a desired wheel rigidity for the intended use of the wheel while minimizing the weight thereof.
Regarding claim 7, Rode fails to expressly disclose an inboard side of the inboard groove adjacent the fourth tangency point has a greater thickness than an outboard side of the inboard groove adjacent the third tangency point.
Rode, however, with respect to the embodiment shown in Fig. 6, teaches that thickness of the transition section 77 “could vary” (paragraph [0039] and the rim profile and configuration is optimized (note paragraph [0048]).
From these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the wheel of Rode so that the inboard side of the inboard groove adjacent the fourth tangency point has a greater thickness than an outboard side of the inboard groove adjacent the third tangency point based upon other dimensions of the wheel, such as the wheel diameter and rim width, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring that the wheel has a desired increased rigidity where needed while also minimizing the weight thereof.
Regarding claim 16, Rode, in the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-3, fails to disclose the wheel is a bead seat wheel such that the wheel disc is secured to the rim at the outboard beat seat. Instead, Fig. 1 shows the wheel disc being secured to the rim at the well base.
Rode, however, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 7 and described in at least paragraph [0042], teaches that the wheel disc can be secured to the rim at the outboard beat seat.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the wheel of Rode so that it is a bead seat wheel such that the wheel disc is secured to the rim at the outboard beat seat, such as taught by Fig. 7 of Rode, as a well-known alternative type of wheel that would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a desired appearance.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rode in view of Overbeck et al. (US 4,610,482; hereinafter “Overbeck”).
Rode, in the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-3, fails to disclose the wheel is a full faced wheel such that the wheel disc includes an outboard bead seat retaining flange integrally formed therein, and wherein the wheel disc is connected to the rim at the outboard bead seat.
Overbeck, however, teaches a wheel 10 that is a full faced wheel such that the wheel disc 14 includes an outboard bead seat retaining flange 60 integrally formed therein (Fig. 2), and wherein the wheel disc is connected to the rim 12 at the outboard bead seat 28 (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the wheel of Rode so that it is a full faced wheel such that the wheel disc includes an outboard bead seat retaining flange integrally formed therein, and wherein the wheel disc is connected to the rim at the outboard bead seat, such as taught by Overbeck, as a well-known alternative type of wheel that would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a desired appearance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior shows other examples of wheels having corrugated rim profiles and/or rim profiles with varying thicknesses.
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