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 .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s amendment filed 02/04/2026 has been fully considered and made of record. As such, the objections to the specification and drawings, as outlined in the Office action mailed 09/04/2025, have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended claim 26 recites the limitation of “coupling using insert molding to integrate a wheel fastener recipient into at least one of the first component and the second component, wherein the wheel fastener recipient is operable to position and secure lug nuts within the wheel assembly.” However, this limitation appears to be New matter with no explicit support provided by the original disclosure. The originally filed specification, page 52, paragraph “3n” discloses that “in some embodiments, the present invention uses insert-molding to integrate the wheel fastener recipient (WFR) securely into the wheel.” However, This disclosure does not provide support for the claimed insert molding to integrate into at least one of the first component and the second component.
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 26 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.
The amended claim 26 recites the limitation of “coupling using insert molding to integrate a wheel fastener recipient into at least one of the first component and the second component, wherein the wheel fastener recipient is operable to position and secure lug nuts within the wheel assembly.” However, claim 13, which claim 26 directly depends from, recites that the first component is formed from a reinforced plastic and the second component is formed from a metal via an extrusion, a casting, or a forging. As such, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able insert mold an element into a metal material via an extrusion, casting or forging.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 19-20 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Houten et al. (US 20200180356A1, hereinafter “Van Houten”) or in alternative over Van Houten in view of Word (US 5,651,590).
As applied to claim 13, Van Houten teaches a method for fabricating a wheel assembly (10), the method comprising:
forming a first component including an outer wheel disc formed from the reinforced plastic (28, paragraph [0055]) for the wheel assembly from a reinforced plastic, wherein the outer wheel disc includes a first plurality of spokes (28 including a plurality of spokes 54 made of thermoplastic or thermoset polymer or from glass or carbon fiber reinforced material, paragraph [0055]);
forming a second component for the wheel assembly from a metal (lightweight aluminum, paragraph [0054]) via an extrusion, a casting, or a forging (casting or forging, see claim 27 of Van Houten) and inner wheel disc integrally formed from the metal (20/22, paragraph [0052], Figs. 2 and 3) for the wheel assembly from a metal via an extrusion, a casting, or a forging (casting or forging, see claim 27 of Van Houten), wherein the second component includes an integrated rim (rim/barrel 12, Figs. 2 & 3) and inner wheel disc formed from the metal (20/22, paragraph [0052], Figs. 2 and 3) wherein the inner wheel disc (20/22/24) includes a second plurality of spokes (24, Figs. 1-3); and
forming the wheel assembly from the first component and the second component (Figs. 1 and 3) by exteriorly coupling the first component to the second component when forming the wheel assembly (Annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein the first component and the second component are coupled at a first joining location and a second joining location (see Annotated Fig. 3 below),
wherein a first spoke of the first plurality of spokes and a second spoke of the second plurality of spokes form a spoke assembly for the wheel assembly,
wherein at least a portion of a first spoke of the first plurality of spokes is set at an angle (see Annotated Fig. 3 below) relative to at least a portion of a second spoke of the second plurality of spokes,
wherein the selected angle causes the first spoke to be substantially in contact with the second spoke at a first joining end of the spoke assembly proximate to the first joining location, and causes the first spoke to be separated a selected distance from the second spoke at a second joining end of the spoke assembly proximate to the second joining location, such that a space (62) is formed between the at least a portion of the first spoke and the at least a portion of the second spoke, and
wherein the reinforced plastic includes a carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) or a glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP, paragraph [0055]).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Van Houten does teach the second component includes an integrated rim and inner wheel disc integrally formed from the metal (12/20/22) are assembled to one another as part of an assembly and thus, the combination is considered as an integrated rim and disc. However, Van Houten does not explicitly teach the integrated rim and disc of the second component is fabricated as a single element.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the two-piece rim/disc of Van Houten from a single element, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which was formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04-V-B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a one-piece construction instead of the two-piece structure of rim/disc of Van Houten, as an effective means of reducing an extra joining step of the two pieces and thus, resulting in ease of assembly and substantial manufacturing cost saving.
Alternatively, Word teaches a process for manufacturing a multi-disc vehicle wheel including a wheel rim having a central axis and a plurality of generally parallel discs extending across the wheel rim. The wheel discs are spaced axially apart and are generally perpendicular to the central axis. The wheel discs are permanently secured to the wheel rim (abstract). The preferred embodiment of the vehicle wheel includes a partial wheel rim having an inner wheel disc formed integrally therewith. The inner wheel disc extends across the outboard end of the wheel rim. An outer full face wheel disc is secured to the outboard end of the wheel rim with an air-tight circumferential weld (col. 2, lines 24-29). The partial wheel rim 42 is formed by a conventional process, such as casting of forging. In the preferred embodiment, an alloy of a light weight metal, such as aluminum, magnesium or titanium is used to form the wheel rim 42; however, other materials such as steel or plastic also can be used. An inner wheel disc 60 is formed integrally with the wheel rim 42 and extends across the inboard end thereof. As shown in FIG. 4, the inner wheel disc 60 is generally parallel to the outer wheel disc 41 and spaced axially apart therefrom. The inner wheel disc 60 has a central inner hub 61 supported within the wheel rim 42 by a plurality of radial inner wheel spokes 62. The inner wheel spokes 62 define a plurality of openings 63 which extend through the inner wheel disc 60. As best seen in FIG. 3, pairs of the inner wheel spokes cross to form "X" shapes which extend behind or overlap the openings 46 in the outer wheel disc 41 and are visible therethrough (col. 3, lines 33-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a one-piece integral construction instead of the two-piece structure of rim/disc of Van Houten, as taught by Word, as an effective means of reducing an extra joining step of the two pieces and thus, resulting in ease of assembly and substantial manufacturing cost saving.
As applied to claim 19, Van Houten as taught by Word teaches the invention cited including Van Houten teaches wherein the wheel assembly has an increased resistance to buckling forces or Euler bending forces via one or more of a bow-shaped section on at least one of the first spoke of the first component or the second spoke of the second component; and a forming element (inserts 64, paragraph [0057], Fig. 2) between adjacent spokes of the respective first plurality of spokes and second plurality of spokes.
As applied to claim 20, Van Houten as taught by Word teaches the invention cited including Van Houten teaches performing at least one surface treatment process on the formed wheel assembly, wherein the at least one surface treatment process includes a grinding process, a polishing process, or an applying of a coating (coating, paragraph [0012], claim 18).
As applied to claim 23, Van Houten as taught by Word teaches the invention cited including Van Houten teaches wherein the first component and the second component are joined via adhesive bonding (66, paragraph [0058], Fig. 3).
As applied to claim 24, Van Houten as taught by Word teaches the invention cited including Van Houten teaches wherein openings formed between adjacent spokes in at least one of the first plurality of spokes and the second plurality of spokes are operable as ventilation holes for the wheel assembly, and wherein the method further comprises coupling a debris inhibitor to at least one of the first component or the second component proximate to openings between adjacent spokes of the respective first plurality of spokes and second plurality of spokes, wherein the debris inhibitor is operable to prevent airflow-inhibiting buildup within the openings (col. 2, lines 30-34).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Houten et al. (US 20200180356A1, hereinafter “Van Houten”) in view of Word (US 5,651,590) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Denmead et al. (US 20200406671, hereinafter “Denmead”).
As applied to claim 17, Van Houten as modified by Word teaches the invention cited including forming the first component including the plurality of spokes from thermoset material but does not explicitly teach providing a plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches; layering the plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches into at least a first layer and a second layer, wherein the orientation of the thermoset reinforced plastic patches of the second layer are oriented at a selected angle relative to the thermoset reinforced plastic patches of the first layer; compacting the plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches; and curing the compacted plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches, wherein at least one spoke of the first plurality of spokes of the first component is formed during the layering of the plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches.
Denmead teaches that it is well-known in the art of composite wheel manufacturing to provide a plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches (one or more layers of multi directional fiber plies or fiber patch placement preforms, paragraph [0026], polyurethane is a thermoset material, paragraph [0048]); layering the plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches into at least a first layer and a second layer, wherein the orientation of the thermoset reinforced plastic patches of the second layer are oriented at a selected angle relative to the thermoset reinforced plastic patches of the first layer; compacting the plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches (molding has compacting effect on the fibers); and curing the compacted plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches (paragraphs [0047]-[0049]), wherein a spoke connection section (208) that comprises a plurality of fingers (209) that connects hub section to the spokes is formed during the layering of the plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches (paragraph [0089] and [0091], Figs. 1-2, 2A, 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate into the method of Van Houten/Word the steps of providing a plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches; layering the plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches into at least a first layer and a second layer, wherein the orientation of the thermoset reinforced plastic patches of the second layer are oriented at a selected angle relative to the thermoset reinforced plastic patches of the first layer; compacting the plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches; and curing the compacted plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches to form at least one connecting finger and spoke of the first plurality of spokes of the first component during the layering of the plurality of thermoset reinforced plastic patches, as taught by Denmead, as an effective means of fabricating the fingers and spokes of the composite wheel and as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “A”). The resulting method would reasonably expected to perform in the manner taught by Van Houten without the modification of the principles of operation of Van Houten, because Van Houten teaches molding thermoset material to fabricate the spokes but is silent regarding the detailed fabrication steps and thus understood to permit any conventional molding technique for forming the spokes.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Houten et al. (US 20200180356A1, hereinafter “Van Houten”) in view of Word (US 5,651,590) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Rodgers et al. (US 11,780,263, hereinafter “Rodgers”).
As applied to claim 25, Van Houten as modified by Word teaches the invention cited including forming the first component and second component and coupling a protection element to the wheel assembly, wherein the protection element is operable to prevent damage to at least one of the first component and the second component (inserts, paragraph [0015]) but does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first component and the second component are formed with overmolding subcomponents that assist in the coupling of the first component and the second component, wherein the overmolding features subcomponents are usable as at least one of wheel enhancement features and aesthetic design features of the wheel assembly.
Rodgers teaches that it is well-known in the art of composite wheel manufacturing to provide a least one of the first component and the second component with overmolding subcomponents (overmold through holes and/or insert tabs, Fig. 2) that assist in the coupling of the first component and the second component, wherein the overmolding subcomponents are usable as at least one of wheel enhancement features and aesthetic design features of the wheel assembly (col. 7, lines 3-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate into the method of Van Houten/Word the steps of providing a least one of the first component and the second component with overmolding subcomponents that assist in the coupling of the first component and the second component, wherein the overmolding subcomponents are usable as at least one of wheel enhancement features and aesthetic design features of the wheel assembly, as taught by Rodgers, as an effective means of enhancing and increasing the strength of the resultant connection between two parts (see Rodgers, col. 7, lines 14-16).
It is noted that the limitations “usable as at least one of wheel enhancement features and aesthetic design features of the wheel assembly” is considered as intended use limitations and as such, the overmolded subcomponent of Van Houten/Word/Rodgers is capable of being used as at least one of wheel enhancement features and aesthetic design features of the wheel assembly.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Houten et al. (US 20200180356A1, hereinafter “Van Houten”) in view of Word (US 5,651,590) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Rooney (US 5,401,079).
As applied to claim 26, Van Houten as modified by Word teaches the invention cited including Van Houten teaches forming the first component and second component and positioning and securing lugnuts within the wheel assembly (Fig. 2) but does not explicitly teach coupling using insert-molding to integrate a wheel fastener recipient into at least one of the first component and the second component, wherein the wheel fastener recipient is operable to position and secure lug nuts within the wheel assembly.
Rooney teaches a process of fabricating a vehicle wheel assembly (10) comprising a rim (12) and a disk (14) with disk (14) has holes (16) with inserted sleeves (wheel fastener recipient 20, abstract). The sleeve is insert molded into the wheel as shown in Fig. 8A the grooves provide a mechanical means to secure the sleeves (col. 4, lines 23-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate into the method of Van Houten/Word the step of coupling using insert molding to integrate a wheel fastener recipient (sleeve) into at least one of the first component and the second component, wherein the wheel fastener recipient is operable to position and secure lug nuts within the wheel assembly, as taught by Rooney, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). The resulting method would advantageously provide conventional technique of improved securement of a wheel fastener recipient into at least one of the first and second components allowing enhanced positioning and installing of the lugnuts into the wheel hole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13, 17, 19-20 and 23-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 03/13/2026