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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhi CN 105538997 A.
Regarding claim 1, Zhi teaches a vehicle wheel comprising: a rim 1 having a substantially cylindrical shape and having an outer periphery to which a tire is mounted,; a hub 3 attached to an axle; and a plurality of spokes 2 extending from the hub 3 toward the rim 1 to connect the hub 3 and the rim 1, wherein each of the plurality of spokes 2 comprises a protrusion 5 protruding outward in a vehicle width direction from a design face of the vehicle wheel and extending along a direction in which each spoke 2 extends between a pair of terminal ends, the protrusion 5 protruding continuously from the design face of the vehicle wheel between the pair of terminal ends.
Zhi does not expressly disclose the rim housing a braking device however, it is well known in the art for automobile wheels to house a braking device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to house a braking device in the wheel for maximum brake efficiency and cooling with a reasonable expectation of success. Official notice is hereby given.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang CN 107323166.
Regarding claim 8, Kang teaches a vehicle comprising a right wheel and a left wheel, each of the right wheel and the left wheel comprising: a rim 4 having a substantially cylindrical shape and having an outer periphery to which a tire is mounted, the rim 4 housing a braking device (para. 004 of the English language translation); a hub 2 attached to an axle; and a plurality of spokes 5 extending from the hub 2 toward the rim 4 to connect the hub 2 and the rim 4, wherein each of the plurality of spokes 5 is inclined circumferentially from a radial direction of the right wheel or the left wheel, and an inclining direction of the plurality of spokes 5 of the right wheel is opposite an inclining direction of the plurality of spokes 5 of the left wheel when viewed from respective design faces, and the right wheel and the left wheel are mounted such that each of the plurality of spokes 5 is inclined rearward in a rotation direction of the right wheel and the left wheel of the vehicle moving forward. (Fig. 1).
While Kang does not expressly say the inclining direction of the spokes on the right wheel is opposite the inclining direction of the spokes on the left wheel, it is apparent from the design they would have to be. If they were not, it would cause the air to flow inward on one side instead of outward which would be the opposite of the claimed benefit of the wheel taught by Kang in para. 13 of the English language translation. It would also create increased drag on one side of the vehicle. Furthermore, in order for the wheel to draw air from inside the wheel to outside the wheel, the “fan blade spokes” would have to be inclined rearward on both sides of the car.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 22 October, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new prior art to overcome the amendment of claim 1 and examiner error in the original rejection of independent claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX R PALMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm MST.
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.
/AP/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615