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 § 112
1. 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.
2. Claim 18 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 18, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the flanges”. Instead, claim 15 merely sets forth “a flange”
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 1, 4, 8, 9, 13-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudley et al. (US 2020/0247182 A1; hereinafter “Dudley”) in view of Kleinschuster (US 10,974,543 B2) and Shute (US 4,606,390).
Regarding claim 1, Dudley discloses a composite wheel 10 (paragraph [0028]) for use (i.e., capable of being used) at low tire pressure comprising: a spoke section 20 with a mating surface 80; a barrel section 30 in contact with the spoke section at said mating surface (Fig. 3; paragraph [0025]); and a tire lock geometry defined on at least the spoke section (Fig. 3; paragraph [0022]), the tire lock geometry including a bead hump 100, a flange (labeled in partially reproduced Fig. 3 provided below) with an interior flange surface (labeled in partially reproduced Fig. 3 provided below), and a bead seat (labeled in partially reproduced Fig. 3 provided below) positioned between the bead hump and the flange (Fig. 3), the tire lock geometry further including a proximal surface (labeled in partially reproduced Fig. 3 provided below) of the bead hump, a top surface (labeled in partially reproduced Fig. 3 provided below) of the bead hump extending from the proximal surface away from the interior flange surface (Fig. 3), and a distal surface (labeled in partially reproduced Fig. 3 provided below) extending from the top surface of the bead hump (Fig. 3), and wherein the bead seat, the proximal surface, the top surface, and the distal surface are separated by transition corners (unlabeled intersections of these aforementioned elements shown in Fig. 3) defining a stepped retention profile (Fig. 3).
Although Dudley further discloses the proximal surface is angled relative to the bead seat at an angle, Dudley fails to expressly disclose the angle being between 85 degrees and 95 degrees.
Kleinschuster, however, teaches a wheel in which the proximal surface 44 of the bead hump 16 is angled relative to the bead seat at an angle, the angle being between 85 degrees and 95 degrees (“perpendicular (or substantially perpendicular)” per line lines 53-55 of col. 5; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Dudley so that the angle is between 85 degrees and 95 degrees, such as taught by Kleinschuster, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the bead hump prevents axially inward movement of the tire bead during use of the wheel assembly.
Dudley further fails to expressly disclose a top surface of the bead hump is at least 0.9mm tall relative to the bead seat.
Shute, however, teaches a wheel in which a top surface of the bead hump 21 is at least 0.9 mm tall relative to the bead seat 15 (Fig. 1; claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Dudley, as modified by Kleinschuster, so that the bead hump is at least 0.9mm tall relative to the bead seat, such as taught by Shute, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the bead hump prevents axially inward movement of the tire bead during use of the wheel assembly.
Notwithstanding that Dudley further discloses the “beadhump 100…secures the bead of the tire to the wheel 10” (paragraph [0020]) and the primary function of a bead hump, as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art, is to minimize or prevent the unseating of the tire bead during use of the tire, including when the tire is in a low pressure state, inasmuch as the stepped retention profile structure disclosed in Dudley, as modified by Kleinschuster and Shute, is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions (i.e., configured to resist axial migration of a tire bead during when operating at the low tire pressure) are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01 I. which states, in part, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”).
A partially reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 of Dudley is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
211
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Dudley further discloses the proximal surface of the bead hump at least partially faces the interior flange surface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Dudley further discloses the top surface of the bead hump is perpendicular to the interior flange surface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Dudley further discloses the flange is taller than the bead hump (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Dudley further discloses the wheel comprises a carbon fiber material (paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 14, Dudley further discloses the wheel comprises a discontinuous carbon fiber material (paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 15, Dudley discloses a composite wheel 10 (paragraph [0028]) for use (i.e., capable of being used) at low tire pressure comprising: a spoke section 20 with a mating surface 80; a barrel section 30 in contact with the spoke section at said mating surface (Fig. 3; paragraph [0025]); and a tire lock geometry defined on each of the spoke section and the barrel section of the wheel (Fig. 3; paragraph [0022]), the tire lock geometry including a bead hump 100, a flange (labeled in partially reproduced Fig. 3 provided below) with an interior flange surface (labeled in partially reproduced Fig. 3 provided below), and a bead seat (labeled in partially reproduced Fig. 3 provided below) positioned between the bead hump and the flange (Fig. 3), the bead hump including a proximal surface (labeled in partially reproduced Fig. 3 provided below), a top surface (labeled in partially reproduced Fig. 3 provided below) extending from the proximal surface away from the interior flange surface (Fig. 3), and a distal surface (labeled in partially reproduced Fig. 3 provided below) extending from the top surface (labeled in partially reproduced Fig. 3 provided below) of the bead hump, and wherein the bead seat, the proximal surface, the top surface, and the distal surface are separated by transition corners (unlabeled intersections of these aforementioned elements shown in Fig. 3) defining a stepped retention profile (Fig. 3).
Although Dudley further discloses the proximal surface is angled relative to the bead seat at an angle, Dudley fails to expressly disclose the angle being between 85 degrees and 95 degrees.
Kleinschuster, however, teaches a wheel in which the proximal surface 44 of the bead hump 16 is angled relative to the bead seat at an angle, the angle being between 85 degrees and 95 degrees (“perpendicular (or substantially perpendicular)” per line lines 53-55 of col. 5; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Dudley so that the angle is between 85 degrees and 95 degrees, such as taught by Kleinschuster, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the bead hump prevents axially inward movement of the tire bead during use of the wheel assembly.
Dudley further fails to expressly disclose a top surface of the bead hump is at least 0.9mm tall relative to the bead seat.
Shute, however, teaches a wheel in which a top surface of the bead hump 21 is at least 0.9 mm tall relative to the bead seat 15 (Fig. 1; claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Dudley, as modified by Kleinschuster, so that the bead hump is at least 0.9mm tall relative to the bead seat, such as taught by Shute, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the bead hump prevents axially inward movement of the tire bead during use of the wheel assembly.
Notwithstanding that Dudley further discloses the “beadhump 100…secures the bead of the tire to the wheel 10” (paragraph [0020]) and the primary function of a bead hump, as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art, is to minimize or prevent the unseating of the tire bead during use of the tire, including when the tire is in a low pressure state, inasmuch as the stepped retention profile structure disclosed in Dudley, as modified by Kleinschuster and Shute, is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions (i.e., configured to resist axial migration of a tire bead when operating at the low tire pressure) are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01 I. which states, in part, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”).
A partially reproduced and annotated Fig. 3 of Dudley is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
211
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Dudley further discloses the wheel comprises a carbon fiber material (paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 20, Dudley further discloses the wheel comprises a discontinuous carbon fiber material (paragraph [0028]).
Claims 2 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudley in view of Kleinschuster and Shute, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Von Tardy-Tuch et al. (US 2015/0174955 A1; hereinafter “Von Tardy-Tuch”).
Dudley, as modified by Kleinschuster and Shute, fails to expressly disclose the bead seat is angled relative to the interior flange surface of the flange at a first angle of 92 degrees to 98 degrees.
Von Tardy-Tuch, however, teaches a wheel in which the bead seat at 4 is angled relative to the interior flange surface of the flange 6 at a first angle 5 that is “somewhat greater than 90°” (paragraph [0042]) where the angle is “ideally in a range in which the tire can both be mounted easily and also achieves secure seating on the wheel rim” and “does not lead to the tire being damaged by the wheel rim flange (paragraph [0014]).
From this teaching of the first angle being a result-effective variable, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of routine optimization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Dudley, as modified by Kleinschuster and Shute, so that the first angle is 92 degrees to 98 degrees based upon on the intended use of the wheel to ensure that the tire can both be mounted easily and also achieves secure seating on the wheel rim while also preventing damage to the tire by the flange.
Claims 3, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudley in view of Kleinschuster and Shute, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Egbert et al. (US 2010/0096910 A1; hereinafter “Egbert”).
Regarding claim 3, although Dudley further discloses a first transition corner (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 3) being defined between the interior flange surface and the bead seat, wherein the first transition corner is chamfered with a radius (evident from Fig. 3), Dudley fails to expressly disclose the radius being 4.5 mm.
Egbert, however, teaches a wheel in which a first transition corner 110 is defined between the interior flange surface at 60 and the bead seat at 16, the first transition corner chamfered with a radius R1-A, R1-B of 4.5 mm (paragraph [0068]; Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Dudley, as modified by Kleinschuster and Shute, so that the first transition corner is chamfered with a radius of 4.5 mm, such as taught by Egbert, with a reasonable expectation of success in minimizing stress concentrations at the first transition corner during use of the wheel.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Dudley fails to expressly disclose the flange is at least 14.5 mm tall relative to the bead seat.
Egbert, however, teaches a wheel in which the flange 40, 42 is at least 14.5 mm tall relative to the bead seat (paragraph [0072]; Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Dudley, as modified by Kleinschuster and Shute, so that the flange is at least 14.5 mm tall relative to the bead seat such as taught by Egbert, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the tire is adequately retained to the wheel during use of the wheel assembly.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudley in view of Kleinschuster and Shute, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ball (WO 00/26039 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, although Dudley further discloses a transition corner is defined between the proximal surface of the bead hump and the bead seat with the transition corner being chamfered (evident from Fig. 3) and a transition corner is defined between the proximal surface of the bead hump and the top surface of the bead hump with the transition corner chamfered (evident from Fig. 3), Dudley, as modified by Kleinschuster and Shute, fails to disclose the transition corner between the proximal surface of the bead hump being chamfered with a radius of 1 mm and the transition corner between the proximal surface of the bead hump and the top surface being chamfered with a radius between 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm.
Ball, however, teaches a wheel in which various radii, including at the bead hump (Fig. 1) are employed to “reduce the stress risers that occur with sharp cornered machine surfaces” (lines 14-17 of page 6).
From this teaching, 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 formed the respective transition corners with the claimed radii values based upon the dimensions of the rim, including the humps, the dimensions and configuration of the tire beads, and the intended use of the wheel with a reasonable expectation of success in reducing potential stress risers that may occur during the use of the wheel.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudley in view of Kleinschuster and Shute, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oare et al. (WO 00/30871 A1; hereinafter “Oare”).
Although Dudley further discloses the distal surface of the bead hump is angled relative to the top surface of the bead hump at an angle (evident from Fig. 3), Dudley fails to expressly disclose the angle being greater than or equal to 15.5 degrees.
Oare, however, teaches a wheel in which a distal surface 18 of the bead hump 5, 6 is angled relative to a top surface of the bead hump at an angle (90°-α1) greater than or equal to about 15.5 degrees (lines 1-10 on page 7; Figs. 2, 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Dudley, as modified by Kleinschuster and Shute, so that the angle is greater than or equal to about 15.5 degrees, such as taught by Oare, with a reasonable expectation of success in facilitating the mounting of the tire beads onto the bead seats of the rim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “there is no basis to conclude that the claimed geometry is inherently present in Dudley”, the Examiner notes that no such assertion was made that the geometry is inherently present in Dudley. Instead, as noted above, inasmuch as the structure disclosed in Dudley, as modified by Kleinschuster and Shute, is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions (i.e., configured to resist axial migration of a tire bead when operating at the low tire pressure) are presumed to be inherent.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Dudley’s generalized illustration does not clearly disclose the specific combination of discrete transition corners and defined dimensional relationships now recited in the independent claims”, the Examiner notes that Fig. 3 of Dudley clearly shows the claimed transition corners (i.e., unlabeled intersections separating the bead seat, the proximal surface, the top surface, and the distal surface). Further, the claimed dimensional relationships newly set forth in the independent claims, as noted above, are taught by Kleinschuster and Shute.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claimed geometric relationships of the independent claims “are not independent variables subject to routine optimization”, the Examiner notes that no such assertion was made.
In response to applicant's arguments against the Dudley reference individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
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