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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: The term “outboard side” should be replaced with -- outward side -- for clarity and to be consistent with the remainder of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 1 and 4-11 are 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 1, the limitation “wherein the guide portion is tapered, wherein, along the rotation axis, the air guide portion comprises a diameter increasing towards the outward side, and the air guide portion has an angle with a radial direction of the wheel that is between 90° and 100°” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a tapered guide portion comprising a diameter increasing towards the outward side could have an angle of 90° with a radial direction of the wheel as contemplated by this limitation. In other words, if the angle of the guide portion is 90° with a radial direction of the wheel (i.e., the guide portion is parallel to the axis of the wheel) as encompassed by this limitation, it is unclear how the guide portion could also be tapered with a diameter increasing towards the outward side as required by the claim.
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.
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, 7 and 11, as best understood in light of the section 112 rejection noted above, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koschinat (US 2001/0052725 A1) in view of Kawamura et al. (US 2021/0291585 A1; hereinafter “Kawamura”) and Soubrant et al. (US 2019/0152590 A1; hereinafter “Soubrant”).
Regarding claim 1, Koschinat, in the embodiment shown in Figs. 1 and 3, discloses a wheel (wheel shown in Fig. 1) for a vehicle (implicit from paragraph [0001]), the wheel being rotatable around a rotation axis at 7 and comprising: a seating space (unlabeled space that receives brake disk 14 as shown in Fig. 1) for a brake disk 14 extending around the rotation axis (Fig. 1); a wheel rim 3 having a rim well (unlabeled portion of rim 3 that protrudes toward the rotation axis as shown in Fig. 1), the wheel rim extending around the seating space and the rotation axis (Fig. 1), wherein the rim well protrudes from the wheel rim towards the rotation axis (Fig. 1); and at least one spoke (either the unlabeled spoke between circumferentially adjacent ventilation passages 17 or the unlabeled spoke between circumferentially adjacent oblong holes 27 as best shown in Fig. 3) being connected to the wheel rim (evident from Figs. 1 and 3), the at least one spoke being arranged at an outward side (axially outboard side of the wheel) of the wheel and extending at least in part radially to the rotation axis (evident from Figs. 1 and 3); wherein, along the rotation axis, the seating space is arranged closer to the outward side than the rim well (Fig. 1), and the rim well is arranged closer to an inward side of the wheel (axially inboard side of the wheel) than the seating space (Fig. 1), wherein the seating space is between the rim well and the outboard side of the wheel (i.e., outward side of the wheel), and the rim well obstructs the air flowing toward the inward side such that the air is deflected toward the outward side (evident from Figs. 1 and 3 that some air flowing toward the inward side through the ventilation passages 27 is presumed to be deflected toward the outward side by the radially inwardly protruding rim well in the same manner that Applicant’s radially inwardly protruding rim well deflects some air flowing toward the inward side toward the outward side; 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).”).
PNG
media_image1.png
410
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, although Koschinat further discloses the wheel rim comprising a rim portion that is tapered between the rim well and the outward side, wherein, along the rotation axis, the rim portion comprises a diameter increasing towards the outward side (Fig. 1), Koschinat fails to expressly disclose this rim portion is an air guide portion configured to guide air towards the outward side.
Kawamura, however, teaches a wheel wherein the wheel rim 20 comprises an air guide portion (at radially outermost “AIR” shown in Fig. 1) between the rim well (unlabeled radially innermost portion of rim and the outward side (Fig. 1), wherein the air guide portion is configured to guide air towards the outward side (Fig. 1; paragraph [0023]), wherein the air guide portion is tapered (Fig. 1), wherein, along the rotation axis, the air guide portion comprises a diameter increasing towards the outward side (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the tapered rim portion of the wheel of Koschinat would function as an air guide portion configured to guide air towards the outward side, such as taught by Kawamura, with a reasonable expectation of success in reducing air resistance and improving the fuel economy.
Koshinat further fails to expressly disclose the air guide portion has an angle with a radial direction of the wheel that is between 90° and 100°.
Soubrant, however, teaches a wheel for a vehicle wherein the wheel rim comprises an air guide portion at 103a that can have an angle with a radial direction of the wheel that is between 90° and 100° (paragraph [0020]; Figs. 2B and 3B) to promote the flow of air to an outward side, thereby improving the cooling of the brake (paragraph [0006]).
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 Koshinat so that the air guide portion has an angle with a radial direction of the wheel that is between 90° and 100°, such as taught by Soubrant, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the cooling of the brake.
Regarding claim 7, Koschinat further discloses a system 1 comprising the wheel (Fig. 1), the brake disk 14, and a wheel hub 6 connectable to a vehicle (Fig. 1), wherein the brake disk is arranged in the seating space (Fig. 1), wherein the brake disk and the wheel are attached to the wheel hub (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Koschinat further discloses a vehicle (not shown, but implicit from at least paragraph [0001]) comprising the wheel, wherein the wheel is mounted to the vehicle in a rotatable manner (evident from Fig. 1).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koschinat in view of Kawamura and Soubrant, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gebeau (US 2014/0191565 A1).
Regarding claims 4-6, Koschinat fails to expressly disclose the at least one spoke having the claimed configuration so as to be configured to accelerate air as claimed.
Gebeau, however, teaches a wheel 100 in which the at least one spoke 104 is configured to accelerate air, which streams from the rim well towards the outward side, if the wheel turns in a predefined rotation direction around the rotation axis (Figs. 1, 2 and 11; paragraphs [0050-0052] and [0071]), wherein the at least one spoke comprises a blade portion 101 extending between the outward side and the rim well (Fig. 4A), wherein the blade portion is configured to accelerate air towards the outward side, if the wheel turns in the predefined rotation direction around the rotation axis (Figs. 1, 2, 4A and 11; paragraphs [0050-0052], [0057] and [0071]), wherein, along the rotation axis, the at least one spoke has an asymmetrical shape (Figs. 1, 2 and 4A).
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 at least one spoke of Koschinat so that it has an asymmetrical shaped blade portion configured to accelerate air towards the outward side if the wheel turns in predefined rotation direction around the rotation axis, such as taught by Gebeau, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving traction between the tire and the road surface while also improving the cooling effect on the brake components.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koschinat in in view of Kawamura and Soubrant, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Bieker et al. (EP 0049527 A1; hereinafter “Bieker”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Koschinat fails to expressly disclose the brake disk comprising the claimed at least one cooling air channel.
Bieker, however, teaches a brake disk 7 comprising at least one cooling air channel 8 extending at least in part radially to the rotation axis (Fig. 2), the cooling air channel being configured to thrust out air towards the wheel rim (Fig. 1), wherein the cooling air channel comprises an outlet opening (unlabeled outlet opening of each air channel 8 shown in Fig. 2) facing the wheel rim (Fig. 1).
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 brake disk of Koschinat so that it includes at least one cooling air channel extending at least in part radially to the rotation axis and being configured to thrust out air towards the wheel rim with the cooling air channel comprising an outlet opening facing the wheel rim, such as taught by Bieker, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the cooling of the disk brake. Further such a modification of Koschinat would result in the outlet opening facing the wheel rim between the rim well and the outward side.
Regarding claim 10, Koschinat fails to disclose the wheel hub comprising a guiding channel being configured to guide air from an inward side of the wheel towards the brake disk, the inward side being opposite to the outward side.
Bieker, however, teaches a wheel hub (comprised of 1, 2 and 18) that comprises a guiding channel at 23 being configured to guide air from an inward side of the wheel towards the brake disk (note Fig. 1), the inward side being opposite to the outward side (Fig. 1).
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 hub of Koschinat so that it comprises a guiding channel configured to guide air from an inward side of the wheel towards the brake disk, such as taught by Bieker, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the cooling of the disk brake.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument (i.e., Koschinat does not disclose “the wheel rim comprises an air guide portion between the rim well and the outward side”) against the Koschinat 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). As noted, Kawamura teaches that it is known in the art that a wheel rim with a rim portion that is tapered between the rim well and the outward side, such as shown in both Koschinat and Kawamura, functions as an air guide portion that is configured to (i.e., capable of guiding) guide air towards the outward side as clearly disclosed in Kawamura (Fig. 1; paragraph [0023]).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly claimed angle of the air guide portion as set forth in independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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. Specifically, GB 1588173 A teaches a wheel comprising a wheel rim with an air guide portion 31 that has an angle with a radial direction of the wheel that is between 90° and 100° (line 89 of page 1 through line 2 of page 2).
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 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
Prosecution Insights