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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 April 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4 June 2026. These drawings are approved.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "9" and "12" have both been used to designate the fourth recess in Figure 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because reference character “8” should include an arrowhead at the end of its leader line, given the fact that the reference character denotes the geometric center of the wheel and not the central opening.
Reference character “9” should be moved back to its original position (denoting the first recess), and should include an arrowhead at the end of its leader line, given the fact that the reference character denotes the overall recess.
Reference characters “10”, “11”, and “12” should include an arrowhead at the end of their leader lines, given the fact that these reference characters each denote and overall recess.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21-25, 31-37, and 39-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bell (1,781,867).
Per claim 21, Bell shows a rail wheel including a wheel web 13, a hub 11, and a wheel rim 12 having a running surface and flange. The wheel is forged (see lines 77-88), and material is recessed out (at 14) of the web 13 to form solid sections (i.e. spokes 15) between the recesses 14 in the circumferential direction. The recesses 14 also extend transversely to the radial direction (i.e. extend through the thickness of the web, i.e. axially) of the web 13. At least one first distance and one second distance between a center point and an edge of the recess 14 differ in size (see Figure 1).
Per claim 22, the recess 14 is has a rounded edge (i.e. the recess 14 includes rounded corners).
Per claim 23-24, the wheel only has a single web 13.
Per claim 25, the center of mass of the wheel is arranged at least approximately at the geometric center thereof.
Per claims 31-35, there are four recesses 14 arranged symmetrically in the web 13 with respect to first (i.e. axial) and second (i.e. radial) axes of the wheel.
Per claim 36, the recesses 14 are formed in the shape of a circular ring sector.
Per claim 37, an arc length, defined by a center radius of the recess 14 is greater than an eighth and less than a quarter of the circumference of a circle defined by the center radius.
Per claims 39-40, the limitations that the recesses 14 are “milled out” or “punched out” are method steps in a product claim, and thus receive no patentable weight (see MPEP 2113).
Per claim 40, the recesses 14 are punched out of the web 13.
Per claim 41, the wheel of Bell would inherently be mounted on a rail chassis.
Per claim 42, Bell discloses a method of making a rail wheel including forging the wheel and recessing material out of the wheel web 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell as applied to claims 21-25, 31-37, and 39-42 above, and further in view of Brown (435,963).
Bell does not show the recesses 14 having at least one first end section “formed as semicircular”.
Brown teaches the use of a rail wheel including recesses within a web section, wherein the recesses have at least a first end having a semicircular shape. Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the recesses of Bell in the manner taught by Brown, as a functional equivalent shape, dependent upon the desired appearance of the wheel and wheel thereof.
Claim(s) 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell as applied to claims 21-25, 31-37, and 39-42 above, and further in view of Arndt et al (2006/0102257).
Bell does not disclose the chemical properties of the forged material used to form the rail wheel.
Arndt et al teaches the use of a forged material including less than 0.6% carbon (claim 26), an upper yield point greater than 520 MPa (claim 27), a tensile strength greater than 820 MPa (claim 28), and a notch impact energy greater than 12 J (claim 29). Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the rail wheel of Bell from the material of Arndt et al, dependent upon the desired physical and chemical properties of the wheel such that said wheel does not fail during use, and dependent upon availability and cost.
While Bell as modified by Arndt et al does not disclose the fracture toughness of the forged material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the rail wheel of Bell as modified by Arndt et al with any fracture toughness based on the same reasoning above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the wheel of Bell is not a “forged” wheel, by arguing that the “reference is silent as to the method of manufacture”, and “the structure shown, i.e., a spoked wheel with open recesses, is characteristic of cast constructions rather than forged wheels.” However, neither is the case. First, Bel does indeed disclose the “method of manufacture” of the wheel. Namely, in lines 77-88, Bell discloses that the wheel is rolled into its final shape while heated (i.e. forming a heated billet), and then compressed between upper and lower dies to draw or upset the metal into the ribs 16-17 (the very definition of the forging process). Finally, the web 21 may be punched out, thus forming the openings 14. Second, the Hansen reference (and the Applicant’s own invention) shows a forged wheel having “spokes with open recesses”, with both wheels looking very similar to the wheel of Bell. Furthermore, the Applicant has failed to provide any evidence, in the form of a declaration or affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132, to support the argument that Bell does not disclose a forged wheel.
The Applicant argues that Bell “fails to teach or suggest a wheel that provided these advantageous features” (i.e. formation of a lightweight wheel by a “simplified manufacturing process” that is not “prone to casting defects”). However, it should be noted that a reference is not required to disclose all of the benefits of the invention disclosed therein. It should be noted that Bell does disclose similar benefits as presented in the Applicant’s arguments; namely a lightweight wheel lacking weakened structure in lines 10-43.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights