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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
The lead line for reference character 1 in Fig. 1 should either contact the corresponding structure or include a freestanding arrow at the end thereof directed to the corresponding structure.
The lead line for reference character 111 in Fig. 5 is directed to a portion of the rim instead of the anti-detachment collar as described.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1182” has been used to designate both the “third transition ring” and the “second transition ring” in Fig. 5. The second transition ring should be labeled with reference character 1181 to be consistent with Fig. 3 and the corresponding description.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
All occurrences of the term “hub” in the specification should be replaced with the term -- rim -- or -- wheel -- as appropriate for clarity inasmuch as the rim, not the hub, is the portion of the wheel that receives the tire (e.g., Fig. 1 shows a “rim body” not a “hub body”).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: SAFETY WHEEL AGAINST TIRE BURST
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “hub” in claims 1-9 is used by the claim to mean either “wheel” or “rim,” while the accepted meaning is “the central part of a wheel.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The Examiner suggests replacing each occurrence of the term “safety hub” with -- safety wheel -- and all other occurrences of the term “hub” with -- rim -- for clarity.
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the overall diameter of the protruding teeth” and “the diameter of a tire bead”. Further, it is unclear what would be considered to be the “overall” diameter (e.g.,, is the overall diameter the maximum diameter of the teeth? the average diameter of the teeth?, etc…).
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the diameter of a tire bead adapted to the tire mounting seat” renders the claim indefinite inasmuch as it includes structure (i.e., a tire bead) that is not a component of the claimed “safety hub” (i.e., safety wheel). As such, it is unclear whether the claimed invention is directed to a safety wheel or to a safety wheel and tire assembly.
Regarding claim 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the diameter of the first tire bead seat” and “the diameter of the surface of the anti-detachment collar”.
Regarding claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the diameter of the second tire bead seat”.
Regarding claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the diameter of the mounting seat”. Further, it is unclear whether “the mounting seat” refers to the previously claimed “first mounting seat”, “second mounting seat” or both the first and second mounting seats.
Regarding claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the diameter of the surface of the anti-detachment collar”. Further, it is unclear whether “the anti-detachment collar” refers to the previously claimed “first anti-detachment collar”, “second anti-detachment collar” or both the first and second anti-detachment collars.
Regarding claim 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the inner diameter of the bottom of the gullets”.
Regarding claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the diameter of the second protruding ring” and “the inner diameter of the bottom of the gullets”.
Regarding claim 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the junction”, “the maximum diameter of the second transition ring”, and “the maximum diameter of the third transition ring”.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the overall diameter of the first wheel flange” and “the overall diameter of the second wheel flange”. Further, it is unclear what would be considered to the be “overall” diameter (e.g.,, is the overall diameter the maximum diameter of the respective wheel flange? the average diameter of the respective wheel flange?, etc…).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 9, as best understood in light of the section 112 issues noted above, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teeple et al. (WO 2005/068224 A1; hereinafter “Teeple”).
Regarding claim 1, Teeple, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 5, discloses a safety hub 10 against tire burst (evident from Fig. 5 and Abstract), comprising a hub body (comprised of rim 18 and disk 12), wherein the hub body comprises an outer annular surface 20, a first side surface at 86 and a second side surface at 92, wherein the first side surface and the second side surface are oppositely arranged on two sides of the outer annular surface (Fig. 5), wherein a through hole (shown in Figs. 5 and 10) for an automobile half shaft (not shown, but implicit from at least Fig. 10) to pass through is defined on the second side surface (evident from Figs. 5 and 10), and a connecting seat (unlabeled central portion of disk 12 best shown in Fig. 10) adapted to the automobile half shaft is formed on the first side surface (evident from Figs. 5 and 10); the two sides of the outer annular surface are oppositely provided with a first wheel flange 86 and a second wheel flange 92, wherein a tire mounting seat (portion of rim 18 between 86 and 92 as shown in Fig. 5) is formed between the first wheel flange and the second wheel flange (Fig. 5), and an anti-detachment collar 52 is provided on the tire mounting seat (Fig. 5), wherein the anti-detachment collar is an annular protruding ring arranged along the outer annular surface (Fig. 5), wherein the anti-detachment collar is concentric with the outer annular surface (Fig. 5), wherein a surface (radially outer surface as shown in Fig. 5) of the anti-detachment collar is provided with a toothed structure (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 5) which comprises a plurality of protruding teeth and gullets (Fig. 5), wherein the protruding teeth and the gullets are alternately arranged, the protruding teeth are protrusions extending outward from the surface of the anti-detachment collar (Fig. 5), and the gullets are grooves recessed inward from the surface of the anti-detachment collar (Fig. 5), wherein the overall diameter of the protruding teeth is greater than the diameter of a tire bead (either 56 or 58) adapted to the tire mounting seat (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Teeple further discloses the anti-detachment collar is close to the second wheel flange (Fig. 5), and a mounting seat 50 for mounting the tire bead 58 on one side of the tire is formed between the anti-detachment collar and the second wheel flange (Fig. 5), wherein the diameter of the mounting seat for mounting the tire bead on one side of the tire is smaller than the diameter of the surface of the anti-detachment collar (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Teeple further discloses the hub body comprises a plurality of spokes (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 10) radially arranged on the first side surface (Fig. 10), wherein the connecting seat adapted to the automobile half shaft is formed at the center of the plurality of spokes (Fig. 10), and a plurality of mounting through holes (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 10) are defined on the connecting seat (Fig. 10); and the plurality of spokes are strip-shaped, one end of each spoke is connected with the connecting seat, and the other end of each spoke is connected with the first wheel flange (Fig. 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teeple in view of Cragg (US 2011/0298271 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Teeple further discloses the first wheel flange is located on the first side surface (Fig. 5), the second wheel flange is located on the second side surface (Fig. 5), and the automobile half shaft is directed through the second side surface and connected with the center of the first side surface (evident from at least Fig. 10); the anti-detachment collar is close to the first wheel flange (Fig. 5), a first tire bead seat 48 is formed between the anti-detachment collar and the first wheel flange (Fig. 5), and the diameter of the first tire bead seat is smaller than the diameter of the surface of the anti-detachment collar (Fig. 5); a first protruding ring 88 is provided on the outer annular surface of the hub body (Fig. 5), wherein the first protruding ring is close to the second wheel flange (evident from Fig. 5 that hump 88 is “close” to all portions of the rim 18, including second wheel flange 92), and a second tire bead seat 50 is formed between the first protruding ring and the second wheel flange (Fig. 5); and a hub outer grooved surface (unlabeled portion of 20 axially between 88 and 52 as shown in Fig. 5) is formed between the first protruding ring and the anti-detachment collar (Fig. 5).
Teeple fails to expressly disclose the first tire bead seat and the second tire bead seat are symmetrically arranged with a centerline of a nominal width of the hub body as a symmetry axis, wherein the diameter of the first tire bead seat is equal to the diameter of the second tire bead seat.
Cragg, however, teaches a wheel rim in which the first tire bead seat at 23 and the second tire bead seat at 23 are symmetrically arranged with a centerline at 18 of a nominal width of the hub body as a symmetry axis (paragraph [0023]; Fig. 2), wherein the diameter of the first tire bead seat is equal to the diameter of the second tire bead seat (paragraph [0023]; Fig. 2).
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 safety hub (i.e., safety wheel) of Teeple by symmetrically arranging the first and second bead seats with a centerline of the hub body (i.e., rim body) such that the diameter of the first tire bead seat is equal to the diameter of the second tire bead seat, such as taught by Cragg, as a well-known wheel rim construction that would have a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the tire to be mounted and demounted from either side of the wheel.
Regarding claim 6, Teeple further discloses a second protruding ring (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 5 below), a third protruding ring (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 5 below) and a grooved ring (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 5 below) arranged between the second protruding ring and the third protruding ring are provided on the hub outer grooved surface (Fig. 5), wherein the second protruding ring is adjacent to the anti-detachment collar (Fig. 5), wherein the second protruding ring is smoothly connected to the anti-detachment collar via a first transition ring (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 5 below), and the first transition ring is a sloped ring (Fig. 5), wherein the diameter (considered to be the radially inner diameter of the second protruding ring as shown in reproduced and annotated Fig. 5 below) of the second protruding ring is smaller than the inner diameter of the bottom of the gullets (Fig. 5); and the third protruding ring is adjacent to the first protruding ring (Fig. 5), and the third protruding ring is a sloped ring (Fig. 5), wherein the first protruding ring is smoothly connected to the grooved ring via the third protruding ring (Fig. 5), and the diameter of the first protruding ring is greater than the maximum diameter of the grooved ring (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teeple in view of Klaue (DE 3809422 A1).
Although Teeple further discloses the diameter of the mounting seat for mounting the tire bead of the tire is smaller than the diameter of the surface of the anti-detachment collar (Fig. 5), Teeple fails to expressly disclose the use of two anti-detachment collars.
Klaue, however, teaches safety wheel arrangements in which a single anti-detachment collar can be used (embodiment shown in Fig. 1) or in which two anti-detachment collars (embodiment shown in Fig. 3), namely first anti-detachment collar (131, 132) and second anti-detachment collar (134, 135), are oppositely provided on the tire mounting seat (Fig. 3), wherein the first anti-detachment collar is close to the first wheel flange (Fig. 3), and a first mounting seat for mounting the tire bead on one side of the tire is formed between the first anti-detachment collar and the first wheel flange (Fig. 3); the second anti-detachment collar is close to the second wheel flange (Fig. 3), and a second mounting seat for mounting the tire bead on the other side of the tire is formed between the second anti-detachment collar and the second wheel flange (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 safety hub (i.e., safety wheel) of Teeple by utilizing two anti-detachment collars as claimed, such as taught by Klaue, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring both tire beads better remain in place during use of the wheel assembly.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teeple in view of Zhou et al. (CN 110682731 A; hereinafter “Zhou”).
Teeple fails to expressly disclose the overall diameter of the first wheel flange is equal to the overall diameter of the second wheel flange, and the overall diameter of the protruding teeth is smaller than the overall diameter of the first wheel flange.
Zhou, however, teaches a safety hub against tire burst in which the overall diameter of the first wheel flange is equal to the overall diameter of the second wheel flange (Fig. 1), and the overall diameter of the protruding teeth (projections at 210 as shown in Figs. 2 and 3) is smaller than the overall diameter of the first wheel flange (best shown in Fig. 2).
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 safety hub (i.e., safety wheel) of Teeple by forming the overall diameter of the first wheel flange to be equal to the overall diameter of the second wheel flange, and the overall diameter of the protruding teeth to be smaller than the overall diameter of the first wheel flange, such as taught by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation of success in facilitating the mounting and demounting of the tire by better allowing the tire to be mounted and demounted with the anti-detachment collar in position on the outer surface of the rim and also better allowing the tire to be mounted and demounted from either side of the wheel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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