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
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, recites “between layers of the structural fibres” which should be changed to --between the layers of structural fibres-- so that the limitation refers back to the limitation in line 5.
Claim 3, lines 2-3, recites “the first plurality of layers” which should be changed to --the first plurality of layers of structural fibres-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 8, lines 2-3, recites “a vehicle” which should be changed to the four-wheeled vehicle” to refer back to the language of line 2 of claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1, line 7, recites “wherein a pre-formed insert is disposed between layers of the structural fibres” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicant is claiming a singular pre-formed insert in the product of the rim or if the Applicant is trying to claim that each flange and the barrel has a pre-formed insert. Lines 5-6 recite “wherein the barrel, and the first and second flanges, comprise layers of structural fibres bound in a polymer matrix” thus the structural fibers are located in three separate structural elements.
Claim 1, line 9, recites “a rim” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the rim from line 9 is related to or different from the rim from line 1. Is the Applicant claiming two rims in claim 1?
Claim 1, lines 10-11, recites “when viewed in cross-section (with the axis of the rim being parallel to the plane of the cross-section)” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the language in parentheses is a part of the claim. If the language in parentheses is an intended to be a part of the claim the Applicant is advised to remove the parentheses.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axis" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plane" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, lines 13-14, recites “such that first and second portions together form” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the first and second portions from lines 13-14 are separate structural elements from the first and second elongate portions from lines 11-13.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "i.e." in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2, line 2, recites “the bead seat above (i.e. radially outward of) the second elongate portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the language in parentheses is a part of the claim. If the language in parentheses is an intended to be a part of the claim the Applicant is advised to remove the parentheses.
Claim 2, line 2, recites “the bead seat” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicant is referring to the first bead seat or the second bead seat from line 3 of claim 1.
Claim 2, lines 3-4, recites “disposed below (i.e. radially inward of) the second elongate portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the language in parentheses is a part of the claim. If the language in parentheses is an intended to be a part of the claim the Applicant is advised to remove the parentheses.
The term “about 2:1 to 1:2” in claim 2, lines 5-6, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 2:1 to 1:2” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as “about 2:1 to 1:2” may not be the same as what another person considers as “about 2:1 to 1:2” thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
The term “about 3:2 to 2:3” in claim 2, line 6, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 3:2 to 2:3” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as “about 3:2 to 2:3” may not be the same as what another person considers as “about 3:2 to 2:3” thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Regarding claim 2, the phrases "optionally" in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
The term “about 4:3 to 3:4” in claim 2, line 6, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 4:3 to 3:4” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as “about 4:3 to 3:4” may not be the same as what another person considers as “about 4:3 to 3:4” thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
The term “about 5:4 to 4:5” in claim 2, lines 6-7, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 5:4 to 4:5” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as “about 5:4 to 4:5” may not be the same as what another person considers as “about 5:4 to 4:5” thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 3, lines 1-2, recites “a second plurality of layers of structural fibres” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the second plurality of layers of structural fibres from claim 3 are related to or different from the second plurality of layers of structural fibres from claim 2, line 3. Are there two sets of second plurality of layers of structural fibres? Should claim 3, lines 1-2, be amended to recite --the second plurality of layers of structural fibres--?
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "optionally" in lines 2, 3, and 4 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 7, lines 1-2, recites “wherein first and second flanges each contain an insert” which is indefinite because 1) it is unclear how the first and second flanges of claim 7 relate to the first and second flanges of claim 1, line 2, and 2) it is unclear how the inserts from claim 7 are related to the pre-formed insert from claim 1, line 7. Is the insert of claim 1 one of the inserts from claim 7? Are the first and second flanges of claim 7 the same flanges as the first and second flanges of claim 1?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the outer contour" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "e.g." in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10, line 4, recites “a barrel” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the barrel from claim 10 is related to or different from the barrel from claim 1, line 2. Is the Applicant claiming two barrels?
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "optionally" in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "optionally" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, and 15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder (US 10,029,512 B2) in view of Walls-Bruck et al. (US 10,723,172 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Snyder discloses a rim for a wheel, the rim comprising:
a barrel (130) having first (120) and second (140) flanges extending radially outward from opposing edges of the barrel, and the barrel comprising a first bead seat (124) and a second bead seat (144) arranged axially inwardly, respectively, of the first and second flanges,
wherein the barrel, and first and second flanges comprise layers of structural fibres (see Figure 9), and
wherein a pre-formed insert (12, 14) is disposed between layers of the structural fibres, wherein the insert comprises a material (Column 8 / Lines 29-31) **[which acts to absorb and/or deflect and/or dissipate energy from a load or impact applied axially and/or radially to a rim and/or acts to increase the hoop stiffness of the wheel]** and wherein the insert has, when viewed in cross-section (with the axis of the rim being parallel to the plane of the cross-section), two elongate portions (shown below), with a first elongate portion (shown below) of the insert extending into one of the first or second flanges, and a second elongate portion (shown below) of the insert extending underneath the first or second bead seat, respectively, such that first and second portions together form an approximate 'L' shape in cross-section.
PNG
media_image1.png
405
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9 of Snyder (US 10,029,512 B2)
Snyder does not disclose that the layers of structural fibres are bound in a polymer matrix.
Walls-Bruck et al. teaches a wheel that is formed of a barrel (104), a first flange (101), and a second flange (102), and the barrel, first flange, and second flange being made of structural fibres that are bound in a polymer matrix (Column 8 / Lines 8-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layers of structural fibres of Snyder to be bound in a polymer matrix, as taught by Walls-Bruck et al., for the purpose of providing a structure that maintains the location and orientation of the fibers.
Regarding claim 2, Snyder discloses that a first plurality of layers of structural fibres (the fibers above the second elongate portion shown above) form the bead seat above (i.e. radially outward of) the second elongate portion of the insert, and a second plurality of layers of structural fibres (the fibers below the second elongate portion shown above) are disposed below (i.e. radially inward of) the second elongate portion and wherein the ratio of thickness of the first plurality of layers of structural fibres to the second plurality of layers of structural fibres is from about 2:1 to about 1:2, optionally about 3:2 to about 2:3, optionally about 4:3 to about 3:4, optionally about 5:4 to about 4:5 (the Applicant’s use of “about” and “optionally” has created an issue of indefiniteness and lack of clarity, as outlined above, thus Snyder is viewed as meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Snyder discloses that a second plurality of layers of structural fibres is the of the same or greater thickness than the thickness of the first plurality of layers (as shown in Figure 9, the lines that designate the fibers wrap around the viewed 41 in a consistent manner thus the second plurality of layers of structural fibres are viewed as having the same thickness than the thickness of the first plurality of layers).
Regarding claim 4, Snyder discloses that the pre-formed insert comprises or consists of a material selected from a compressible material (fabric is viewed as being compressible to some degree thus meeting the claim limitation), an elastomeric material and a cellular material.
Regarding claim 5, Snyder in view of Walls-Bruck et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that a cellular material is an injection-moulded foam material.
Walls-Bruck et al. teaches an insert (105) that is made of a cellular material (foam; Column 9 / Lines 34-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insert of Snyder in view of Walls-Bruck et al. to be made of a cellular material, as taught by Walls-Bruck et al., for the purpose of reducing the weight of the insert.
Snyder in view of Walls-Bruck et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the cellular material is an injection-moulded foam material.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cellular material may be made by any known method of manufacture which achieves the desired operational characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of making the cellular material and make the cellular material in an injection-moulding process, the cellular material may be made by any known manufacturing method which is suitable to the desired operational characteristics of the part being made. Further, the patentability of the device does not depend on its method of manufacture.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Regarding claim 7, Snyder discloses that first (120) and second (140) flanges each contain an insert (12, 14) as defined in claim 1, with a first insert (12) having its first elongate portion (shown above) extending into the first flange and its second elongate portion (shown above) extending under the first bead seat, and a second insert (14) having its first elongate portion (the viewed insert [12] above has a similar shape as the second insert [14] thus the first elongate portion shown above is also in the second insert [14] as shown in Figure 9) extending into the second flange and its second elongate portion (the viewed insert [12] above has a similar shape as the second insert [14] thus the second elongate portion shown above is also in the second insert [14] as shown in Figure 9) extending under the second bead seat.
Regarding claim 8, Snyder discloses that the first flange being an outboard flange, when fitted to a vehicle, and the first elongate portion of the insert extending into one of the first flange (see Figure 9), and the second elongate portion of the insert extending underneath the first bead seat (see Figure 9).
Snyder in view of Walls-Bruck et al. does not explicitly disclose that the rim is for a wheel for a four-wheeled vehicle.
Walls-Bruck et al. teaches a rim (1) that is for a wheel (2) for a four-wheeled vehicle (Column 7 / Lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rim of Snyder in view of Walls-Bruck et al. to be for a wheel for a four-wheeled vehicle, as taught by Walls-Bruck et al., for the purpose of allowing the rim to be used in a common vehicle thus allowing for wide adoption.
Regarding claim 9, Snyder discloses that the first elongate portion of the insert extends into one of the first flange (see Figure 9), and the second elongate portion of the insert extending underneath the first bead seat (see Figure 9), and a first safety bead (126) is located axially inwardly of the first bead seat, and the insert approximately follows the outer contour of the first bead seat and first safety bead.
Regarding claim 10, Snyder discloses that the rim comprises a third flange (105) that extends from the barrel radially inwardly and to which wheel attachments, e.g. spokes, may be fitted, wherein the third flange is formed by further layers of structural fibres (see Figure 9; as best understood, the further layers of structural fibres as claimed are not viewed as being additional fibers above and beyond the fibers of claim 1) that follow the contours of the third flange and extend along a radially inner side of a barrel on both sides of the third flange, optionally such that it extends along an axially outer edge of a flange, which may be the first flange if the third flange is located on the same side of the barrel as the first flange.
Regarding claim 11, Snyder in view of Walls-Bruck et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the further layers of structural fibres comprise tri-axial fabric.
Walls-Bruck et al. teaches layers of structural fibres comprise tri-axial fabric (Column 8 / Lines 25-38 and Column 14 / Lines 7-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the further layers of structural fibres of Snyder in view of Walls-Bruck et al. to comprise tri-axial fabric, as taught by Walls-Bruck et al., for the purpose of providing a stronger material thus increasing the strength of the wheel.
Regarding claim 12, Snyder in view of Walls-Bruck et al. discloses a wheel (100; Snyder) comprising a rim according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Snyder in view of Walls-Bruck et al. discloses a method of making a rim according to claim 1, the method comprising assembling the structural fibres and the pre-formed insert, and binding them together by the polymer matrix, to form the rim (Column 17 / Lines 25-45 of Walls-Bruck et al.).
Regarding claim 15, Snyder in view of Walls-Bruck et al. discloses that the method involves moulding a material to form the insert before assembling the insert with the structural fibres, optionally wherein the moulding is injection moulding or compression moulding (Column 17 / Lines 25-45 of Walls-Bruck et al.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walls-Bruck et al. (US 10,723,172 B2) in view of Snyder (US 10,029,512 B2) in view of Walls-Bruck et al. (US 10,723,172 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Walls-Bruck et al. discloses a vehicle (Column 7 / Lines 14-18) comprising a wheel (2).
Walls-Bruck et al. does not disclose the wheel according to claim 12.
Snyder in view of Walls-Bruck teaches the wheel according to claim 12.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheel of Walls-Bruck et al. to be the wheel according to claim 12, as taught by Snyder in view of Walls-Bruck et al., for the purpose of providing a wheel with increased strength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ono (US 2008/0277996 A1) discloses an alloy wheel that is formed of a barrel, a bead seat, a flange, and a hollow cavity located adjacent the flange.
Archibald (US 5,421,642 A) discloses a wheel that is formed of a barrel, a bead seat, a flange, and a L-shaped insert is located in the area of the flange and the bead seat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617