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 § 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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inatani et al. (JP 2018020591 A; hereinafter “Inatani”; previously cited by Applicant) in view of Goto et al. (US 2015/0102656 A1; hereinafter “Goto”; newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Inatani discloses a vehicle wheel assembly comprising: a cylindrical rim 2; a disk 3 including a central connection portion at 31 connected to a vehicle body (Figs. 1 and 2), and a plurality of spokes 32 arranged to connect the rim and the central connection portion (Figs. 1 and 2); and a wall portion 5 disposed so as to partially close a plurality of air holes (unlabeled holes provided between adjacent spokes shown in Fig. 1) provided between the spokes (Fig. 1), wherein when a radial direction of the rim is defined as a radial direction, a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the rim is defined as an axial direction, a direction away from a vehicle body center line in the axial direction is defined as an axially outward direction, and a direction toward the vehicle body center line in the axial direction is defined as an axially inward direction, the rim includes a cylindrical rim body 10, a ring-shaped spoke connection portion (unlabeled, but clearly shown in Fig. 2) extending axially outward and radially outward from an axially outer end portion of the rim body (Fig. 2), the spokes being connected to the spoke connection portion (Fig. 2), a ring-shaped outer rim flange 21 connected to an axially outer end portion of the spoke connection portion (Fig. 2), and a ring-shaped inner rim flange 22 connected to an axially inner end portion of the rim body for holding a tire together with the outer rim flange (Fig. 2), and when a portion composed of a body outer end that is an axially outer end of the rim body and a portion axially outward of the body outer end of the rim is defined as a rim outer end portion (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2), and a ring-shaped portion located on the radially innermost side of an inner peripheral surface of the rim outer end portion is defined as a rim inner peripheral end (Fig. 2), the wall portion includes a facing portion (radially inner portion of 5) provided so as to be spaced apart in the axially outward direction from a portion of the rim inner peripheral end that overlaps at least one air hole of the plurality of air holes in the axial direction (evident from Fig. 1), the facing portion provided to face the portion in the axial direction (evident from Fig. 1), so as to serve as a wall with respect to air flowing axially outward along an inner peripheral surface of the rim body (Figs. 1 and 2), and an outer peripheral portion (radially outer portion of 5) extending radially outward from the facing portion and defining at least a part of one or more openings 12 communicating an inside and an outside of the wall portion in the axial direction (Fig. 2), so as to provide the one or more openings radially outward from the rim inner peripheral end (Fig. 2).
Inatani fails to disclose a length of each of the one or more openings in a circumferential direction of the rim is larger than a length of each of the one or more openings in the radial direction of the rim. Instead, the one or more openings or drain holes 12 of Inatani are shown in Fig. 1 to be circular in shape such that the length in the circumferential direction of the rim is equal to the length in the radial direction of the rim.
Goto, however, teaches a wheel assembly in which one or more openings or drain holes 70 have a shape such that a length of each of the one or more openings in a circumferential direction of the rim is larger than a length of each of the one or more openings in the radial direction of the rim (best shown in 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 wheel assembly of Inatani so that each of the one or more openings are shaped so as have a length in the circumferential direction that is larger than a length in the radial direction, such as taught by Goto, as a well-known alternative drain hole shape that would have a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the drainage of water. It is further noted that this newly claimed shape for the one or more openings is not critical for the practice of Applicant’s invention as evident from paragraph [0029] of Applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 10, Inatani further discloses the openings are defined by the outer peripheral portion and the rim (Fig. 2), or the outer peripheral portion, the rim, and the spokes.
Regarding claim 11, Inatani further discloses a cap 5 attached to at least one of the rim and the disk, wherein the wall portion is constituted by at least a part of the cap (Figs. 1 and 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to new independent claim 9 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. Note both the previously cited JP 3351344 B2 (See the one or more openings 19 in Fig. 2) and the newly cited US 2,736,610 (See the one or more openings 7’ in Fig. 1) teach each of the one or more openings having a length in the circumferential direction that is larger than a length in the radial direction.
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
