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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,254,160 (hereinafter the ‘160 patent) is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 15, 2025, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “said peripheral extended surround configured to wrap around an entire flange outer surface of the automobile rim” in lines 10-12 renders the claim indefinite, because “an entire flange outer surface” of the automobile rim is not clearly defined by either the claims or the specification. Considering Applicant’s Remarks filed December 15, 2025, Applicant appears to define “an entire flange outer surface” relative to a tire placed on the wheel rim. See Remarks, pg. 10-12. The examiner notes that the extent of the tire sidewalls which Applicant has added to annotated Fig. 12B of the ‘160 patent (pg. 10 of Remarks) and to annotated Fig. 2 of Tataru (pg. 11 of Remarks) in an effort to distinguish the invention based on the “entire flange outer surface” limitation appear to be somewhat arbitrary and are not supported by evidence on the record. (For further discussion of this issue, see Response to Arguments below.) As noted in the final Office action, the extent to which an automobile rim is covered by a tire will depend on the design of the tire and the fit of the tire on the rim. See Final, pg. 12-13. Accordingly, the identification of what constitutes “an entire flange outer surface” is unclear and appears in view of Applicant’s arguments to be dependent on the particular configuration of a tire with respect to the automobile rim, which is a variable outside the scope of the claims. For these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be apprised of the scope of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, “an entire flange outer surface” will be interpreted as referring to an outwardly-facing surface (e.g., facing outwardly from a vehicle centerline).
Claims 5-6 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the subject matter not supported by the original disclosure is “said peripheral extended surround configured to wrap around an entire flange outer surface of the automobile rim when the improved wheel cover overlay assembly is snapped on and over the automobile rim.” The original disclosure is silent with respect to “an entire flange outer surface of the automobile rim.” The original disclosure does not mention or define a flange or a flange outer surface of the automobile rim, nor does the original disclosure define an extent of the peripheral extended surround relative to a flange outer surface of the automobile rim. In the Remarks filed December 15, 2025, Applicant relies on Fig. 12B and the specification at col. 16:54-63 to provide support for this new limitation. However, Fig. 12B does not identify a flange of the automobile rim or a flange outer surface of the automobile rim. The specification at col. 16:54-63 states that “the wheel cover overlay of the present invention, when installed covers the entire automobile rim. That is, no space is left between the wheel cover overlay with extended surround of the present invention 250 and the rim 350 of the automobile when the former is snapped over the latter.” This passage makes no mention of a flange or flange outer surface of the automobile rim. (For clarity, the examiner notes that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “rim” is understood in the context of automobile wheels as referring to the outer cylindrical part of the wheel that supports the tire.) Applicant’s Remarks suggest that Applicant is relying on a particular hypothetical configuration of a tire sidewall relative to the rim in order to define the scope of “an entire flange outer surface.” See Remarks, pg. 10: “The resulting improvement achieved by covering the entire outer surface of the automobile rim flange is that no portion of the automobile rim’s flange remains visible when the wheel cover overlay assembly is connected to the automobile rim with a tire (the sidewall of which is represented by the gray dashed line in the annotated version of Fig. 12B shown above) mounted on the automobile rim.” However, this hypothetical configuration of a tire sidewall was not shown or described in the original disclosure. For these reasons, the original disclosure would not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tataru (US Patent Pub. 2022/0203760, hereinafter Tataru) in view of Bruce et al. (US Patent No. 7,300,116, hereinafter Bruce) and Wang (US Patent No. 2013/0278043, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 4, Tataru discloses an improved wheel cover overlay assembly (wheel cover 35, Figs. 1-10) with extended surround (20, Fig. 2; ¶ 29) capable of being snapped on and over an automobile rim (via clamps 104, Fig. 6; ¶ 42), wherein the wheel cover overlay assembly (35) with extended surround (20) comprises:
an inboard surface area (¶ 29, “inner surface”);
an outboard surface area (outer surface 37, Fig. 2; ¶ 27);
a peripheral boundary (outermost peripheral edge, see Fig. 1);
a peripheral extended surround (outer peripheral portion 20 surrounding wheel rim, adjacent to flange 33) having a first portion extending upwardly and inwardly from the peripheral boundary (see Fig. 2), said peripheral extended surround (20) configured to wrap around an entire flange outer surface (i.e., the entire outwardly facing surface) of the automobile rim when the wheel cover overlay assembly (35) is snapped on and over the automobile rim (see annotated detail of Fig. 2 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
397
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of lug nut towers (clearly shown in Figs. 5-6) comprising through holes (¶ 30, “a plurality of holes that correspond to the plurality of lug bolt holes 27 of the wheel 19”);
a plurality of major and minor flanges (at vent openings 38, Figs. 1-2 and 6; ¶ 28) each having walls protruding from the inboard surface area (most clearly shown in Figs. 2 and 6), wherein the plurality of major and minor flanges comprise a plurality of through holes (¶ 28, “vent openings”) directly formed1 into the surface of the inboard surface area (see Figs. 2 and 6; compare Applicant’s through holes 66a, Fig. 8C);
a plurality of hook-shaped members (clamps 104, Fig. 6, ¶ 42) including first and second hook-shaped members (104) on first and second flanges (104), the hook-shaped members (104) being rigid polymer (“wheel cover 35 is preferably a one-piece wheel cover formed from plastic,” ¶ 27);
a tension tab guide plate (i.e., the annular plate surrounding hub hole 42 as shown in Fig. 1, which includes the through-pockets 98 illustrated without labeling in Fig. 1 and labeled in Fig. 5, for guiding the tabs 95 of center cap 36, Fig. 6; ¶ 39);
a tension tab guide plate slit (through-pocket 98, Figs. 1 and 5; ¶ 39);
a vehicle emblem support device (front portion 90 of center cap 36, Fig. 4, ¶ 39; see emblem in Fig. 8);
at least one tension tab (any one of tabs 95, Fig. 6; ¶ 39) of the vehicle emblem support device;
a tension rotation device prong (outer shoulder 97 or 99 of any one of tabs 95 of center cap 36, Fig. 10, ¶ 39; the cap 36 being rotated as described at ¶ 45);
a tension rotation device opening (cutout portion 102, Fig. 10; ¶ 39);
a tension device fastener (any other one of tabs 95, Fig. 6; ¶ 39);
a tension tabs assembly (central projection with first tabs 72 and second tabs 70, Fig. 5; ¶ 32) comprising at least one minor tension tab (70) and at least one major tension tab (72), the major tension tab (72) comprising a rigid curved polymer lip (chamfered outer surface 72C, which is part of the “one-piece wheel cover formed from plastic,” ¶ 27, and thus understood to be rigid polymer) protruding continuously along the entirety of a rigid polymer longitudinal edge (i.e., along length of upper edge of tab 72, Fig. 5) which is continuously connected to a rigid polymer curved arm edge at each end (i.e., the curved edge at each end of the chamfered surface 72C, Fig. 5).
The method steps introduced by the recitation “said improved wheel cover overlay assembly with extended surround is manufactured by process comprising the steps of: i. placing a rigid polymer material in an injection molding to form one or more individual component parts of the wheel cover overlay assembly; and ii. finishing the one or more individual component parts by smoothing and removing all sharp and rough edges,” are product-by-process limitations. 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. See MPEP § 2113. In this case, Tataru teaches that the wheel cover is “formed from a suitable material, such as for example, … plastic” and is “preferably a one-piece wheel cover formed from plastic” (¶ 27). The one-piece plastic wheel cover overlay assembly taught by Tataru appears to be substantially the same as the finished injection molded polymer product that would result from following the method steps of placing rigid polymer material in an injection molding to form individual component parts and finishing the component parts by smoothing and removing all sharp and rough edges. Tataru thus teaches a finished product that is substantially the same as that described by Applicant and therefore meets the product-by-process limitations as claimed.
Tataru does not explicitly disclose a second portion of the peripheral extended surround curving downwardly from the first portion towards a wheel cover overlay central axis, and Tataru does not teach the claimed configuration of the first and second hook-shaped members on first and second opposing major flanges.
However, with respect to the peripheral extended surround, Bruce teaches a similar wheel cover overlay assembly (wheel cover 22, Figs. 3-4 or 5) comprising a peripheral extended surround (outer periphery 37, Figs. 3-4; or peripheral lip 45, Fig. 5) having a first portion (see annotated details of Figs. 4 and 5 below) extending upwardly and inwardly from the peripheral boundary and a second portion (see id.) curving downwardly from the first portion and towards a wheel cover overlay central axis.
PNG
media_image2.png
372
208
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
372
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to the Fig. 4 embodiment, Bruce teaches that the peripheral extended surround is configured to provide a decorative finish, as the outer periphery (37) of the wheel cover (22) extends over the outer peripheral edge (27) of the underlying wheel (21; col. 5:16-18) to decorate the external surfaces of the underlying wheel (col. 1:13-17). With respect to the Fig. 5 embodiment, Bruce teaches that the “[l]ip 45 is configured to overlap and engage a complementary shaped recess 46 formed in the outer peripheral edge 27 of the underlying wheel 21. The shape of lip 45 can vary from that shown in Fig. 5 as long as the lip 45 is configured to matingly engage with a complementary recess formed in the wheel 21” (col. 6:14-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the peripheral surround of Tataru to include a second portion curving downwardly from the first portion and towards the wheel cover overlay central axis, as taught by Bruce, in order to enhance the decorative appearance at the outer periphery (as in the Fig. 4 embodiment of Bruce) and/or to provide an additional mechanical interlock at the periphery of the wheel (as in the Fig. 5 embodiment of Bruce).
With respect to the configuration of the first and second hook-shaped portions on first and second opposing major flanges, Wang teaches a wheel cover overlay assembly (cover A, Figs. 3 and 6-7) comprising a plurality of major flanges (12) and a plurality of hook-shaped members (retaining devices 2) comprising at least a first hook-shaped member (2) on a first major flange (12) and a second hook-shaped member (2) on a second major flange (see Fig. 3) opposing the first major flange (12). The first hook-shaped member (2) comprises a first longitudinal edge (elongated rib 23, Figs. 6-7, ¶ 23), a first lip (at outward boundary of rib 23, Fig. 7; compare to Applicant’s lip 601a of edge 602a in Fig. 8C) protruding from the first longitudinal edge, a first curved arm edge (at first retaining block 22 with bevel faces 21 having a curved shape as shown in Fig. 7) extending from a first end of the first longitudinal edge (23), and a second curved arm edge (at second retaining block 22) extending from a second end of the first longitudinal edge. The second hook-shaped member (2) on the opposing major flange (12) is understood to be a mirror-image of the first-hook shaped member (2), as shown generically in Fig. 3. Thus, Wang is clearly understood to disclose that the second hook-shaped member (2) also likewise comprises a second longitudinal edge (23), a second lip protruding from the second longitudinal edge, a third curved arm edge (22) extending from a first end of the second longitudinal edge, and a fourth curved arm edge (22) extending from a second end of the second longitudinal edge, as illustrated in Fig. 7. Wang teaches that this configuration of the first and second hook-shaped members is suitable for a single-piece wheel cover that is “easy and inexpensive to fabricate.” Wang ¶ 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Tataru by configuring the first and second hook-shaped members in the arrangement taught by Wang with the first hook-shaped member on a first major flange and the second hook-shaped member on a second major flange opposing the first major flange, since this involves the simple substitution of one known configuration of hook-shaped members for attaching a single-piece wheel cover to a wheel for another known configuration of hook-shaped members for attaching a single-piece wheel cover to wheel, to yield predictable results. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the arrangement of hook-shaped members taught by Wang may be preferable for simplifying fabrication and reducing fabrication costs as taught by Wang. Although Wang is silent with respect to the material of the edges, lips, and curved arm edges of the hook-shaped members, the examiner notes that Tataru teaches that the one-piece wheel cover is preferably “formed from plastic” (¶ 27), which is clearly understood in context to be rigid polymer. Thus, when modifying Tataru to include the hook-shaped members in the configuration taught by Wang as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same rigid polymer material disclosed by Tataru for the hook-shaped members of the one-piece wheel cover, inclusive of their edges, lips, and curved arm edges.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Tataru teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 4. Tataru further teaches that the hook-shaped members (104, Fig. 6) include first and second curved arm edges comprising first and second concave surfaces, respectively. See annotated Fig. 6 below. Tataru teaches that this configuration helps secure the wheel cover to the edges of spokes of the underlying wheel (¶ 44). Therefore, when modifying Tataru in view of Wang to include the first and second hook-shaped members on first and second opposing major flanges, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide each of the curved arm edges with a concave surface, as taught by Tataru, in order to securely engage the edges of the spokes of the underlying wheel.
PNG
media_image4.png
519
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tataru in view of Bruce and Wang, in further view of Kinslow et al. (US Patent No. 7,651,171, hereinafter Kinslow).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Tataru teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 4. Tataru does not teach that the major tension tab is manufactured at an angle of up to fifteen degrees measured from the position of the minor tab. However, in the art of wheel center cap assemblies, Kinslow teaches a tension tab assembly (retainer 14 with tabs/flange portions 36, Figs. 1-5; col. 2:9-11 and 40-45) comprising at least one major tension tab (flange portions 36 with tabs 38) manufactured at an angle measured from a position normal to an annular ring (32) of the tension tab assembly (col. 3:4-7; see Fig. 4, showing the angle to be a relatively small acute angle). It is noted that, in Tataru, the minor tabs (70) are oriented normal to an annular opening of the tension tab assembly (see, e.g., Fig. 2). Kinslow teaches that, when installed, the angled tension tabs (36) are forced outward by insertion of a cap member (12, Figs. 4-5, col. 3:16-24; compare Tataru’s center cap 36) so that the tension tabs (36) “serve[] as a radial lock for cap assembly 10 that reliably secures cap assembly 10 to wheel 20” (col. 3:30-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tataru by manufacturing the major tension tabs at an angle as taught by Kinslow measured from the position of the minor tension tabs of Tataru (i.e., from a position normal to the annular opening of the tension tab assembly as noted above), in order to ensure that the assembly is reliably secured to the wheel when installed. Although Kinslow does not explicitly disclose that the angle is in the range of up to fifteen degrees as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a relatively small acute angle, including an angle within the range of up to fifteen degrees, would be successful in achieving this result, particularly in view of Fig. 4 of Kinslow which illustrates an angle of less than fifteen degrees. Therefore, when modifying Tataru in view of Kinslow as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an angle of up to fifteen degrees as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tataru, Bruce, and Wang do not teach the limitation “said peripheral extended surround configured to wrap around an entire flange outer surface of the automobile rim” which was added in the December 15 amendment. Applicant includes annotated figures in support of this argument, which are reproduced below.
As shown in the images below, Applicant has annotated Fig. 12B of the ‘160 patent by adding a hypothetical tire sidewall configuration in order to support a particular interpretation of the limitation “configured to wrap around an entire flange outer surface of the automobile rim.”2
PNG
media_image5.png
496
644
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant has also annotated Fig. 2 of Tataru (reproduced below) to include a different hypothetical tire sidewall configuration, in order to support the argument that Tataru does not teach the limitation “configured to wrap around an entire flange outer surface of the automobile rim.” See Tataru images below. Applicant argues that, because a portion of the automobile rim is not covered by either the overlay or the hypothetical tire profile added by Applicant, Tataru does not teach the new claim limitation.
PNG
media_image6.png
481
593
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive because it relies on an arbitrary definition of “an entire flange outer surface” relative to a tire sidewall configuration that is not supported by the evidence of record. A “flange outer surface” is not clearly defined3 and might reasonably be interpreted as referring to an outwardly-facing surface of the automobile rim flange (e.g., facing outwardly from a centerline of the vehicle). Neither the claims nor Applicant’s disclosure require that the peripheral extended surround cover every surface of an automobile rim. For example, it is clear from Applicant’s original Fig. 12B that there are parts of the rim that are not covered by the overlay. The peripheral extended surround (20) of Tataru’s overlay wraps over the entire outward-facing surface of the wheel rim, extending up and over the top surface of the wheel rim, and is thus understood to “wrap around an entire flange outer surface of the automobile rim” as claimed.
Moreover, the relationship of the overlay to a hypothetical tire sidewall which is not claimed cannot be relied on to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Moreover, even if arguendo the relationship of the overlay to a hypothetical tire sidewall were considered determinative to patentability, the evidence does not show that a tire sidewall associated with Tataru’s invention would be configured as the straight dotted line suggested by Applicant. As noted in the final Office action, the extent of a tire relative to an automobile rim is determined by the design of the tire and the fit of the tire on the rim, as shown in the image4 below. See final Office action, pg. 12-13.
PNG
media_image7.png
337
712
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s annotation of Tataru’s Fig. 2 proposes a tire that appears to be too narrow for the rim (similar to the right-most example in the image above, “Rim too wide/Tire too narrow”). Considering the exemplary “proper fit” shown in the left-most example in the image above, one of ordinary skill in the art would more reasonably suppose that a tire properly fitted to the rim of Tataru would look more like this:
PNG
media_image8.png
480
256
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In the examiner’s opinion, the various possible interpretations of Tataru based on how a tire might be fit to the rim illustrates the ambiguity of the limitation “configured to wrap around an entire flange outer surface” under the interpretation asserted by Applicant, which appears to depend on a tire sidewall configuration that is a variable outside the scope of the claims.
Applicant also argues that Bruce does not teach the limitation “configured to wrap around an entire flange outer surface.” It is the examiner’s position that Tataru teaches this limitation. However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Bruce will be addressed for the sake of completeness. With respect to Bruce, Applicant again appears to argue based on the fit of the tire relative to the rim to assert that the peripheral extended surround of the overlay of Bruce does not wrap around “an entire flange outer surface” of the rim. See Applicant’s annotation of Bruce’s Fig. 3 on pg. 12 of the Remarks (reproduced below, pointing to a small interior region of the rim that is not shown to be covered by the tire or the overlay. However, the small part of the interior region of Bruce’s rim that is not covered by the overlay or the tire need not be considered part of a “flange outer surface” that must be wrapped by the overlay. As shown in Fig. 3 of Bruce, the entire outwardly-facing surface of the automobile rim is covered by the overlay. Thus, Bruce (like Tataru) would be reasonably considered to teach a peripheral extended surround that wraps around an entire flange outer surface of the automobile rim, as claimed.
PNG
media_image9.png
360
620
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Applicant points to Fig. 11 of the ‘160 patent showing a prior art overlay mounted on a vehicle rim with a tire with part of the vehicle rim being exposed, arguing that Bruce’s rim would similarly be exposed when the overlay and a tire are mounted on the rim. These arguments are not persuasive because, in addition to the arguments with respect to Bruce discussed above, there is no evidence on the record that the prior art Fig. 11 of the ‘160 patent corresponds to the invention of Bruce.
Applicant additionally argues that Wang and Kinslow do not teach the limitation “configured to wrap around an entire flange outer surface.” These arguments are not persuasive because this limitation is taught by Tataru (and also by Bruce), as discussed above. Wang and Kinslow have not been relied upon to teach any features of the peripheral extended surround.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/JOSHUA KADING/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 The phrase “directly carved” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed wheel cover overlay.
2 The examiner notes for clarity that Fig. 12B is understood to show a partial sectional view of the assembly. It is understood that the automobile rim does not terminate at the location where the cross-sectional view terminates.
3 See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
4 Dodge Challenger Forum, post by Cuda340 on April 30, 2014, https://www.challengertalk.com/threads/widest-rear-tire-on-a-20x8-rt-wheel.202282/, obtained by a quick Google search of the phrase “tire fit on wheel rim.”
Prosecution Insights