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 Figures 1-11 have solid shading which is not permitted per 37 CFR 1.84(m).
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 § 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 11 and 13-20 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 11, line 1, recites “The wheel cover flap system of claim 1, further comprising a vehicle” which is indefinite because how can a wheel flap cover system comprise a vehicle? As best understood, a wheel flap cover system is a component of a wheel which is a component of a vehicle. Is the Applicant trying to claim --A vehicle comprising the wheel cover flap system of claim 1--?
Claim 13, line 2, recites “a wheel cover flap system” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the wheel cover flap system from line 2 is related to or different from the wheel cover flap system from line 1. Should line 2 be amended to recite --the wheel cover flap system--?
Claim 14, line 2, recites “dual offset actuators” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the dual offset actuators from claim 14 are related to or different from the dual offset actuators from claim 13, line 3. Should claim 14 be amended to recite --the dual offset actuators--?
Claim 14, line 2, recites “one or more wheel cover flaps” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the one or more wheel cover flaps from claim 14 are related to or different from the one or more wheel cover flaps from claim 13, line 3. Should claim 14 be amended to recite --the one or more wheel cover flaps--?
Claim 14, lines 2-3, recites “a compressed position” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the compressed position from claim 14 are related to or different from the compressed position from claim 13, line 3. Should claim 14 be amended to recite --the compressed position--?
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 depends from claim 5 thus claim 5 does not further limit any previous claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-7, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmid et al. (US 8,857,921 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Schmid et al. discloses a wheel cover flap system, comprising:
a wheel (2), comprising one or more openings (3);
one or more wheel cover flaps (4), coupled to the wheel, configured to be positioned in an expanded position (see Figure 4; when 4 does cover 3) and a compressed position (see Figure 3; when 4 does not cover 3), wherein:
in the expanded position, the one or more wheel cover flaps are configured to cover the one or more openings of the wheel (Figure 4 is the closed position thus 4 covers 3), and
in the compressed position, the one or more wheel cover flaps are configured to uncover the one or more openings of the wheel (Column 8 / Lines 11-17); and
dual offset actuators (35, 36), configured to:
exert a collapsing force configured to compress the one or more wheel cover flaps (Column 8 – Lines 29-35); and
enable the one or more wheel cover flaps to expand when an expanding force exceeds the collapsing force (Column 8 – Lines 29-35).
Regarding claim 3, Schmid et al. discloses that the dual offset actuators comprise dual helical tension springs (35 and 36 are helical springs as disclosed in Column 8 / Line 23).
Regarding claim 5, Schmid et al. discloses that the collapsing force is a spring compression force (35 and 36 are springs that provide the collapsing force).
Regarding claim 6, Schmid et al. discloses that the one or more openings comprises a plurality of openings (there are a plurality of 3 in Figure 7) and the one or more wheel cover flaps comprises a plurality of wheel cover flaps (Column 8 / Lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, Schmid et al. discloses that a number of the plurality of openings equals a number of the plurality of wheel cover flaps (Column 8 / Lines 3-4 discloses that the cover elements are assigned to the openings).
Regarding claim 11, Schmid et al. discloses a vehicle (1), wherein the wheel is mounted to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Schmid et al. discloses a method for operating a wheel cover flap system, comprising:
when a vehicle (1), comprising a wheel cover flap system, is driving below a threshold speed (the speed at which the centrifugal force moves 4 outward; Column 10 / Lines 35-38), maintaining, using dual offset actuators (35, 36), one or more wheel cover flaps (4) in a compressed position (see Figure 3; when 4 does not cover 3), wherein the wheel cover flap system comprises:
a wheel (2), comprising one or more openings (3);
the one or more wheel cover flaps, coupled to the wheel, configured to be positioned in an expanded position (see Figure 4; when 4 does cover 3) and the compressed position, wherein:
in the expanded position, the one or more wheel cover flaps are configured to cover the one or more openings of the wheel (Figure 4 is the closed position thus 4 covers 3), and
in the compressed position, the one or more wheel cover flaps are configured to uncover the one or more openings of the wheel (Column 8 / Lines 11-17); and
the dual offset actuators, configured to:
exert a collapsing force configured to compress the one or more wheel cover flaps (Column 8 – Lines 29-35); and
enable the one or more wheel cover flaps to expand when an expanding force exceeds the collapsing force (Column 8 – Lines 29-35); and
when the vehicle is driving above the threshold speed, expanding the one or more wheel cover flaps to the expanded position, uncovering the one or more openings.
Regarding claim 14, Schmid et al. discloses when the vehicle is driving at the threshold speed, maintaining, using dual offset actuators (35, 36), one or more wheel cover flaps (4) in a compressed position (see Figure 3; when 4 does not cover 3).
Regarding claim 17, Schmid et al. discloses that the dual offset actuators comprise dual helical tension springs (35 and 36 are helical springs as disclosed in Column 8 / Line 23).
Regarding claim 20, Schmid et al. discloses that the one or more openings comprises a plurality of openings (there are a plurality of 3 in Figure 7) and the one or more wheel cover flaps comprises a plurality of wheel cover flaps (Column 8 / Lines 3-4), and
a number of the plurality of openings equals a number of the plurality of wheel cover flaps (Column 8 / Lines 3-4 discloses that the cover elements are assigned to the openings).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al. (US 8,857,921 B2) in view of Wong et al. (US 11,077,707 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Schmid et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the vehicle comprises an electric vehicle.
Wong et al. teaches a vehicle that is an electric vehicle (Column 3 / Lines 1-5).
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 vehicle of Schmid et al. to be an electric vehicle, as taught by Wong et al., for the purpose of providing that would benefit from the increased aerodynamics of a wheel with open and closeable flaps.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heck et al. (US 10,513,144 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Heck et al. discloses a wheel cover flap system, comprising:
a wheel (6), comprising one or more openings (the openings in 4 that each flap covers);
one or more wheel cover flaps (12A-12E), coupled to the wheel, configured to be positioned in an expanded position (see Figure 3) and a compressed position (see Figure 4), wherein:
in the expanded position, the one or more wheel cover flaps are configured to cover the one or more openings of the wheel (see Figure 3), and
in the compressed position, the one or more wheel cover flaps are configured to uncover the one or more openings of the wheel (see Figure 4); and
an offset actuator (16), configured to:
exert a collapsing force configured to compress the one or more wheel cover flaps (Column 3 / Lines 5-12); and
enable the one or more wheel cover flaps to expand when an expanding force exceeds the collapsing force (Column 1 / Lines 47-51).
Heck et al. does not disclose dual offset actuators.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of offset actuators, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Providing a plurality of offset actuators would allow for operation of the flaps in the event of damage or wear to one of the offset actuators thus providing increased operation of the system.
Regarding claim 3, Heck et al. discloses that the dual offset actuators comprise dual helical tension springs (16 is a helical spring and the rejection of claim 13 teaches a plurality of springs).
Regarding claim 5, Heck et al. discloses that the collapsing force is a spring compression force (16 is a spring that provides the collapsing force).
Regarding claim 6, Heck et al. discloses that the one or more openings comprises a plurality of openings (see Figure 1) and the one or more wheel cover flaps comprises a plurality of wheel cover flaps (12A-12E).
Regarding claim 7, Heck et al. discloses that a number of the plurality of openings equals a number of the plurality of wheel cover flaps (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Heck et al. discloses a vehicle (the vehicle in the Abstract), wherein the wheel is mounted to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Heck et al. discloses a method for operating a wheel cover flap system, comprising:
when a vehicle, comprising a wheel cover flap system, is driving below a threshold speed (Column 5 / Lines 15-16), maintaining, using an offset actuator (16), one or more wheel cover flaps (12A-12E) in a compressed position (see Figure 4), wherein the wheel cover flap system comprises:
a wheel (6), comprising one or more openings (the openings in 4 that each flap covers);
the one or more wheel cover flaps, coupled to the wheel, configured to be positioned in an expanded position (see Figure 3) and the compressed position, wherein:
in the expanded position, the one or more wheel cover flaps are configured to cover the one or more openings of the wheel (see Figure 3), and
in the compressed position, the one or more wheel cover flaps are configured to uncover the one or more openings of the wheel (see Figure 4); and
the offset actuator configured to:
exert a collapsing force (the force of the spring) configured to compress the one or more wheel cover flaps (Column 3 / Lines 5-12); and
enable the one or more wheel cover flaps to expand when an expanding force exceeds the collapsing force (Column 1 / Lines 47-51); and
when the vehicle is driving above the threshold speed, expanding the one or more wheel cover flaps to the expanded position, uncovering the one or more openings (Column 5 / Lines 45-50).
Heck et al. does not disclose dual offset actuators.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of offset actuators, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Providing a plurality of offset actuators would allow for operation of the flaps in the event of damage or wear to one of the offset actuators thus providing increased operation of the system.
Regarding claim 14, Heck et al. discloses when the vehicle is driving at the threshold speed, maintaining, using dual offset actuators (see the rejection above), one or more wheel cover flaps (12A-12E) in a compressed position ((see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 15, Heck et al. discloses that the threshold speed is 50 kmph (Column 5 / Lines 41-45 discloses a threshold of 40 mph or below which is equal to 64.4 kph thus Heck et al. meets the claim limitation because 50 kmph is within the range disclosed by Heck et al.).
Regarding claim 17, Heck et al. discloses that the dual offset actuators comprise dual helical tension springs (16 is a helical spring and the rejection of claim 13 teaches a plurality of springs).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heck et al. (US 10,513,144 B2) in view of Wong et al. (US 11,077,707 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Heck et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the vehicle comprises an electric vehicle.
Wong et al. teaches a vehicle that is an electric vehicle (Column 3 / Lines 1-5).
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 vehicle of Heck et al. to be an electric vehicle, as taught by Wong et al., for the purpose of providing that would benefit from the increased aerodynamics of a wheel with open and closeable flaps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16, 18, and 19 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.
Kim et al. (KR 10-2016-0063486 A) discloses a wheel cover for a vehicle, the wheel cover having a singular weight and spring system attached to each arm of a rotatable operating member. The arms and the operating member are not viewed as moving between a compressed state and an expanded state because they more circumferentially and in an axial and/or a radial direction.
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