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 § 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 4, 5, 9, and 10 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.
Regarding Claims 4 and 9, the claim recites an “original wheel”. It is unclear as to what makes a wheel “original”, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claims 4 and 9, the claim recites “a rapid prototyping process”. It is unclear as to what a “prototyping” process is e.g. what are required for a process to be considered a prototyping process, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Furthermore, it is unclear as to at what speed the process must occur so that it can be considered rapid, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites the wheel “may” include selective reinforcements. It is unclear is the selective reinforcements are an actual limitation or not, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “via a rapid prototyping process”. It is unclear as to if the claim is attempting to recite a process is used to make the selective reinforcements or something else, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “maintain a stability of the wheel”. It is unclear as to what “stability” of the wheel is and how it is determined, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims dependent upon a rejected claim are therefore rejected as well.
Claims 4 and 5 are 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.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites the original wheel is used to perform the aerodynamic testing; however, Claim 1 recites the wheel is used to perform the aerodynamic testing. As such, the claim fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
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.
Claims dependent upon a rejected claim are therefore rejected as well.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 11, 12, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rovito (US 2023/0286316).
Regarding Claim 1, Rovito discloses a wheel bearing assembly, comprising: a wheel (secured via 122) configured to be releasably coupled to a vehicle to perform an aerodynamic testing of the vehicle (the wheel is releasably coupled to the vehicle for all purposes including performing aerodynamic testing) [0011]; and a shaft adaptor (115) coupled between a bearing of the wheel (109) and other components of the vehicle (components attached via 136) [0014], the shaft adaptor is configured to rotate the wheel independent of control of the other components of the vehicle [Abstract, 0010].
Regarding Claim 2, Rovito discloses the other components comprise a brake assembly and a powertrain of the vehicle (inherently attached to the wheel hub) [0014], and the wheel is configured to rotate independent of the brake assembly and the powertrain of the vehicle [Abstract, 0010].
Regarding Claim 3, Rovito discloses the other components comprise a vehicle-bearing associated with the vehicle (inherently attached to the wheel hub) [0014], and the shaft adaptor is configured to rotate the bearing of the wheel independent of the vehicle-bearing [Abstract, 0010].
Regarding Claim 4, Rovito discloses the wheel is manufactured based on a structural aspect of an original wheel of the vehicle, via a rapid prototyping process (this limitation is a product by process limitation where the product itself is a wheel; See MPEP 2113) [0011], and the wheel is replaced with the original wheel to perform the aerodynamic testing of the vehicle (this limitation limits the process of testing which is an intended use and outside the scope of the apparatus claim).
Regarding Claim 5, Rovito discloses the structural aspect of the original wheel may include one of: a dimension, a stiffness, an inertia, or a weight of the original wheel (this limitation is a product by process limitation where the product itself is a wheel; See MPEP 2113) [0011].
Regarding Claim 6, Rovito discloses the aerodynamic testing of the vehicle comprises an independent rotation of the wheel of the vehicle from the other components of the vehicle, based on an activation of a wind tunnel against the vehicle (the limitation limits the process of testing which is an intended use and outside the scope of the apparatus claim; Rovito is inherently capable of this feature as the wheel rotates independently regardless of input type).
Regarding Claim 11, Rovito discloses an access hole (136) configured to receive a vehicle lug nut [0014, 0019] and secure a brake rotor underneath to a hub of the vehicle (inherently true as when a component is secured to a wheel hub via lug nuts, the brake rotor is also secured).
Regarding Claim 12, Rovito discloses a housing (103, 106) configured to enclose all components of the wheel bearing assembly (Figure 1C), wherein the housing is further configured to be coupled to the brake rotor via the vehicle lug nut and facilitate the wheel to independently rotate from the other components of the vehicle (Figure 1A, 1C).
Regarding Claim 19, Rovito discloses a method, comprising: coupling a wheel (secured via 122) to a vehicle to perform an aerodynamic testing of the vehicle (the wheel is coupled to the vehicle for all purposes including performing aerodynamic testing) [0011]; and coupling a shaft adaptor (115) between a bearing of the wheel (109) and other components of the vehicle (components attached via 136) [0014], the shaft adaptor is configured to rotate the wheel independent of control of the other components of the vehicle [Abstract, 0010].
Regarding Claim 20, Rovito discloses the other components comprise a brake assembly and a powertrain of the vehicle (inherently attached to the wheel hub) [0014], and the wheel is configured to rotate independent of the brake assembly and the powertrain of the vehicle [Abstract, 0010].
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(s) 7 and 16 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovito (US 2023/0286316), in view of Knestel et al. (US 2015/0000392).
Regarding Claim 7, Rovito discloses the wheel of the vehicle is configured to independently rotate on the rolling platform from the other components of the vehicle, based on the activation of the wind tunnel against the vehicle and the rolling platform (the limitation limits the process of testing which is an intended use and outside the scope of the apparatus claim; Rovito is inherently capable of this feature as the wheel rotates independently regardless of input type).
Rovito fails to expressly disclose the vehicle is placed on a rolling platform.
Knestel teaches the vehicle is placed on a rolling platform (3) [0039, 0053].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Rovito so that the vehicle is placed on a rolling platform; and a wind tunnel associated with the vehicle and a rolling platform, where the wind tunnel is configured to rotate the wheel on the rolling platform for the benefit of high-precision detection of aerodynamic forces in wind tunnel measurements, as taught by Knestel [Abstract].
Regarding Claim 16, Rovito discloses a system, comprising: a wheel (secured via 122) configured to be releasably coupled to a vehicle to perform an aerodynamic testing of the vehicle (the wheel is releasably coupled to the vehicle for all purposes including performing aerodynamic testing) [0011]; and a shaft adaptor (115) coupled between a bearing of the wheel (109) and other components of the vehicle (components attached via 136) [0014], wherein rotation of the wheel independent of control of the other components of the vehicle [Abstract, 0010].
Rovito fails to expressly disclose the wheel is disposed on a rolling platform; and a wind tunnel associated with the vehicle and a rolling platform, where the wind tunnel is configured to rotate the wheel on the rolling platform.
Knestel teaches the wheel is disposed on a rolling platform (3) [0039, 0053]; and a wind tunnel associated with the vehicle and a rolling platform [0053], where the wind tunnel is configured to rotate the wheel on the rolling platform (as the wheels are located on the belt) [0039].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Rovito so that the wheel is disposed on a rolling platform; and a wind tunnel associated with the vehicle and a rolling platform, where the wind tunnel is configured to rotate the wheel on the rolling platform for the benefit of high-precision detection of aerodynamic forces in wind tunnel measurements, as taught by Knestel [Abstract].
Regarding Claim 17, Rovito discloses the other components comprise a brake assembly and a powertrain of the vehicle (inherently attached to the wheel hub) [0014], and the wind tunnel is configured to rotate independent of the brake assembly and the powertrain of the vehicle [Abstract, 0010].
Regarding Claim 18, Rovito discloses the other components comprise a vehicle-bearing associated with the vehicle (inherently attached to the wheel hub) [0014], and the wind tunnel is configured to rotate the bearing of the wheel independent of the vehicle-bearing [Abstract, 0010].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovito (US 2023/0286316), in view of “Bearing Shims Manufacturers, Stainless Steel Bearing Shims.” precishims. Accessed August 15, 2020. https://precishims.com/bearing-shims/, hereinafter referred to a “Precishims”. Citations pertaining to Precishims pertain to the attached document.
Regarding Claim 8, Rovito fails to expressly disclose a slip ring configured to hold the bearing of the wheel in a center bore of the wheel, based on a press-fit of the slip ring and the bearing in the center bore of the wheel.
Precishims teaches a slip ring (outer race shim) configured to hold a bearing base on a press-fit of the slip ring and in the bore of an installation location.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Rovito to include a slip ring configured to hold the bearing of the wheel in a center bore of the wheel (where the bearing is located), based on a press-fit of the slip ring and the bearing in the center bore of the wheel for the benefit of ensuring the bearings are allowed to roll/move as intended, as taught by Precishims (Page 1).
Claim(s) 13 - 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rovito (US 2023/0286316).
Regarding Claim 13, Rovito fails to expressly disclose the bearing of the wheel is an angular contact ball bearing, which is disposed in a double row with a non-contact shield within a steel sheet metal cage.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art angular contact ball bearings include a double row with a non-contact shield within a steel sheet metal cage and are used to support both radial and axial loads.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Rovito so that the bearing of the wheel is an angular contact ball bearing, which is disposed in a double row with a non-contact shield within a steel sheet metal cage for the benefit supporting both radial and axial loads.
Regarding Claim 14, Rovito fails to expressly disclose the wheel comprises a wheel cover, which is configured to be releasably coupled to the wheel to selectively perform the aerodynamic testing of the vehicle.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art that wheels comprise a wheel cover (“hub cap”) which are releasably coupled to the wheel.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Rovito so that disclose the wheel comprises a wheel cover, which is configured to be releasably coupled to the wheel for any reason including to selectively perform the aerodynamic testing of the vehicle for the benefit of an aesthetically pleasing wheel that protects the internal components from contamination.
Regarding Claim 15, Rovito discloses the bearing of the wheel has a shaft shoulder diameter the bearing has a house shoulder diameter (Figure 1C), but fails to expressly disclose a minimum shaft shoulder diameter in a first range from 35 mm - 50 mm, and the bearing of the wheel has a maximum house shoulder diameter in a second range from 60 mm - 80 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to size the assembly according to wheel size and load requirements e.g. microcar vs semi-truck and modify the corresponding shaft shoulder diameter and house shoulder diameter including a minimum shaft shoulder diameter in a first range from 35 mm - 50 mm, and the bearing of the wheel has a maximum house shoulder diameter in a second range from 60 mm - 80 mm for the benefit of ensuring the bearing and shaft operate as intended and adequate load is supported.
Conclusion
A proper search and determination of allowable subject matter on claims not provided with a prior art rejection was not possible due to the 112 Rejections outlined above. Upon applicant' s amendment to overcome the rejections raised by the Examiner and upon the Examiner' s better understanding of the invention a comparison of the prior art to the claims will again be made.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855