Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “toward an opposite side from a wheel rotation direction side during vehicle forward movement” as set forth in Claim 3; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
3. The drawings are objected to because:
· The reference numeral “20H” in Figs. 1 and 3 is not clearly placed adjacent to the corresponding structure and overlaps with the reference numeral identifying the spoke “27”, thereby rendering the identification unclear.
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
4. 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 1-3 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.
Claims 1-3 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the term “configured”. Namely, no physical structure is present in these claims to define this term.
Claim 3 is indefinite due to the fact that phrase “toward an opposite side from a wheel rotation direction side during vehicle forward movement” fails to provide a clear reference for determining the claimed direction. The term “wheel rotation direction side” does not identify a definite structural reference, and the term “opposite” is a relative term that lacks a clearly defined point of comparison. Additionally, defining the orientation “during vehicle forward movement” introduces further ambiguity as the claim does not specify how the direction is determined relative to different operating conditions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
(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.
7. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiba et al (JP2004196005A).
Regarding claim 1, Chiba et al discloses a vehicle wheel (1 “vehicle wheel”; Fig. 1), comprising: a rim part (2 “rim”; Fig. 1) at which a tire is mounted (Please refer to the yellow-highlighted portion on page 3 of the attached translated document of Chiba et al); a hub part disposed at an inner side of the rim part, attached to an axle hub, and coupled to a disc rotor of a disc brake (Please refer to the yellow-highlighted portion on page 3 of the attached translated document of Chiba et al; The hub is explicitly shown in the Fig. 1 in dotted lines, although it is not expressly labeled; 5 “brake disc” from Fig. 1); and a side connection part configured to connect a vehicle outer side part of the rim part with the hub part (Fig. 1 discloses a side connection portion, wherein a spoke is depicted connecting to a hub in dotted lines), wherein: in an axle direction view, between the rim part and the hub part, a plurality of through holes penetrating in the axle direction are formed and are aligned in a circumferential direction (Although the reference does not explicitly label “through holes”, the presence of spokes (3) shown by dotted lines from Fig. 1 necessarily results in spaces between adjacent spokes that penetrate in the axle direction and are circumferentially arranged around the wheel. Such spaces are an inherent structural consequence of the disclosed spoke configuration), and a plurality of fins (4 “fin”; Fig. 1) are formed at an inner peripheral surface (Fig. 2) of the rim part (2), in series, in a row in a circumferential direction thereof (Fig. 2), each of the fins being configured at an incline from an outer side in a wheel axis direction to an inner side in the wheel axis direction toward one side in the circumferential direction of the rim part (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Chiba et al discloses the vehicle wheel (1) of claim 1, wherein a position of each of the fins (4; Fig. 1) in the wheel axis direction overlaps with a position in a width direction of a pressed part of the disc rotor (Although Chiba et al does not explicitly label a “pressed part”, the brake disc (5) shown in Fig. 1 necessarily includes a portion of the disc rotor for receiving a pressing force during braking, which is inherent in the disclosed brake disc structure) that is configured to be pressed by a brake pad (This merely describes an intended use or functional capability of the disc rotor portion and does not impose additional structural limitations of the claimed disc rotor portion), and a width of each of the fins in the wheel axis direction is wider than a width of the pressed part of the disc rotor (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Chiba et al discloses the vehicle wheel (1) of claim 1, wherein each of the fins (4) is configured at an incline from the outer side in the wheel axis direction to the inner side in the wheel axis direction (Figs. 1 and 3) toward an opposite side from a wheel rotation direction side during vehicle forward movement (Figs. 1 and 3 disclose fins that are best understood as the claimed fins, the fins indicating an inclination opposite to a circumferential direction of wheel rotation), in the circumferential direction of the rim part (Figs. 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. 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.
11. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba et al and further in view of Johnson et al (US4135764A).
Regarding claim 4, Chiba et al fails to disclose the fins are disposed at positions in the wheel circumferential direction of the inner peripheral surface of the rim part corresponding to the plurality of through holes.
Johnson et al, however, teaches fins (40 “vane”; Fig. 2) are disposed at positions in the wheel circumferential direction of the inner peripheral surface of the rim part (22 “rim”; Figs. 1 and 2) corresponding to the plurality of through holes (16 “air openings”; Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the vehicle wheel of Chiba et al by aligning the fins of Chiba et al with the air openings in the wheel disk, such as taught by Johnson et al, to facilitate airflow and improve heat dissipation during rotation.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615