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 § 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.
(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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CN-104742640-A to Wang (“Wang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang (Figs 1-6, English Translation “ET” Pages 1-8) discloses a wheel (not shown, Abstract last line), comprising: a wheel hub (2, Fig 3); a wheel rim (not shown, implicit on a vehicle wheel, to enclosing “spoke hole area” [Abstract line 2-3], between rim and spokes, Fig 1 ), connected to the wheel hub through a plurality of spokes (“wheel spoke” [Abstract line 12] not shown, implicit and defines “spoke hole area” between adjacent spokes and rim, Abstract line 2-3), the plurality of spokes being spaced apart from each other (Fig 1) to form a plurality of through spaces (“spoke hole area” Abstract line 2-3,); and a plurality of baffles (six blade portions on 1 “leaf shaped cover plate”, ET Page 5, Para 10 beginning “specifically implementation manner a…”, , lines 4-5), movably (“rotating”) installed to (via 4 “3 fan-shaped baffles , and 6 fastening bolts, Page 5 Para 10,Pae 6 para 3 beginning “the mounting process…”, Fig 1, 5 ) the wheel relative to the wheel hub and configured to move relative to the wheel hub in response to changes in a speed of a vehicle to provide different shielding degrees (degrees of rotation of blade portion over spoke hole area/cavity area Page 6, last paragraph beginning “The principle of the embodiment…” to page 7 Para 1 and 2), for a corresponding through space among the plurality of through spaces.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang discloses the wheel according to claim 1, wherein a shielding degree (degrees of rotation of blade cover part over spoke hole area, Page 6, Para 6 beginning “the principle of the embodiment…” to page 7 Para 1 and 2) of the corresponding through space among the plurality of through spaces is based on the speed of the vehicle speed (V vehicle speed, as described Page 6, Para 6, 1-7) or a wheel rotation speed.
Regarding Claim 3, Wang discloses the wheel according to claim 2, wherein the shielding degree of the corresponding through space among the plurality of through spaces increases with an increase of the speed of the vehicle (ET Page 7 Para 2, beginning “when the vehicle speed V=V0, in line 5-12 “when the vehicle speed V further increases… spoke hole area gradually reduces as baffle rotates“).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang discloses the wheel according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of baffles move relative to the wheel hub by using a centrifugal force (Fr, Page 7 Para 2, lines 5 “vehicle speed increases , Fr greater than rotational resistance force Ff of 5 spring”, driving blades to rotate) generated by a rotation of the wheel (and velocity thereof) upon the vehicle moving.
Regarding Claim 5, Wang discloses the wheel according to claim 4, further comprising a plurality of grooves (receiving 5 spring and 3 cylindrical rollers fixed to end of blades, Fig 3,m Page 7, Para 1 top.) arranged on the wheel hub, wherein the plurality of baffles are movably installed into (Fig 3, Page 7, Para 1) corresponding grooves among the plurality of grooves through respective protrusions (3 “cylindrical roller, Fig 3) of the plurality of baffle so as to be able to move relative to the wheel hub along a specific trajectory (of groove Fig 3) under a guidance (via 3 in groove) of corresponding grooves.
Claim(s) 1,2, 9-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US-1138781-B2 to Kim (“Kim”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a wheel (10), comprising: a wheel hub (11); a wheel rim (12), connected to the wheel hub through a plurality of spokes (13), the plurality of spokes being spaced apart from each other (Fig 1) to form a plurality of through spaces (14); and a plurality of baffles (20 “variable flap”) movably installed (Col 4, line 51-58, Fig 4,5) to the wheel relative to the wheel hub and configured to move relative to the wheel hub in response to changes in a speed of a vehicle (Col 6 lines 15-21) to provide different shielding degrees (rotation angle of 20, col 5 lines 22) for a corresponding through space (Col 6 lines 7-11) among the plurality of through spaces.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses the wheel according to claim 1, wherein a shielding degree (e.g. 45, 40 , 35 degrees etc., Col 8 lines 31-49) of the corresponding through space among the plurality of through spaces is based on the speed of the vehicle (driving speed e.g. ranges associated with angles listed above: 40-80KPH, 80-120KPH, 120-160 KPH, Col 8 lines 31-49) wheel rotation speed (as described in Col 7 lines 13-17, Col 8 lines 32-40, Figs 7-9).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses the wheel according to claim 2, further comprising a driving mechanism (30 drive unit and 50 controller, Col 5 lines 11, Col 56 line 19, Fig 3) installed to the wheel hub and configured to drive the plurality of baffles to rotate in a circumferential direction (Col 5 lines 10-22) relative to the wheel hub upon the vehicle moving.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim discloses the wheel according to claim 9, wherein the driving mechanism comprises: a motor (31), arranged in the wheel hub; and a transmission assembly (31a “drive gear”, 32 “ring gear”, 33 “transmission gear” , 34 “connecting gear”) connected to a rotor (shown extending from 31, Fig 3) of the motor and the plurality of baffles and configured to cause the plurality of baffles to rotate upon the rotor of the motor rotating.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim discloses the wheel according to claim 10, wherein the transmission assembly comprises: a center gear (31a “drive gear”, Fig 3), connected to the rotor of the motor and configured to rotate together with the rotor; a plurality of transmission gears (33 “transmission gear” , 34 “connecting gear”), arranged around (Fig 3, 2) the central gear, connected with each other through a gear frame (40 “cover unit”), and meshed with the central gear; and a gear ring (32 “ring gear”), arranged around the plurality of transmission gears, meshed with the plurality of transmission gears, the plurality of baffles being installed on the gear ring and being able to rotate together with the gear ring (as described in Col 5 lines 10-65, Fig 2, 3 ).
Regarding Claim 15, Kim discloses a motor vehicle (Col 1 line 61), comprising: a wheel (10), comprising: a wheel hub (11); a wheel rim (12), connected to the wheel hub through a plurality of spokes (13), the plurality of spokes being spaced apart from each other (Col 4 lines 62-67, Fig 1-2) to form a plurality of through spaces (14); and a plurality of baffles (20 “variable flap”), movably installed to the wheel relative to the wheel hub and configured to move relative to the wheel hub (Col 5, lines 1-9, Fig 3) in response to changes in a speed of a vehicle to provide different shielding degrees (rotation angle of 20, Col 5 lines 22, Fig 1) for a corresponding through space (Fig 1) among the plurality of through spaces.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12-14 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim discloses the wheel according to claim 10, wherein the motor is configured to, upon the speed of the vehicle being smaller than a predetermined threshold value (four threshold ranges of vehicle speeds in Kph: a: <40, b: <80, c: <120,), make a rotation angle (four corresponding rotation angles in degrees : a: fully open [i.e. 90, b: 45, c: 40, d: 35) of the baffle change with the speed of the vehicle (Col 7 and Col 8).
θ
=
K
∙
v
c
a
r
Kim does not specifically disclose the motor is configured to, upon the speed of the vehicle being smaller than a predetermined threshold value, make a rotation angle of the baffle change with the speed of the vehicle make the rotation angle of the baffle change with the speed of the vehicle based on the following formula.
However, Kim does disclose the motor is configured to, upon the speed of the vehicle being smaller a series of predetermined threshold values, make a corresponding rotation angle of the baffle for each predetermined threshold value( as described above). This series of vehicle speeds and associated rotation angles, discloses a relationship between vehicle speed and rotation angle.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have expressed relationship of the various vehicle speeds and rotation angles of Kim, in an alternate and equivalent form. The relationship disclosed can be equivalently and alternately described as a rate of change of the rotation angle with respect to the vehicle speed, and as such define a formula involving
θ
as the rotation angle,
v
c
a
r
as the vehicle speed, where the K rate of change, yielding themathematical formula.
θ
=
K
∙
v
c
a
r
.
Regarding Claim 13, Kim discloses the wheel according to claim 12, wherein the motor is configured to, upon the speed of the vehicle being larger than or equal to the predetermined threshold value make the rotation angle of the baffle to completely cover (reduce rotation angle to prevent damage to variable flap, Col 9 lines 8-14, ) a corresponding through space among the plurality of through spaces)
The specific threshold value of the vehicle speed, is not an inventive concept but a design choice made from many possible choices made as a part of routine design optimization giving proper consideration to the operational speed ranges of the vehicle, the wheel dimensions and associated aerodynamics thereof, use, design loads, material and manufacturing requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a predetermined threshold value of 140 Kph, of such that when the speed of the vehicle is larger than that, the rotation angle of the baffle was to set to 0 degrees to completely cover the through space, with the motivation to prevent damage to variable flap, (Col 9 lines 8-14). This combination/modification being done with a reasonable expectation of success and having equivalent function.
Regarding Claim 14, Kim discloses the wheel according to claim 13, wherein the predetermined threshold is 140 km/h (as described in the previous paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose, teach or make obvious the following limits of Claims 6, 7 and 8:
Regarding Claim 6, the primary references applied do not teach a structure analogous to: the wheel according to claim 5, a trajectory of any one of the plurality of grooves is in a form of a logarithmic spiral curve with a starting end and a terminating end, and the starting end is closer to an origin point and the terminating end is further away from the origin point relative to a spiral direction of the logarithmic spiral curve.
Regarding Claim 7, , the primary references applied do not teach a structure analogous to: the wheel according to claim 6, wherein a spring is arranged in each of the plurality of grooves, one end of the spring is connected to a protrusion of a corresponding baffle, and the other end of the spring is connected to the terminating end.
Regarding Claim 8, , the primary references applied do not teach a structure analogous to: the wheel according to claim 7, wherein, upon a slip rate of the vehicle being zero, a relationship between a shielding degree provided by a baffle and the speed of the vehicle is determined based on the following formula:
v
f
l
a
p
=
a
K
tan
α
m
∙
cos
α
∙
e
cot
α
∙
θ
θ
∙
e
cot
α
∙
θ
+
tan
α
1
-
e
cot
α
∙
θ
v
c
a
r
=
R
w
ρ
v
f
l
a
p
wherein,
v
f
l
a
p
is a linear velocity of a mass center of the baffle, the mass center is configured to be located on a trajectory of a corresponding groove,
R
w
is a radius of the wheel,
ρ
is a polar radius,
V
c
a
r
is the speed of the vehicle,
a is a polar radius of the starting end,
α is an included angle between a tangent of any point on the logarithmic spiral curve and the polar radius,
m
is a mass of a single baffle, and
K
is a stiffness of the spring,
θ
indicates a polar angle in polar coordinates,
which describes the shielding degree, the greater the
θ
, the greater the shielding degree.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wong (US-11077707-B2), Kruse (US-20090195053-A1), Baigh (US-20210206199-A1), Kunsch (DE-102010015319-A1), Schliemann (DE-4436543-A1), Idelevitch (DE102016001365-A1), Muffatto (EP-3848208-A1), and Lee (KR-20160063095-A) disclose wheel having baffles having varying degrees of coverage of spoke openings in response to vehicle speed, including one or more of springs, protrusions, grooves, motors, centrifugal forces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Joe 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615