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 of the following informalities:
The position of balancing ring 120 in Fig. 3 does not correspond to the position shown in Fig. 1B and described in paragraph [0026]. Specifically, it appears that the balancing ring 120 in Fig. 3 is positioned radially outward of the openings 110a-110e instead of radially inward of the openings as shown in Fig. 1B and described in paragraph [0026].
The configuration of the wheel flange 232 in Fig. 3 does not correspond to the configuration shown in Figs. 4B and 5B. Specifically, Figs. 4B and 5B show the lip of the wheel flange curving radially inwardly while Fig. 3 fails to show such a construction.
Each distinct part, including modified parts, should be labeled with distinct reference characters to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(p). Note the parts represented by reference characters 100, 102, 104, 108 and 110a in the embodiment shown in Fig. 5B are distinct (i.e., modified) from the parts represented by these same reference characters in the embodiment shown in Fig. 4B, and should be labeled accordingly.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
The “circular raceway enclosing media” as set forth in claim 1.
The vehicle wheel cover being “recessed below the flange of the vehicle wheel” as set forth in claim 12.
The vehicle wheel being attached to “an axle of a powered vehicle” as set forth in claim 20.
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. No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 8, 12, 15 and 21 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 claim 8, the limitation “a stud-receiving bore” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a stud-receiving bore” refers to “a stud-receiving bore” previously set forth in claim 7 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a vehicle wheel” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a vehicle wheel” refers to “a vehicle wheel” previously set forth in claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a flange” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a flange” refers to “a flange” previously set forth in claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least two first openings”.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “a vehicle wheel” in line 8 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a vehicle wheel” refers to “a vehicle wheel” previously set forth in line 4 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 2, 6-8, 10, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patti (US 5,253,928).
Regarding claim 1, Patti discloses a dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus comprising: a vehicle wheel cover 10 comprising a first surface (axially outboard facing surface of 10 as shown in Fig. 3), a second surface (axially inboard facing surface of 10 as shown in Fig. 3), and a perimeter surface (curved surface at the radially outer edge of 10 as shown in Fig. 3) connecting the first surface to the second surface, wherein the vehicle wheel cover is configured to removably attach to a flange 26 of a vehicle wheel 12 with the second surface opposing the vehicle wheel (Fig. 3); and a dynamic vehicle wheel balance ring 22 attached to the second surface of the vehicle wheel cover (Fig. 3), wherein the dynamic vehicle wheel balance ring comprises a circular raceway (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 2) enclosing media (lines 65-66 of col. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Patti further discloses the vehicle wheel cover defines at least two first openings 18 proximal to the perimeter surface (Figs. 2 and 3), wherein each of the at least two first openings extends from the first surface to the second surface (Fig. 3) and is configured to receive a fastener 20 to operatively couple the vehicle wheel cover to the flange of a vehicle wheel (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Patti further discloses at least one of the at least two first openings is counter sunk (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Patti further discloses the vehicle wheel cover defines a second opening (unlabeled opening through which a lug nut 16 extends as shown in Fig. 3) extending from the first surface to the second surface (Fig. 3), wherein each of the first openings is located intermediate the second opening and the perimeter surface (Fig. 3), and wherein the second opening is configured to enable access to a stud-receiving bore (unlabeled bore in wheel disc through which the lug extends as shown in Fig. 3) defined in the vehicle wheel when the dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus is installed on the vehicle wheel (evident from Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Patti further discloses each of the at least two first openings is misaligned with a stud-receiving bore defined in a vehicle wheel when the dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus is installed on the vehicle wheel (evident from Fig. 3 that the at least two first openings 18 are misaligned with at least four bores that can be considered to be the claimed stud-receiving bore).
Regarding claim 10, Patti further discloses the perimeter surface curves away from the first surface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Patti further discloses the first surface of the vehicle wheel cover is configured to (i.e., capable of) reduce aerodynamic drag of the vehicle wheel (evident from at least Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 16, Patti further discloses a vehicle wheel 12 having connected thereto the dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus, wherein the dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus dynamically balances the vehicle wheel during rotation of the vehicle wheel (Abstract) and reduces aerodynamic drag (evident from the construction of the cover shown in Figs. 2 and 3 closing off the center portion of the wheel).
Regarding claim 18, Patti further discloses a powered vehicle (lines 5-7 of col. 1) comprising the dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus installed on a vehicle wheel 12 of the powered vehicle, wherein the dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus dynamically balances the vehicle wheel of the powered vehicle during rotation of the vehicle wheel of the powered vehicle (Abstract) and reduces aerodynamic drag of the powered vehicle resulting in an increased fuel savings of the powered vehicle (evident from the construction of the cover shown in Figs. 2 and 3 closing off the center portion of the wheel).
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mandt-Rauch (DE7637844U1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Mandt-Rauch discloses a dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus comprising: a vehicle wheel cover 6 comprising a first surface (axially outboard facing surface of 6 as shown in Fig. 1), a second surface (axially inboard facing surface of 6 as shown in Fig. 1), and a perimeter surface (unlabeled radially inner edge of 6 shown in Figs. 1 and 2) connecting the first surface to the second surface (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the vehicle wheel cover is configured to removably attach to a flange (unlabeled axially outboard flange) of a vehicle wheel 3 with the second surface opposing the vehicle wheel (evident from the bolted connection at 4 to the wheel as shown in Fig. 1); and a dynamic vehicle wheel balance ring 9 attached to the second surface of the vehicle wheel cover (Fig. 1), wherein the dynamic vehicle wheel balance ring comprises a circular raceway (shown in Fig. 1) enclosing media 12.
Regarding claim 2, Mandt-Rauch further discloses the vehicle wheel cover defines at least two first openings 7 proximal to the perimeter surface (Fig. 1), wherein each of the at least two first openings extends from the first surface to the second surface (Fig. 1) and is configured to receive a fastener (unlabeled nut of each respective bolt 4) to operatively couple the vehicle wheel cover to the flange of a vehicle wheel (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Mandt-Rauch further discloses the first surface of the vehicle wheel cover is substantially flat (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Mandt-Rauch further discloses each of the at least two first openings 7 are located intermediate the dynamic vehicle wheel balance ring 9 and the perimeter surface (unlabeled radially inner edge of 6 shown in Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagaya (JP 2008281128A; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Nagaya, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 8, discloses a dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus comprising: a vehicle wheel cover 200 comprising a first surface (axially outboard facing surface of 200 as shown in Fig. 8), a second surface (axially inboard facing surface of 200 as shown in Fig. 8), and a perimeter surface (surface at radially outer edge of 200 as shown in Fig. 8) connecting the first surface to the second surface (Fig. 8), wherein the vehicle wheel cover is configured to removably attach to a flange (via claw 21 as shown in Fig. 8) of a vehicle wheel with the second surface opposing the vehicle wheel (Fig. 8); and a dynamic vehicle wheel balance ring 50 attached to the second surface of the vehicle wheel cover (Fig. 8), wherein the dynamic vehicle wheel balance ring comprises a circular raceway (shown in Fig. 8) enclosing media 51.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-5 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaya in view of Hsieh (US 2005/0012383 A1).
Regarding claims 2-5 and 19-21 (note the method limitations of claims 19 and 20 are not afforded full patentable weight inasmuch as they depend from product claims; See MPEP 2113), although Nagaya further implicitly discloses the dynamic vehicle wheel balancing apparatus having the necessary structure to allow the vehicle wheel to be attached to an axle of a powered vehicle while the dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus is coupled to the vehicle wheel, Nagaya fails to expressly disclose the claimed wheel cover coupling arrangement set forth in these claims. Instead, as noted above, Nagaya uses a claw 21 for coupling the wheel cover to the wheel.
Hsieh, however, in the embodiment shown in Figs. 10 and 11, teaches a wheel cover assembly wherein the wheel cover defines at least two first openings 75 proximal to the perimeter surface (Figs. 10 and 11), wherein each of the at least two first openings extends from the first surface to the second surface and is configured to receive a fastener 74 to operatively couple the vehicle wheel cover to the flange 31 of a vehicle wheel 3 (Fig. 11), wherein the assembly further comprises a snap ring 71 configured to operatively couple to the flange 31 of the vehicle wheel 3; and at least two clips 72, each clip comprising a first portion (unlabeled radially outer portion of 72 shown in Fig. 11) configured to mount to the snap ring and a second portion (unlabeled radially inner portion of 72 shown in Fig. 11) comprising a bore 722 configured to be aligned with one of the first openings 75 and receive a respective fastener 74 and thereby connect the clip to the vehicle wheel cover 7, wherein the second portion is positioned offset from the first portion (Fig. 11), wherein the first portion is substantially J-shaped and is configured to be pinned between the snap ring and the flange of the vehicle wheel (Fig. 11), and wherein the clips are pinned between the snap ring and the flange of the vehicle wheel (Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus of Nagaya by substituting its wheel cover coupling arrangement for the claimed wheel cover coupling arrangement, such as taught by Hsieh, as a well-known alternative coupling arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success in predictably securing the wheel cover to the wheel in a desired position.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patti in view of Kogure et al. (US 2003/0117006 A1; hereinafter “Kogure”).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Patti fails to disclose the perimeter surface is configured to be located within a cavity defined by the flange of the vehicle wheel when the dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus is installed on the vehicle wheel, and wherein the vehicle wheel cover is substantially aligned with the flange of the vehicle wheel.
Kogure, however, teaches a dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus in which the perimeter surface (i.e., the radially outer edge surface of 5) of the wheel cover 5 is configured to be located within a cavity defined by the flange 4 of the vehicle wheel 3 when the dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus is installed on the vehicle wheel (Fig. 1b), and wherein the vehicle wheel cover is substantially aligned with the flange of the vehicle wheel (Fig. 1b)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus of Nagaya so that the perimeter surface is configured to be located within a cavity defined by the flange of the vehicle wheel when the dynamic vehicle wheel balance apparatus is installed on the vehicle wheel, and wherein the vehicle wheel cover is substantially aligned with the flange of the vehicle wheel, such as taught by Kogure, as a well-known alternative configuration that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing improved aerodynamic properties for the wheel assembly.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patti.
Patti fails to expressly disclose the claimed nominal rim diameter and nominal rim width.
Nonetheless, to have modified the vehicle wheel to have a nominal rim diameter in a range of 1 inch to 200 inches and a nominal rim width in a range of 1 inch to 100 inches would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the wheel to be used on a wide range of vehicles as vehicle wheels having dimensions that fall within these broadly claimed dimensional ranges are notoriously well-known in the art. Official Notice is hereby given.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Samuel (Joe) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615