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
1. 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.
Claim 22 is 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 22, the limitation “an aperture located in the wheel mount or the at least one backing element” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an aperture located in the wheel mount or the at least one backing element” refers to “at least one section of the fastening aperture” of the at least one backing element previously set forth in claim 20 or if it refers to a distinct aperture of the at least one backing element 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, 4, 6, 8-14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 29, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukaya (WO 2021/020053 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fukaya discloses an attachment arrangement (Figs. 1-4) configured to attach at least one composite wheel 100 to a wheel mount 1 (Abstract), the composite wheel including at least one attachment aperture (apertures extending through wheel 100 that include respective bolt holes 224 as shown in Fig. 3) through which an elongate fastener element 3 is inserted (Fig. 4), the attachment arrangement including: a fastening body 4 configured to be fastened onto the elongate fastener element (Fig. 4), the fastening body having an engagement portion 6 (Figs. 2 and 4) and an attachment insert (outer bushes 300) that includes: a bearing body 320 which includes a base 304 configured to face a surface (unlabeled, but shown in Figs. 3 and 4) of the composite wheel about the attachment aperture (Figs. 3 and 4); a fastening aperture (axially inboard portion of hole 302 about 310 and 308) through which the elongate fastener element is inserted when in use (Fig. 4), the fastening aperture including a fastening axis (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 4); an insert section 310 which extends axially away from the base of the bearing body relative to the fastening axis about the fastening aperture (Fig. 4), the insert section being configured to extend into the attachment aperture of the composite wheel (Fig. 4); and at least one engagement surface 303 extending from an inner surface of the insert section (Fig. 3), the at least one engagement surface having a substantially complementary configuration to the engagement portion of the fastening body and is configured to operatively engage the engagement portion of the fastening body when the fastening body fastens to the wheel mount through the elongate fastener element (Fig. 4), wherein at least a portion (axial inboard portion of 303) of the at least one engagement surface is located below the base of the bearing body (Fig. 4) and between the base of the bearing body and a distal end (308 and/or 403) of the insert section (Fig. 3), and wherein the distal end of the insert section extends into the attachment aperture of the composite wheel and is spaced apart from the wheel mount, or from or in an element located in, on, integral with, or adjacent to the wheel mount such that the distal end of the insert section does not directly engage with the wheel mount and/or said element (note 308 is spaced apart from the wheel mount 1 and an element 500 located in or adjacent the wheel mount such that 308 does not directly engage with the wheel mount 1 or the element 500; 403 is spaced apart from the element 500 located in or adjacent the wheel mount such that 403 does not directly engage with element 500 as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Fukaya further discloses the at least one engagement surface includes a distal end (axially inboard end of 303 shown in Fig. 3) and said distal end of the engagement surface is located axially away from the base of the bearing body relative to the fastening axis and between the base of the bearing body and the distal end of the insert section (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Fukaya further discloses at least part of the least one engagement surface is located axially above the base of the bearing body relative to the fastening axis (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Fukaya further discloses the bearing body includes a body aperture (axially outboard portion of hole 302 about 320) sized to receive at least a portion of the fastening body (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Fukaya further discloses the insert section includes a first section (axially outboard “section” of 310 that receives and engages nut member 4 as shown in Fig. 4) having a first internal diameter to receive the fastening body (Fig. 4), and a second section (axially inboard “section” of 310 at the axially inboard end of 303 that receives and engages nut member 4 as shown in Fig. 4) having a second internal diameter sized to capture the fastening body, and through which the elongate fastener element can extend (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Fukaya further discloses the base of the bearing body includes a substantially flat contact surface 304 configured to abut the surface of the composite wheel about the attachment aperture (Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 10, Fukaya further discloses the composite wheel includes at least two attachment apertures (evident from Fig. 1), and the bearing body (i.e., the bearing bodies 320 of the outer bushes 300) extends over a surface of the composite wheel between and around each of the at least two attachment apertures (evident from Fig. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, Fukaya further discloses the bearing body comprises a substantially planar body (evident from Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Fukaya further discloses the bearing body (i.e., the bearing bodies 320 of the outer bushes 300) includes at least two fastening apertures (axially inboard portion of hole 302 about 310 and 308 of each outer bush 300) and at least two insert sections (outer body 310 of each outer bush 300) corresponding to the number of attachment apertures in said composite wheel (evident from Figs. 1 and 4), each insert section extending into a respective attachment aperture of the composite wheel (evident from Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 13, Fukaya further discloses the bearing body has a contoured engagement face 304 having a complementary configuration to the surface of the composite wheel on which the bearing body engages (evident from Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, Fukaya further discloses the fastening body comprises a fastening nut 4 which is assembled onto the elongate fastener element so as to operatively engage the engagement portion of said fastening nut with the at least one engagement surface of the attachment insert as evident from Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 17, Fukaya further discloses the engagement surface is angled or curved relative to the fastening axis (Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 19, Fukaya further discloses the engagement surface comprises a substantially annular portion of an inner wall at 303 of the insert section (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Fukaya further discloses the insert section is configured to extend into and through the attachment aperture of the composite wheel (Fig. 3), and the element located adjacent the wheel mount comprises at least one backing element 500 configured to be inserted between the wheel mount and the composite wheel (Fig. 2), the at least one backing element including at least one section at 504 of the fastening aperture (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, Fukaya further discloses the distal end at 403 of the insert section is configured to be received in an aperture 504 located in the at least one backing element (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 29, Fukaya further discloses the distal end at 403 of the insert section is configured to be received in an insert section aperture 504 located in the at least one backing element 500, and the distal end of the insert section includes at least one retention feature 420 which prevents withdrawal of the insert section through the insert section aperture (evident from Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 31, Fukaya further discloses the composite wheel comprises a carbon fibre composite wheel 100 (paragraph [0016] of the English translation).
Regarding claim 32, Fukaya further discloses a composite wheel 100 including the attachment arrangement (Figs. 1-4).
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 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumer (US 5,711,581) in view of Fukaya.
Regarding claim 1, Plumer discloses an attachment arrangement (Figs. 1-5, 6C and 30) configured to attach at least one wheel 20 to a wheel mount (“wheel hub” shown in Fig. 30 and described line 47 of col. 14), the wheel including at least one attachment aperture 24 through which an elongate fastener element 22 is inserted (Fig. 30), the attachment arrangement including: a fastening body 65 which is configured to be fastened onto the elongate fastener element (Figs. 5 and 30), the fastening body having an engagement portion 69; and an attachment insert 38 that includes: a bearing body 64 which includes a base 64 configured to face a surface (unlabeled, but shown in Figs. 4A-5) of the wheel about the attachment aperture (Figs. 4A-5); a fastening aperture 46 through which the elongate fastener element is inserted when in use (Figs. 5 and 30), the fastening aperture including a fastening axis (unlabeled, but shown in Figs. 5 and 30); an insert section 44 which extends axially away from the base of the bearing body relative to the fastening axis about the fastening aperture, the insert section being configured to extend into the attachment aperture of the composite wheel (Figs. 1-5); and at least one engagement surface at 52 extending from an inner surface of the insert section, the at least one engagement surface having a substantially complementary configuration to the engagement portion of the fastening body and is configured to operatively engage the engagement portion of the fastening body when the fastening body fastens to the wheel mount through the elongate fastener element (Figs. 5 and 30), wherein at least a portion of the at least one engagement surface is located below the base of the bearing body (Fig. 5) and between the base of the bearing body and a distal end at 48 of the insert section (Fig. 5), and wherein the distal end of the insert section extends into the attachment aperture of the wheel and is spaced apart from the wheel mount (Fig. 30) such that the distal end of the insert section does not directly engage with the wheel mount (Fig. 30).
Plumer fails to disclose the wheel being a composite wheel. Instead, Plumer discloses the use of an aluminum wheel (line 45 of col. 14).
Fukaya, however, as noted above, teaches the use of a composite wheel 100 (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a composite wheel for the wheel of Plumer, such as taught by Fukaya, as a well-known type of wheel that would have a reasonable expectation of success in offering a wheel that is substantially lighter and stiffer than an aluminum wheel for better fuel efficiency and handling.
Regarding claim 3, Plumer further discloses the at least one engagement surface is located axially away from the base of the bearing body (Figs. 1-5), and axially through and below the fastening aperture 46, relative to the fastening axis (Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Plumer further discloses the at least one engagement surface is substantially located between the base of the bearing body and the distal end of the insert section (Figs. 3-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an insert section [having] at least one engagement surface extending from an inner surface of the insert section”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead, claim 1 requires the attachment insert, not the insert section as alleged by Applicant, to include at least one engagement surface extending from an inner surface of the insert section. As noted above, Fukaya discloses at least one engagement surface 303 extending from an inner surface of the insert section (Fig. 3), wherein at least a portion (axial inboard portion of 303) of the at least one engagement surface is located below the base of the bearing body (Fig. 4) and between the base of the bearing body and a distal end (308 and/or 403) of the insert section (Fig. 3).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Fukaya fails to disclose “the distal end of the insert section…is spaced apart from the wheel mount, or from or in an element located in, on, integral with, or adjacent to the wheel mount such that the distal end of the insert section does not directly engage with the wheel mount and/or said element”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Fukaya discloses a distal end (308 and/or 403) of the insert section (Fig. 3) is spaced apart from the wheel mount, or from or in an element located in, on, integral with, or adjacent to the wheel mount such that the distal end of the insert section does not directly engage with the wheel mount and/or said element (note 308 is spaced apart from the wheel mount 1 and an element 500 located in or adjacent the wheel mount such that 308 does not directly engage with the wheel mount 1 or the element 500; 403 is spaced apart from the element 500 located in or adjacent the wheel mount such that 403 does not directly engage with element 500 as shown in Fig. 4).
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Fukaya’s second inner facing surface 403 of the inner bushing 4 comes into contact with the base portion 2 of the hub 1 and receives an axial compression force from the base portion 2 toward the outer side”, the Examiner notes that the claims do not preclude such an arrangement. Instead, claim 1 requires “the distal end of the insert section” to be “spaced apart from the wheel mount, or from or in an element located in, on, integral with, or adjacent to the wheel mount such that the distal end of the insert section does not directly engage with the wheel mount and/or said element”. As noted previously, the claimed distal end of the insert section of Fukaya is considered to be elements represented by reference characters 308 and/or 403. Fig. 4 of Fukaya clearly shows element 308 being spaced apart from the wheel mount 1 and the element 500 located in or adjacent the wheel mount such that 308 does not directly engage with the wheel mount 1 or the element 500. Moreover, Fig. 4 of Fukaya clearly shows element 403 being spaced apart from the element 500 located in or adjacent the wheel mount such that 403 does not directly engage with element 500.
In response to applicant's argument against the combination of Plumer and Fukaya that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to Applicant’s allegation that “A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would not look to fuel efficiency of the respective wheel materials when deciding whether to combine references”, it is noted that Applicant has not provided any evidence to support this opinion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be concerned about minimizing the weight of the wheel to improve fuel efficiency. It is further noted that Applicant has not addressed the other listed benefit (i.e., better handling) of composite wheels over aluminum wheels. Applicant is invited to provide evidence that a person having ordinary skill has no interest in minimizing the weight of the wheel, improving the stiffness of the wheel and improving the handling of the wheel for the Examiner’s consideration regarding the combination of references.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that “Designs from composite wheels are not applicable to metal wheels and vice versa due to the material considerations”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and invites Applicant to provide evidence a person having ordinary skill in the art would not consider designs from composite wheels for metal wheels and vice versa. In fact, the Examiner notes that there are thousands of patent documents directed to wheels having a desired configuration which explicitly state that the wheel can be made from either a metal or a composite material.
In response to Applicant's argument that “Plumer does not address the same problems that attachment mechanisms for composite wheels are configured to address”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Plumer “does not teach or suggest each and every claimed limitation of claim 1 of the present application” because the “the distal end 44 of insert 38 is in full, compressive contact with the seat portion of the wheel, which constitutes an element located on or adjacent to the wheel mount”, the Examiner directs Applicant to the language of claim 1, and more specifically, to the repeated use of the term “or” which signifies that only one of the claimed alternatives must be present for the prior art to read upon the claim. In other words, inasmuch as Plumer discloses the distal end at 48 of the insert section extends into the attachment aperture 24 of the wheel and is spaced apart from the wheel mount (“wheel hub” shown in Fig. 30 and described line 47 of col. 14) such that the distal end of the insert section does not directly engage with the wheel mount (Fig. 30), Plumer reads upon the limitation “wherein the distal end of the insert section extends into the attachment aperture of the composite wheel and is spaced apart from the wheel mount, or from or in an element located in, on, integral with, or adjacent to the wheel mount such that the distal end of the insert section does not directly engage with the wheel mount and/or said element” (emphasis added).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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