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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 7.1, 7.2, 4.1, 4.2, 6, and R.
It should be noted that a list of reference characters does not constitute a description of reference characters within the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal terms (see below). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “consists”, “means”, and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-14 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.
The term “principally” in claims 1 and 13-14 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “principally” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No quantitative or qualitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the heat-treated and hardened disc" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saylor et al (11,633,777) in view of Guimard et al (7,014,274).
Per claim 1, Saylor et al discloses a steel wheel, usable on a commercial vehicle, having a rim on which a tire is mounted, and a disc with a hub flange connectable to a wheel hub (Figure 1). At least one of the rim and disc is made from a heat-treated and hardened martensitic steel material having a carbon content between 0.18 and 0.37 wt%, and a tensile strength of at least 900 MPa (column 4, lines 34-40 and column 8, lines 5-7). The maximum thickness of the disc is less than or equal to 12.00 mm (column 8, lines 51-53). The value of the product of the wheel diameter and the wheel width divided by the wheel mass is greater than 4000 mm2/kg (see column 4, lines 20-22: Namely, the wheel is listed as a 22.5x8.25 size with a weight of about 21.5 kg. The “cm” following the size is clearly a typo, as no vehicle is listed in centimeters. Converted into mm, the wheel size is 571.5x209.56; thus resulting in an answer of approximately 5570 mm2/kg).
Regarding claim 1, Saylor et al does not disclose the thickness of the rim of the wheel. Guimard et al teaches the use of a wheel rim including a maximum thickness E of 1.9 to 2.75mm. therefore from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the wheel rim of Saylor et al with a thickness as taught by Guimard et al (which is less than or equal to 4.5mm as set forth in claim 1), for the purpose of reducing the weight of the wheel without sacrificing strength.
Per claim 2, the product of the maximum thickness of the rim and disc is less than 56 mm2.
Per claim 3, the maximum thickness of the rim and the minimum thickness of the disc is less than 30 mm2.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 11, the limitations therein involve method steps in a product claim, and thus receive no patentable weight (see MPEP 2113). However, Saylor et al does disclose that the rim and disc are press-fit together (column 11, lines 27-28) and then welded (per claims 4-5). Furthermore, Saylor et al discloses the use of laser welding to prevent unnecessary heat developing in the weld area, thus retaining chemical (i.e. hardness) and physical (dimensional tolerances) within the desired range (see column 11, lines 37-49).
Per claim 6, the wheel diameter is greater than or equal to 420mm and the wheel width is greater than or equal to 175mm.
Per claim 7, the product of the wheel diameter and wheel width divided by the wheel mass is greater than 4600 mm2/kg).
Per claim 8, the wheel diameter is between 560 to 600mm.
Per claim 9, the wheel width is between 200 to 300mm.
Regarding claim 10, Saylor et al as modified by Guimard et al does not disclose the average surface roughness of the wheel disc or wheel rim. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to machine the wheel rim and/or disc to have a surface roughness suitable to (a) prevent damage to a tire while being mounted on the rim, (b) prevent abrasive injuries to a user handling the wheel, and/or (c) to provide a desired aesthetic appearance (just as a polished appearance).
Per claim 11, both the rim and disc have different thicknesses.
Per claim 12, the wheel disc includes inspection holes therein. while not explicitly states that the hardness value of an edge of the inspection does not fall below 350 HV 0.1, Saylor et al does disclose the use of laser welding to prevent unnecessary heat developing in the weld area, thus retaining chemical (i.e. hardness) and physical (dimensional tolerances) within the desired range (see column 11, lines 37-49).
Regarding claim 13, Saylor et al as modified by Guimard et al does not disclose the disc being formed from non-heat treated or hardened cold-formed steel. However, it is well-known in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, for wheels include rims and discs formed from different materials, dependent upon the desired chemical and physical properties (such as weight, tensile strength, hardness, etc.), such that the wheel does not fail under the loads imparted thereon during use.
Per claim 14, both the rim and disc of the wheel are formed from the same martensitic steel material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show disc wheels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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) 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615