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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "112a", "114a", and "122a" have all been used to designate the same element in Figure 2.
Reference characters "120a" and "136i" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 4.
Reference characters "112a" and "114a" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 4.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “776” has been used to designate both an arrow and protrusions in Figure 7B.
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. 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.
Figures 7A and 7B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 “comprises”, “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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the cavity is configured to receive” a lug. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 9 below) and fails to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the first curved region extends “towards” the plane. No directional indicators (i.e. axially, radially, etc.) have been provided to clearly define this limitation.
Claims 13 and 17-18 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the wheel hub cover is “configured to mount” on a wheel. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 9 below) and fails to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 14 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the wheel hub cover is “configured to mount” on a wheel, and how the wheel is “configured to receive” studs.. These phrases are generally narrative (see section 9 below) and fail to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 18 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “steer wheel”.
Claim 19 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the wheel hub cover is “configured to reduce” drag. This phrase is generally narrative (see section 9 below) and fails to define any actual physical structure of the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogers (2007/0210640).
Per claim 1, as best shown in Figure 6, Rogers shows a wheel hub cover 300 having a first curved region (located centrally, generally at 320) and at least two protrusions (best seen in Figure 1) disposed about a periphery of the first curved region. The protrusions include a first end, second end, and an elongate portion therebetween. An inner surface of the protrusions defines a cavity for receiving a lug when mounted on a wheel 200. The first ends (the closed free ends of the protrusions) are disposed within a plane. The first curved region extends radially inwardly from a first location on each elongate portion and “towards” the plane.
Per claim 2, the first curved region does not intersect the plane (see Figure 2).
Per claim 3, the first curved region is convex.
Per claim 4, the first curved region and protrusions are integrally formed.
Per claim 8, the protrusions are have a tubular shape with closed first ends and open second ends.
Per claim 9, the protrusions have a frustoconical shape.
Per claim 13, the wheel hub cover 300 has a first diameter smaller than a second diameter of a wheel 200 on which the cover 300 is mounted.
Per claim 14, the wheel 200 includes a mounting circle of bores 230 for receiving studs 20 of an axle 10. The mounting circle has a second diameter smaller than the first diameter of the wheel hub cover 300.
Per claim 15, the wheel hub cover 300 includes eight equally spaced protrusions about the periphery of the first curved region.
Per claims 16 and 19-20, the wheel hub cover 300 is mounted on a wheel 200 of a vehicle to reduce aerodynamic drag.
Per claim 17, the wheel 200 has a nominal rim diameter in a range of 1-200 inches, and a nominal rim diameter in the range of 1-100 inches.
Per claim 18, the wheel hub cover can be mounted on any wheel of a semi-truck. Furthermore, this limitation is an intended use of the wheel hub cover and receives no patentable weight.
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers. The wheel hub cover 300 of Rogers inherently includes a first distance between the first and second ends of the protrusions, and a second distance between the first location and the second end. The second distance is less than the first distance. Rogers, however, does not disclose that the second distance is in a range of 20-95% of the first distance.
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 form the protrusions with dimensions suitable to allow the cover to be securely mounted on the vehicle wheel, and dependent upon the desired aesthetics thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show aerodynamic wheel covers.
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