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 were received on 1 May 2026. These drawings are approved.
The drawings are objected to because the first location (reference character 120a) no longer corresponds to distance d2 as described in the specification.
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.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The first page of the specification lacks a statement of the 371 status of the application.
Paragraph [0038] of the specification is merely a copy of the claims with the term “claim” replaced with the term “clause”. This paragraph should either be removed from the specification, or rewritten in narrative form.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 18 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.
Claim 18 is indefinite due to the fact that it appears incomplete. Namely, it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the limitation that the “hub cover a steel wheel of a semi-truck”.
Claim 18 is also indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “steer wheel”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8-9, 13-18, and 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. The first curved region does not intersect the plane (best seen in 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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
Claim 21 is allowed.
Claims 10-12 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the amended drawings overcome all objections thereto. However, this is not the case. First, the Applicant did not address all of the objections set forth in the previous Office action (which have been repeated in section 4-5 above). Second, the Applicant has introduced a new informality into the drawings, as set forth in section 3 above.
The Applicant argues that “Rodgers” [sic] does show the “first curved region” intersecting the plane (formed by the first ends of the “at least two protrusions”), which does not meet the limitation of claim 2 (now incorporated into claim 1). The Applicant then points to an annotated version of Figure 6 of Rogers. First, it should be noted that Figure 6 of Rogers only clearly shows 1 protrusion, thus making it impossible to create a plane defined by the “first ends of the at least two protrusions”. Second, as set forth in the rejection, Figure 2 of Rogers more clearly shows that the first curved region 320 does not intersect a plane defined by the first ends of at least two protrusions (see annotated version below). Third, as shown in the annotated version of Figure 6 of Rogers below, if the leftmost element (adjacent reference character 310) is considered to be one of the protrusions, then the first curved region 320 actually does not intersect a plane formed by the first end of the two protrusions.
PNG
media_image1.png
702
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
730
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights