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 drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 130a-c, 210, 220, 330, 510, 710a, 710b and 910.
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: 170c (Fig. 1C), 510a (Fig. 5A), 510b (Fig. 5B)
The lead line for reference character 420 in Fig. 4C is not directed to the central diameter as described in the specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "150a" and "150b" have both been used to designate the same cap in Fig. 5C.
The lead line for the lower reference character 150 in Fig. 8 appears to be directed to the halo instead of the cap as described in the specification.
Each distinct part, including modified parts, should be labeled with a distinct reference character to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(p). Note at least the following informalities: The parts represented by reference characters 430 and 440 in the embodiment shown in Figs. 4C and 4D are distinct (i.e., modified) from the parts represented by these same reference characters in the embodiment shown in Figs. 4A and 4B, and the parts represented by reference characters 140 and 150 in the embodiment shown in Figs. 7C and 7D are distinct (i.e., modified) from the parts represented by these same reference characters in the embodiment shown in Figs. 7A and 7B.
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 “cap defines a coplanar surface to the facing” as set forth in claim 6
- “the halo has a fourth diameter greater than the first diameter” as set forth in claim 11
- “the first halo has a first radial diameter greater than the first diameter” as set forth in claim 21
- the first halo has “a first central diameter equal to the third diameter” as set forth in claim 21
- “the second halo has a second radial diameter equal to the first diameter” as set forth in claim 21
- the second halo has “a second central diameter equal to the third diameter” as set forth in claim 21
- “a corresponding plurality of lugs of an axle attachment seat of a vehicle” inserted “through the lug holes” of the puck as set forth in claim 24
- “the lugs” secured “to the lug holes to affix the wheel drum to an axle of the vehicle” as set forth in claim 24
- “a cap” attached “in the well over the lugs that project through the puck into the well” as set forth in claim 25
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0036], the term “second plant P2” should be replaced with -- second plane P2 -- to correct a typographical error.
In paragraph [0056], the term “axel” should be replaced with the term -- axle -- to correct a typographical error.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not describe “the facing occupies between 25 and 40 percent of an area defined by a circle of the first diameter” as set forth in claim 2, and “the interstitial band occupies between 20 and 40 percent of an area defined by a circle of the first diameter” as set forth in claim 20.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-12 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 1, the preamble “A wheel” renders the claim indefinite inasmuch as the body of claim includes structure (e.g., “a halo”) in addition to the wheel. As such, it is unclear whether the claimed invention is directed to “A wheel” or to “A wheel assembly”. Further, the limitation “a facing” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a facing” is a component of the claimed wheel drum as implied by the claim construction or if it is a separate component attached to the wheel drum as described in paragraph [0068] of the specification.
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, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beam (US 5,368,370).
Regarding claim 1, Beam, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 2, discloses a wheel, comprising: a wheel drum (annular rim 12), the wheel drum having a first rim (outboard rim flange 14) of a first diameter on a first end of the wheel drum (Fig. 2); a second rim (inboard rim flange 14) of the first diameter on a second end, opposite to the first end, of the wheel drum (Fig. 2); a facing (either the planar annular inner connecting portion 38 of applique 34 shown in Fig. 2 OR the planar annular center section 26 of the spider 20 shown in Fig. 2) that extends between a second diameter and a third diameter positioned concentrically to the first rim on the first end in a plane substantially perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the wheel drum (evident from Fig. 2); and a cavity (unlabeled, but evident from Fig. 2) defined inward from the second rim from the second end toward the first end (Fig. 2); and a halo (either comprised of outer connecting portion 36 and the unlabeled spokes defined between vent openings 40 as shown in Fig. 2 OR comprised of the entire applique 34 as shown in Fig. 2), connected to the wheel drum in an interstitial band (at spoke flange 28 and spokes 24 as shown in Fig. 2) defined on the first end between the first diameter and the second diameter (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Beam further discloses an axle connection (implicit from Fig. 2; note Fig. 1) defined within a well (not shown in Fig. 2 due to center cap 29 covering the well, but implicit) concentrically defined in the facing, the well extending towards the second end (evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Beam further discloses a cap 29 secured in the well over the axle connection (evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Beam further discloses the cap defines a coplanar surface to the facing (i.e., the planar annular inner connecting portion 38 of applique 34; evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Beam further discloses the halo includes a plurality of ducts 40 arranged circumferentially around the axis of rotation and the interstitial band includes a plurality of vents (unlabeled “venting spaces” interposed between adjacent spokes 24 as shown in Fig. 2) arranged circumferentially around the axis of rotation (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Beam further discloses the halo is configured to selectively engage with the wheel drum (Fig. 2), further comprising: a second halo (a halo with a different and unique ornamental design as described in line 64 of col. 4 through line 5 of col. 5), configured to selectively engage with the wheel by connecting in the interstitial band, wherein the second halo includes a second plurality of ducts different from the plurality of ducts (line 64 of col. 4 through line 5 of col. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Beam further discloses a tire 17, secured to the wheel drum between the first rim and the second rim (lines 57-65 of col. 3; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Beam discloses a method, comprising: inserting a first halo (either comprised of outer connecting portion 36 and the unlabeled spokes defined between vent openings 40 as shown in Fig. 2 OR comprised of the entire applique 34 as shown in Fig. 2) including a first plurality of ducts 40 in an interstitial band (at spoke flange 28 and spokes 24 as shown in Fig. 2) of a wheel drum (annular rim 12) to between a first rim (outboard rim flange 14) and a facing (either the planar annular inner connecting portion 38 of applique 34 shown in Fig. 2 OR the planar annular center section 26 of the spider 20 shown in Fig. 2) of the wheel drum, the first rim having a first diameter and the facing occupying a region substantially perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the wheel drum between a second diameter and a third diameter, wherein the second diameter is less than the first diameter and the third diameter is less than the second diameter (evident from Fig. 2); securing the first halo to the wheel drum (Fig. 2); releasing the first halo from the wheel drum (implicit from line 64 of col. 4 through line 5 of col. 5 which states, in part, “the rim 12 and spider 20 configuration of FIG. 7 can be used with many different vent openings 40 options of the applique” that the first halo would need to be released to allow other applique options to be applied to the wheel); removing the first halo from the interstitial band (implicit from line 64 of col. 4 through line 5 of col. 5 which states, in part, “the rim 12 and spider 20 configuration of FIG. 7 can be used with many different vent openings 40 options of the applique” that the first halo would need to be removed to allow other applique options to be applied to the wheel); inserting a second halo (a halo with a different and unique ornamental design as described in line 64 of col. 4 through line 5 of col. 5) in the interstitial band, the second halo including a second plurality of ducts different in design from the first plurality of ducts (line 64 of col. 4 through line 5 of col. 5); and securing the second halo to the wheel drum (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 23, Beam further discloses attaching a tire 17 to a sidewall (well portion 16) of the wheel drum via a mating surface of the first rim and a second rim, disposed on an opposite end of the wheel drum from the first rim (lines 57-65 of col. 3; Fig. 1), wherein the tire remains attached to the sidewall while releasing the first halo, removing the first halo, inserting the second halo, and securing the second halo (evident from Figs. 1 and 2 that the tire can be remain attached during the removing and securing of the halos).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beam.
Regarding claim 2, although Beam appears to show the facing occupies between 25 and 40 percent of an area defined by a circle of the first diameter in Fig. 2, Beam fails to expressly disclose such.
Nonetheless, 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 wheel of Beam such that the facing occupies between 25 and 40 percent of an area defined by a circle of the first diameter as a mere aesthetic design change to achieve a desired appearance. It is further noted that Applicant has not provided any evidence for the criticality of the claimed range.
Claims 4, 8, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beam in view of Wolf et al. (DE 102012107692 A1; hereinafter “Wolf”).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Beam fails to expressly disclose the wheel drum is made of a reinforced thermoplastic and a puck is secured at a base of the well in which the axle connection is defined.
Wolf, however, teaches a wheel comprising a wheel drum 10 made of a reinforced thermoplastic (third full paragraph on page 6 of the English-language machine translation) and a puck 50 is secured at a base of the well in which the axle connection is defined (Figs. 4 and 8).
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 wheel of Beam by forming its wheel drum of reinforced thermoplastic and including a puck secured at a base of the well in which the axle connection is defined, such as taught by Wolf, with a reasonable expectation of success in minimizing the weight of the wheel while also providing the wheel with an increased strength and rigidity at the axle connection.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, although Beam further discloses the facing defines a well (not shown in Fig. 2 due to center cap 29 covering the well, but implicit) projecting inward to the wheel drum (Fig. 2) and implicitly teaches the axle remains attached to the wheel drum while releasing the first halo, removing the first halo, inserting the second halo, and securing the second halo (evident from Fig. 2 and lines 22-25 of col. 6 that the axle can remain attached to the wheel drum during the removing and securing of the halos), and the attaching of a cap 29 in the well over lugs 31 of an axle attachment seat 22 of a vehicle (evident from Fig. 2 and lines 22-25 of col. 6 where the “cap 29 completely covers the lug nuts 33”), Beam fails to expressly disclose including a puck at a base of the well including a plurality of lug holes, wherein the method further comprises inserting a corresponding plurality of lugs of an axle attachment seat of a vehicle through the lug holes; and securing the lugs to the lug holes to affix the wheel drum to the axle of a vehicle.
Wolf, however, teaches a method comprising including a puck 50 at a base of the well including a plurality of lug holes 56, wherein the method further comprises inserting a corresponding plurality of lugs (“screw shafts” per the last paragraph beginning on page 8 of the English-language machine translation) of an axle attachment seat (“vehicle axle or shaft” per the last paragraph beginning on page 8 of the English-language machine translation) of a vehicle through the lug holes (the last paragraph beginning on page 8 of the English-language machine translation); and securing the lugs to the lug holes to affix the wheel drum to the axle of a vehicle (via “wheel nuts” per the last paragraph beginning on page 8 of the English-language machine translation).
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 method of Beam by forming its wheel drum of reinforced thermoplastic and incorporating the claimed puck for affixing the wheel drum to an axle of a vehicle, such as taught by Wolf, with a reasonable expectation of success in minimizing the weight of the wheel while also providing the wheel with an increased strength and rigidity at the axle connection. Further, such a modification would implicitly result in the cap being attached over the lugs that project through the puck into the well inasmuch as the cap completely covers the lug nuts securing the lugs.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beam in view of Chinavare et al. (US 2018/0126776 A1; hereinafter “Chinavare”).
Regarding claim 7, Beam fails to expressly disclose the halo is made of a reinforced thermoplastic.
Chinavare, however, teaches a wheel in which a halo can be made of a reinforced thermoplastic (paragraph [0044]).
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 wheel of Beam by forming its halo of reinforced thermoplastic, such as taught by Chinavare, with a reasonable expectation of success in minimizing the weight of the wheel while also providing the halo with sufficient strength and rigidity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beam in view of Lyon (US 2,629,635).
Regarding claim 11, Beam fails to expressly disclose the halo has a fourth diameter greater than the first diameter.
Lyon, however, teaches a wheel with a halo 19 that has a fourth diameter (i.e., outer diameter of 19) greater than the first diameter (i.e., outer diameter of rim flange 14) as shown in Fig. 2.
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 wheel of Beam by forming the halo with a fourth diameter that is greater than the first diameter, such as taught by Lyon, with a reasonable expectation of success in better protecting the rim flange from potential damage during use of the wheel while also achieving a desired appearance.
Claims 13, 14, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beam in view of Fisher (US 3,256,044).
Regarding claim 13, Beam, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 2, discloses a system, comprising: a wheel drum (annular rim 12), having: a first rim (outboard rim flange 14) of a first diameter on a first end (Fig. 2); a second rim (inboard rim flange 14) of the first diameter on a second end opposite to the first end (Fig. 2); and a sidewall (well portion 16) connected to the first rim and the second rim (Fig. 2), having a second diameter less than the first diameter (evident from Fig. 2); wherein the first end defines: an interstitial band (at spoke flange 28 and spokes 24 as shown in Fig. 2), extending inward from the first rim toward the second end (Fig. 2), the interstitial band positioned circumferentially between the first diameter and a third diameter, less than the first diameter (Fig. 2); a facing (either the planar annular inner connecting portion 38 of applique 34 shown in Fig. 2 OR the planar annular center section 26 of the spider 20 shown in Fig. 2), positioned extending substantially perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the wheel drum (Fig. 2), the facing positioned circumferentially between the third diameter and a fourth diameter, less than the third diameter (Fig. 2); and a well (not shown in Fig. 2 due to center cap 29 covering the well, but implicit), extending inward from the facing toward the second end (evident from Fig. 2), the well positioned circumferentially within the fourth diameter (evident from Fig. 2); wherein the second end defines: a cavity (unlabeled, but evident from Fig. 2), extending inward from the second rim towards the first end (Fig. 2); a first halo (either comprised of outer connecting portion 36 and the unlabeled spokes defined between vent openings 40 as shown in Fig. 2 OR comprised of the entire applique 34 as shown in Fig. 2) configured to selectively attach to the first end of the wheel drum within the interstitial band (Fig. 2); and a first intake face (outboard face of halo shown in Fig. 2), defining a first plurality of ducts 40 defined circumferentially around the first halo (Fig. 2); a second halo (a halo with a different and unique ornamental design as described in line 64 of col. 4 through line 5 of col. 5) configured to selectively attach to the first end of the wheel drum (evident from Fig. 2 and line 64 of col. 4 through line 5 of col. 5); and a second intake face (outboard face of halo shown in Fig. 7), defining a second plurality of ducts 40 defined circumferentially around the second halo, wherein the second plurality of ducts differs in design from the first plurality of ducts (line 64 of col. 4 through line 5 of col. 5).
Beam, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 2, fails to expressly disclose the first halo having a first engagement device and the second halo having a second engagement device.
Fisher, however, teaches a system in which each of the halos (plugs 30) has an engagement device 50 configured to selectively attach the respective halo to the first end of the wheel drum within an interstitial band (Fig. 2; lines 37-49 of col. 2).
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 system of Beam by providing its first and second halos with respective first and second engagement devices, such as taught by Fisher, with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the halos to be more easily selectively attached and detached, as desired to achieve a desired appearance and/or as needed because of damage to the halo.
Regarding claim 14, Beam further discloses the first plurality of ducts 40 differs from the second plurality of ducts 40 in design by at least one of: a number of ducts in the first plurality of ducts versus the second plurality of ducts; a cross-sectional area of each duct in the first plurality of ducts versus the second plurality of ducts; an orientation of each duct through a respective halo in the first plurality of ducts versus the second plurality of ducts; and a cross-sectional shape of each duct in the first plurality of ducts versus the second plurality of ducts (line 64 of col. 4 through line 5 of col. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Beam further discloses a cap 29 connected over the well coplanar with the facing (i.e., the planar annular inner connecting portion 38 of applique 34; evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, although Beam appears to show the facing occupies between 25 and 40 percent of an area defined by a circle of the first diameter in Fig. 2, Beam fails to expressly disclose such.
Nonetheless, 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 system of Beam such that the facing occupies between 25 and 40 percent of an area defined by a circle of the first diameter as a mere aesthetic design change to achieve a desired appearance. It is further noted that Applicant has not provided any evidence for the criticality of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 20, although Beam appears to show the interstitial band occupies between 20 and 40 percent of an area defined by a circle of the first diameter, Beam fails to expressly disclose such.
Nonetheless, 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 system of Beam such that the interstitial band occupies between 20 and 40 percent of an area defined by a circle of the first diameter as a mere aesthetic design change to achieve a desired appearance. It is further noted that Applicant has not provided any evidence for the criticality of the claimed range.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beam in view of Fisher, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Wolf.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Beam, as modified by Fisher, fails to expressly disclose the wheel drum is made of a reinforced thermoplastic and a puck is secured at a base of the well in which the axle connection is defined.
Wolf, however, teaches a wheel comprising a wheel drum 10 made of a reinforced thermoplastic (third full paragraph on page 6 of the English-language machine translation) and a puck 50 is secured at a base of the well in which the axle connection is defined (Figs. 4 and 8).
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 system of Beam, as modified by Fisher, by forming its wheel drum of reinforced thermoplastic and including a puck secured at a base of the well in which the axle connection is defined, such as taught by Wolf, with a reasonable expectation of success in minimizing the weight of the wheel while also providing the wheel with an increased strength and rigidity at the axle connection.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beam in view of Fisher, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chinavare.
Regarding claim 18, although Fisher further teaches its halos can be made of thermoplastic materials (lines 30-35 of col. 4), Beam, as modified by Fisher, fails to expressly disclose the first and second halos being made of a fiber reinforced thermoplastic.
Chinavare, however, teaches a wheel in which a halo can be made of a fiber reinforced thermoplastic (paragraph [0044]).
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 system of Beam, as modified by Fisher, by forming the first and second halos of fiber reinforced thermoplastic, such as taught by Chinavare, with a reasonable expectation of success in minimizing the weight of the wheel while also providing the halos with sufficient strength and rigidity.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beam in view of Fisher, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lyon and Atkin (US 3,081,133).
Regarding claim 21, although Beam further discloses the first halo having a first central diameter equal to the third diameter (evident from Fig. 2), and the second halo having a second central diameter equal to the third diameter (evident from Fig. 7), Beam, as modified by Fisher, fails to expressly disclose the first halo has a first radial diameter greater than the first diameter, and the second halo has a second radial diameter equal to the first diameter.
Lyon, however, teaches a wheel with a halo 19 that has a first radial diameter (i.e., outer diameter of 19) greater than the first diameter (i.e., outer diameter of rim flange 14) as shown in Fig. 2 while Atkin teaches a wheel with a halo 6 that has a second radial diameter at 10 equal to the first diameter (i.e., outer diameter of rim flange 5) as described in lines 57-60 of col. 1 and claim 5, and shown in Fig. 1.
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 system of Beam, as modified by Fisher, by forming the first halo with a first radial diameter greater than the first diameter, such as taught by Lyon, and by forming the second halo with a second radial diameter equal to the first diameter, such as taught by Atkin, with a reasonable expectation of success in better protecting the rim flange from potential damage during use of the wheel while also achieving a desired appearance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows other examples of wheel and wheel cover assemblies.
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
Prosecution Insights