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
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 14 – 25 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 14, it recites “…a minimum material thickness being reduced to less than 70% of the material thickness of the hub connection flange…” (lines 11-13) and “…wherein the maximum hole width of the ventilation holes is at most 85% of a hole height of the ventilation holes measured in a radial direction.” (lines 18-20) which is indefinite. For instance, the claimed “minimum material thickness being reduced to less than 70% of the material thickness of the hub connection flange” fails to point out what the material thickness of the hub connection flange actually is and therefore is unclear as to how to ascertain a minimum material thickness, let alone it being reduced to less than 70% of that. Furthermore, Applicants disclosure fails to disclose any standard to compare the material thickness to. Again, there seems to be no standard, nor any reference to standard metrics (e.g., in, mm, cm, etc.), to compare such a reduction in thickness rendering the claim indefinite.
Applicants referenced MPEP Section 2125 II, “…where the drawings are not to be used for measurements where the disclosure is silent as to dimensions and does not state that the drawings are to scale.” Examiner would like to clarify that the drawings were not used to determine actual measurements but rather used to assist in interpreting the specification. The specification was silent to actual dimensions so Examiner gave benefit to Applicants claims by attempting to reference the drawings so that one with ordinary skill could understand the percentages of material thicknesses. However, both the specification and drawings were found to be deficient in clearly demarcating the metes and bounds of the claim rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “…wherein a ratio of the minimum material thickness in the first sectional area to the material thickness of the hub connection flange is at most 0.6.” The limitation was analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 14 above.
Claim 16 recites “…a material thickness value at the first pitch circle being at least 50% of the material thickness of the hub connection flange.” The limitation was analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 14 above.
Claim 17 recites “…a ratio of the material thickness value at the first pitch circle to the material thickness at the hub connection flange is greater than 0.54.” The limitation was analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 14 above.
Claim 18 recites “…a maximum hole width of the ventilation holes is at most 80% of the hole height of the ventilation holes measured in the radial direction. The limitation was analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 14 above.
Claim 19 recites “…wherein a distance between the third pitch circle and the first pitch circle is equal to or smaller than as the distance between the second pitch circle and the third pitch circle.” The limitation was analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 14 above.
Claim 20 recites “…a ratio of the distance between the first pitch circle and
the third pitch circle and a hole height of the ventilation holes is smaller than or equal to 0.48.” The limitation was analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 14 above.
Claims 21 – 25 are rejected as a result of their dependency to claim 14 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 - 25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14 - 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights