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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 – 13 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. Dependent claims 2 – 13 are also rejected as a result of their dependency to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “…has a material thickness reduced by at least 30% in relation to a material thickness of the hub connection flange and/or wherein the ventilation holes have a hole region with a hole width in disc circumference direction increasing from the radially inner first pitch circle towards the radially outer second pitch circle.” which is indefinite. For instance, it’s being interpreted that the claimed aspect of “thickness reduced by at least 30% in relation to a material thickness of the hub…” is indefinite since Applicants disclosure fails to disclose any standard to compare the material thickness to. Looking further to Applicants drawings for clarification, no visually depicted comparisons can be made which fails to demonstrate how one with ordinary skill could ascertain a 30% reduction in thickness based on the figures themselves. 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. Furthermore, the “and/or” clause furthers the confusion as to the comparison of the material thickness. In other words, the recited “ventilation holes” are in relation to the material thickness, however, both specification and drawings fail to depict any sort of standard thickness for which the material thickness needs to be reduced by rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “…wherein a ratio of the 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 1 above.
Claim 3 recites “…a material thickness of the transition region at the first pitch circle is at least 50% of the material thickness of the hub connection flange.” The limitation was analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 4 recites “…a ratio of the material thickness 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 1 above.
Claim 5 recites “…a maximum hole width of the ventilation holes is at most 85% of its a hole height thereof measured in the radial direction. The limitation was analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 6 recites “…a maximum hole width of the ventilation holes lies on a third pitch circle between the first inner pitch circle and the second outer pitch circle, wherein a distance between the third pitch circle and the first pitch circle is at most as great, and preferably 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 1 above. Furthermore, the limitations “great” are considered relative terms which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “…the 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/equal to 0.48. The limitation was analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 10 recites “…the ventilation holes have a hole rim curvature between their hole tip and their maximum hole width, which curvature, starting from the narrow radius of curvature of the hole, increases to at least 6 times more than of the hole tip radius.” The limitation was analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 11 recites “…the hole rim curvature in a transition region to the maximum hole width is approximately 1.5 to 3 times of the narrow radius of curvature of the hole tip.”
The limitation was analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vorbeck et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0291447 A1) in view of Shimizu et al. (Patent No.: US 6,332,653 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Vorbeck discloses a wheel disc for a disc wheel (wheel disc for wheel 10, FIG. 1), in particular for commercial vehicles, with an at least essentially radially extending hub connection flange (radially extending hub fitting flange 11, FIG. 1 and ¶ 33) and with an essentially cylindrical disc rim (wheel disc joined and fitted with wheel rim ¶ 33) which can be connected to a wheel rim (¶ 33) and with a transition region (Transition region 14, FIG. 1) extending between the disc rim and the hub connection flange (¶ 34), wherein the transition region in radial section in a first sectional area extending between the hub
connection flange (13-15, FIG. 1) and the radially inner first pitch circle has a
material thickness reduced by at least 30% in relation to a material
thickness of the hub connection flange (Material thickness is shown to be around 30% less than the inner pitch circle, FIG. 1 and ¶¶ 35-37) and/or wherein the ventilation
holes have a hole region with a hole width in disc circumference direction increasing from the radially inner first pitch circle towards the radially outer second pitch circle.
Vorbeck is silent to characterized in that wherein the transition region is provided with ventilation holes distributed over a circumference, wherein the ventilation holes extend in a radial direction from a first inner pitch circle located closer to the connection flange to a second outer pitch circle located closer to the disc rim. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Shimizu teaches a disc wheel for a passenger car with a plate-like rim and disc, the disc having a hub mounting portion extending in a direction perpendicular to an axis thereof, a hat middle portion continuously extending from the hub mounting portion toward an outer side in a radial direction and an outer side in an axial direction. Ventilation holes portion continuously extends from the hat top portion toward an inner peripheral surface of the rim and a flange portion continuously extending from the ventilation hole portion and fitted to the inner peripheral surface of the rim (See Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vorbeck to wherein the transition region is provided with ventilation holes distributed over a circumference, wherein the ventilation holes extend in a radial direction from a first inner pitch circle located closer to the connection flange to a second outer pitch circle located closer to the disc rim as taught by Shimizu in order to reduce weight and wheel drag without reducing wheel strength and fatigue (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Vorbeck discloses the wheel disc, characterized in
that wherein a ratio of the material thickness in the first sectional area to the material thickness of the hub connection flange is at most 0.6 (¶ 35 Table).
Regarding claim 3, Vorbeck discloses the wheel disc, characterized in that wherein a material thickness of the transition region at the first pitch circle is at least 50% of the material thickness of the hub connection flange (13, FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Vorbeck discloses the wheel disc, characterized in that wherein a ratio of the material thickness at the first pitch circle to the material thickness at the hub connection flange is greater than 0.54 (¶ 35 Table).
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu teaches the wheel disc characterized in that wherein a maximum hole width of the ventilation holes is at most 85% of its a hole height thereof measured in the radial direction (FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to modify the wheel disc taught by Vorbeck to wherein a maximum hole width of the ventilation holes is at most 85% of its a hole height thereof measured in the radial direction as taught by Shimizu to reduce weight without reducing wheel strength and fatigue (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Shimizu teaches the wheel disc, characterized in that wherein a maximum hole width of the ventilation holes lies on a third pitch circle between the first inner
pitch circle and the second outer pitch circle, wherein a distance between the third pitch circle and the first pitch circle is at most as great, distance between the second pitch circle and the third pitch circle (FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to modify the wheel disc taught by Vorbeck to wherein a maximum hole width of the ventilation holes lies on a third pitch circle between the first inner
pitch circle and the second outer pitch circle, wherein a distance between the third pitch circle and the first pitch circle is at most as great, distance between the second pitch circle and the third pitch circle as taught by Shimizu to reduce weight without reducing wheel strength and fatigue (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu teaches the wheel disc, characterized in that wherein the 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/equal to 0.48 (FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to modify the wheel disc taught by Vorbeck to wherein the 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/equal to 0.48 as taught by Shimizu to reduce weight without reducing wheel strength and fatigue (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Shimizu teaches the wheel disc, characterized in that wherein the ventilation holes have an approximately drop- or egg-shaped basic shape with a hole tip pointing towards the first, inner pitch circle having a narrow radius of curvature, and a
flattening located towards the second, outer pitch circle having a second radius of curvature (8, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to modify the wheel disc taught by Vorbeck to wherein the ventilation holes have an approximately drop- or egg-shaped basic shape with a hole tip pointing towards the first, inner pitch circle having a narrow radius of curvature, and a
flattening located towards the second, outer pitch circle having a second radius of curvature as taught by Shimizu to reduce weight without reducing wheel strength and fatigue (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu teaches the wheel disc, characterized in that wherein the ventilation holes are respectively axially symmetrical with respect to a radial plane defining a hole height of the ventilation holes (8, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to modify the wheel disc taught by Vorbeck to wherein the ventilation holes are respectively axially symmetrical with respect to a radial plane defining a hole height of the ventilation holes as taught by Shimizu to reduce weight without reducing wheel strength and fatigue (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Shimizu teaches the wheel disc, characterized in that wherein the ventilation holes have a hole rim curvature between their hole tip and their maximum hole width, which curvature, starting from the narrow radius of curvature of the hole, increases to at least 6 times of the hole tip radius (8, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to modify the wheel disc taught by Vorbeck to wherein the ventilation holes have a hole rim curvature between their hole tip and their maximum hole width, which curvature, starting from the narrow radius of curvature of the hole, increases to at least 6 times of the hole tip radius as taught by Shimizu to reduce weight without reducing wheel strength and fatigue (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Shimizu teaches wheel disc, characterized in that wherein the hole rim curvature in a transition region to the maximum hole width is approximately 1.5 to 3 times of the narrow radius of curvature of the hole tip (8, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to modify the wheel disc taught by Vorbeck to wherein the hole rim curvature in a transition region to the maximum hole width is approximately 1.5 to 3 times of the narrow radius of curvature of the hole tip as taught by Shimizu to reduce weight without reducing wheel strength and fatigue (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Vorbeck discloses a disc wheel, in particular for commercial vehicles, with a wheel rim having an inner rim well base and two axially outer rim
shoulders with rim flanges delimiting these at the outer and inner rim of the rim and an essentially cylindrical connection region arranged between one of the rim shoulders and the rim well base, to the inner side of which connection region the disc rim of a wheel disc according to one of claim 1 (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Vorbeck discloses the disc wheel, characterized in that wherein a circumferential hump is arranged between the connection region and the rim shoulder adjacent thereto (FIGS. 1 and 2).
Conclusion
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