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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-25 are pending, being drawn to elected Group 1, without traverse.
Claims 17-19 and 25 are withdrawn, being included in the unelected Group II.
Claims 1-23 are amended.
Claims 24-25 are new.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “Reference character 175 has a callout in Fig 6a, page 15-16 describes as “a pronounced partial section”, (a limit of claim 8) but no dashed line or contour is visible to clearly define what is considered a partial section” does not clearly convey what is considered a partial section”, (specification page 4 para 4, beginning “Alternatively or additionally…”, describes partial section in relation to the transition surface and inner ring section, but does not reference character 175, or any Figure). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Abstract exceeds 150 words in length. (See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Abstract exceeds 150 words in length. (See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts).
UNBOLD
“A partial section” identified by reference character 175 with a callout in Fig 6a, does not clearly define or convey what is considered a partial section”. Specification Pages 15-16 describe “a pronounced partial section” as 175 directed in a region of the transition surface, between the rim and inner ring, being free of holes; Specification Page 4, Para 4 beginning “Alternatively or additionally…”, describes a partial section as “ partially forming the transition surface, which section adjoins the inner ring section, is not interrupted by ventilation holes and has a changing material thickness. The description could possibly be interpreted as an area or a line segment in the intermediate section between the rim and inner ring, and it is unclear how an area or line segment could “form” the transition surface. It is unclear if the partial section is an area, or a sectional line as there is no dashed contour or dashed section line where 175 callout is directed. in page 15-16. describes as “a pronounced partial section”. It is suggested by Examiner to amend Fig 6a with a dashed line or contour to clearly define the partial section”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in line 10, ”all ventilation holes are attached”, which is incorrect, as hole are not attached to a surface, but formed therein, thus it is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitation to “all ventilation holes are formed”, for greater clarity.
Claim 1 recites, in line 19 “effects”, which should be changed to “that affects” for greater clarity.
Claim 16 recites in line 2 , “wherein that the”, which is grammatically incorrect, and it is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitation to “wherein the”, for greater clarity.
Claim 20, recites in line 6 “the assembly state”, which is grammatically incorrect, and it is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitation to “the assembled state”, for greater clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 20-24 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.
Examiners Note: while the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) reference only pending claims from elected groups of the restriction requirement, it is suggested that the withdrawn claims 17-19 and 25 be reviewed as they many have similar content, that potential rejoinder, might be subject to similar rejections, as to those following.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 12, 23 and 24, the recitations of “stretched disc transition surface”, “disc transition surface”, or “transition surface” are indefinite, because:
The word “stretched” refers to a method of production which is not limiting in a product claim, it is suggested to delete “stretched”.
The specification does not provide a definition of the transition surface, and describes the features thereon in relation to method of production steps. On Page 3, paragraph 2 and 3 of the specification features on the transition surface are described in relation to a visible side, upper side, side facing the tool, facing away from chuck. The figures do not provide a consistent side on which the features on the transition surface are located, e.g. Figs 2, 4, 7and 9 show the waves on the inboard, outboard, or both inboard and outboard surfaces.
It is unclear on which side of surface of the wheel disc body is being referred to by the recitations: the inboard surface, the outboard surface or both the inboard surface and the outboard surface, or either the inboard surface or outboard surfaces.
It is unclear where the transition surface begins and ends.
As the recitations are further described in subsequent claims as having limits of the disc transition surface including: changes in the thickness, wavelike structure, concavity [i.e. crests and troughs], or ventilation holes, interpretation thereof of subsequent claims is dependent upon clarifying the above paragraphs a-e.
For the purposes of examining, Examiner interprets the recitations as a/the “disc transition portion”, that includes inboard and outboard surfaces, and that spans between inner surface of the outer rim flange (or connection thereto), and it is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitations thereto, for greater clarity and to enable interpretation of features of the disc transition portion being on either side or both sides of the disc transition portion, and the disc transition portion spanning between the outer radial surface of the rim flange/or connection thereto, and the outer radial edge of the inner ring (changes to wording and or, strikethrough in rejections following reflect the above suggestions by Examiner).
Regarding Claim 3, 4, 13, 14, 16 and 23, the recitations of “wave crest(s) and “wave trough(s)” are indefinite as described below:
The recitations including limits of wave trough and wave crest are indefinite, being inconsistent, dependent on which side of the disc is considered to have either thereon described (see paragraph 9 above). .
The specification defines crests and troughs depending on which side of the disc they are on, and in relation to method of forming details (method limit in product claim: “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production., MPEP 2113); thus not limiting.
The Plain meaning of a trough is a depression or valley from a surface, while and a crest is a raised protrusion from a surface.
Recitations of any separate quantity of crests or troughs, or any separate comparison of characteristics [i.e. “radius of curvature” and “thickness”], would also be indefinite. As described in paragraph 10f Examiner interprets any claim limits as to quantity or characteristics of waves or crests, or comparisons thereof as being on either surface of the transition portion.
For the purposes of examining, Examiner has interpreted, in light of paragraphs a-d above, the claims as follows, and suggests changing claim limits as follows:
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation in lines 3-5 “a wave structure with more than 3 wave crests (R4, R6, R8) and wave troughs (R5, R7, R9)” is interpreted by the Examiner as “the wave structure with more than 3 wave crests and more than 3 wave troughs”, and it is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitation as such.
Regarding 4, the recitation in lines 3-8, “the wave crests and the wave troughs have radii of curvature, wherein mutually adjacent wave crests and wave troughs preferably have different radii of curvature and/or one of: the wave troughs have larger radii of curvature than the wave crests.” is interpreted by the Examiner as “the wave crests and the wave troughs have radii of curvature, wherein mutually adjacent wave crests and wave troughs and it is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitation as shown for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation in line 4 “a wave structure with preferably only one wave trough (R1)” and the recitation in line 7 “a transition curve having the wave trough or the wave curve” which are interpreted by the Examiner as ””, and “a transition curve having the wave trough or the wave curve” and it is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitations as shown for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 14, the recitation in lines 3-4 “a wave structure with one wave trough or two wave troughs”, is interpreted by the Examiner as “”, and it is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitations as shown for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 16 , the recitation in lines 2-3 “has at least one wave crest, or has both a wave crest and a wave trough.” is interpreted by the Examiner as “has at least one wave trough or at least one wave crest, or has both a wave crest and a wave trough, and it is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitations as shown for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 23, the recitation in lines 3-4 “a wave structure with more than 3 wave crests and more than 5 wave troughs.”, is interpreted by the Examiner as “.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation “a wheel disc body manufactured from a metallic preform” is indefinite, because it includes method limits, and thus is not limiting (MPEP 2113). It is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitation to “a wheel disc body formed of a metallic material”.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation in line 15 “the disc edge” is indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same or different from “a radial outer disc edge” recited in line 8. For the purposed of examining, Examiner has interpreted the recitation to be the same as in line 8, and the examiner suggests changing the recitation to “the radial outer disc edge” for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation in line 19 “when viewed in the radial direction ” is indefinite because: the thickness of the transitional section is defined axially, and viewable in a radial cross section. For the purposed of examining, Examiner has interpreted the recitation to be the same as in line 8, and the examiner suggests changing the recitation to “when viewed in a radial cross section” for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation in line 20 the recitation “the surface” is indefinite because it is unclear on which side(s) of the transition surface (i.e. transition portion) is being referred to as having a wave structure: the inboard surface, the outboard surface or both the inboard surface and the outboard surface, or either the inboard surface or outboard surfaces. Furthermore, because the side having the feature, is only described by production method as being formed by a tool, and Figures 2, 4, 7and 9 show the waves on the inboard, outboard, or both inboard and outboard surfaces, Examiner has interpreted the recitation as “at least one of the inboard surface, the outboard surface or both the inboard and the outboard surfaces”, for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation in line 2 “the outer disc edge” is indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same or different from “ a radial outer disc edge” as recited in lines 7-8 of claim 1. For the purposed of examining, Examiner has interpreted the recitation to be the same as in lined 7- 8 of claim 1, and the examiner suggests changing the recitation to “the radial outer disc edge” for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation in lines 2-3” the radial outer disc edge has an end section which is designed as a rim flange”, is indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by it: specifically it is unclear if the end section of the radial outer disc edge, and the end section, and the rim flange are the same parts or each different from eachother; and if the same, why multiple names are needed for the same part. For the purposes of examining, Examiner has interpreted the radial outer disc edge to be a different part from the rim flange, adjacent to , and has interpreted the end section of the radial outer disc edge, as being the same as the radially outer disc edge, and the recitation will be changed to “the radial outer disc edge is adjacent to a rim flange” in rejection paragraphs following.
Regarding Claim 5, the recitation “a wave structure generating changes in material thickness with wave troughs and wave crests”, is indefinite, as it is unclear how a wave structure can “generate changes in thickness”, as the later would cause the former. For the purposes of examining, Examiner has interpreted the recitation as “a wave structure including changes in material thickness in the wave troughs and wave crests”, and claim limits will be changed to this for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 8, the recitation in line 3 “partial section partially designing the transition surface, which section adjoins the inner ring section, is not interrupted by the ventilation holes”, is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by it. Specification (Page 4, 15-16) does not provide a clear definition or description for what is meant by “partial section” and while Fig 6a does identify by a callout for reference character 175 “a partial section”, it is unclear what portion of the wheel the callout is directed at (see paragraphs 2 and 3 of this document). Furthermore, it is not clear how, the partial section, being a defined line or area upon the transition surface, could be capable of “designing the transition surface”, which is already designed, prior to the partial section being defined thereon. For the purposes of examining, Examiner has interpreted “partial section” as a sectional line, directed radially, passing through a portion of the rim, transition, and inner ring, and Examiner suggests changing the recitation in line 3 to “line 3 “partial section on the transition portion wherein the partial section adjoins the inner ring section, and is not interrupted by the ventilation holes”, for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 12, the recitation in lines 2-5: “wherein several ventilation holes formed by different hole contours form a window-like hole group together with the associated bridge webs, which group covers a window area with a circumferential contour, which corresponds to a round hole, a triangular hole with rounded corners or a square hole with rounded corners.”, is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by: “window-like” and/or “a window area”, and because “like” is a relative term., and because it is unclear if the “hole contours” are the same or different from the “circumferential contour”. For the purposes of examining Examiner has interpreted “the hole contours” , “window like contours” and “circumferential contour” as referring to the feature, and as such, “window like contours” and “circumferential contour” will be shown in strikethrough font. Examiner suggests changing the limit to “wherein several ventilation holes having different hole contours with the associated bridge webs, form a hole group in an area, said different hole contours which corresponds to a round hole or a triangular hole with rounded corners, or a square hole with rounded corners.”, for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation in line 8 “a wave trough”, has prior antecedent basis in line 4. It is suggested by Examiner to change the recitation to “the wave trough”, for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation in line 6 “preferably”, is indefinite, as it is unclear what the meets and bounds of the claim limits are. It is suggested by the examiner delete preferably from line 8, for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 3, 5, 14, 23, have recitations of “a wave structure”, has prior antecedent basis in claim 1. It is suggested by Examiner to change the recitations to “the wave structure”, for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation in line 1 “the wheel disc is designed as a full-face wheel disc”, contradicts with claim 1 (reciting vent holes in the wheel disc). It is suggested that the recitation be deleted from claim 15, for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation in line 8 “preferably”, is indefinite, as it is unclear what the meets and bounds of the claim limits are. It is suggested by the examiner delete preferably from line 8, for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation in lines 10-11 “the wheel disc diameter”, for which there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitation to “a wheel disc diameter” for greater clarity.
Regarding Claims 20, the recitation in line 3 , “the wheel disc is designed according to claim 1, wherein preferably, a front side visible in the assembly state of the vehicle wheel on a vehicle consists of the side of the wheel disc body pressed against the spinning chuck during flow forming or in the flow forming step” is indefinite as described below:
it is unclear how the wheel disc could be designed according to a claim of the instant application.
The italicized portion of the recitation relate to the method of production, (italicized limits not limiting, method limit in product claim, as such are not limiting.( “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production., MPEP 2113).
It is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitation to “the wheel disc according to claim 1, including a front side visible in the assembly state of the vehicle wheel on a vehicle”, for greater clarity”.
Regarding Claim 21, the recitation in linen 2-3 “the wheel disc forms a”, is indefinite as it is unclear how the wheel disc is capable of forming any feature. It is suggested by Examiner to change the recitation to “the wheel disc includes”, for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 22, the recitation in line 6 of “the ring area”, lacks antecedent basis. It is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitation to “a ring area”, for greater clarity.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 13-14, 20-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO-2015159231-A1 to Greutgen (“Greutgen”).
Regarding Claim 1, Greutgen discloses a wheel disc (10) for vehicle wheels (Abstract), with a wheel disc body (Fig 3) formed of a metallic (“sheet metal”, Para 56) which wheel disc body has a radial inner connecting flange (12) provided with several bolt holes (21) and a central hub hole (11), a (13) subsequently provided with ventilation holes (18, having shapes that are circular, oval, V-shaped, or window-like shapes, and having spoke like sections having 15 “zones of material reduction” therein between, [i.e. bridge webs], par 20, Fig 3) and a radial outer disc edge (radially outer edge of 14 “disc margin”), wherein the disc transition has a material thickness (D1-D5) that, at least partially, changes several times when viewed in (Para 27, 60-69, Fig 4a, 7, 8), between a first inner ring section (radially outer portion of 12) , which is arranged between (Fig 3, 7) the connecting flange and the disc transition, and a second outer ring section (14 “disc margin” ) (which is arranged between (Fig 7) the disc transition and the radial outer disc edge, wherein the disc transition between the inner ring section and the outer ring section has several changes in material thickness (just describedthat affects a wave structure (having changes in concavity, thickness, with elevations and depressions [i.e. crests and troughs], Para 9, 27, 60-69, Figs 4a, 7, 8, Claim 17) )).
Regarding Claim 2, Greutgen discloses the wheel disc according to claim 1, wherein the radial outer disc edge which is adjacent to a rim flange or the radially outer disc edge has an end section which is connectable to a wheel rim italicized strike through limits not limiting, method limit in product claim: “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production., MPEP 2113), Specifically, the latter case in the “or”: the radially outer disc edge has an end section (20 “rim mounting part”) which is connectable to a wheel rim (not shown, Para 47, 54).
Regarding Claim 3, Greutgen discloses the wheel disc according to claim 1, wherein the disc transition has, a wave structure with more than 3 wave and more than 3 wave troughs crests (shown in radial cross section if 15 “zone of material reduction”, the inner surface having 4 concave portions [i.e. crests] and 5 convex portions [i.e. troughs], and changes in thickness, Fig 8) (italicized limits not limiting, method limit in product claim: “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production., MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 4, Greutgen discloses the wheel disc according to claim 3, wherein the wave crests and the wave troughs have radii of curvature, wherein mutually adjacent wave crests and wave troughs and/or the wave troughs have larger radii of curvature than the wave crests. Specifically, the former case in the and/or: wherein the wave crests and the wave troughs have radii of curvature, wherein mutually adjacent wave crests and wave troughs have different radii of curvature (as shown Fig 7).
Regarding Claim 5, Greutgen discloses the wheel disc according to claim 1 wherein the disc transition also has, at least partially, on , a wave structure including changes in material thickness and wave crests (as described in paragraph 34, 35 of this document, and shown Fig 7) (italicized limits not limiting, method limit in product claim: “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production., MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 13, Greutgen discloses the wheel disc according to claim 1, wherein the inner ring section (12) has a material thickness that changes in the radial direction (axially inside portion of radially outer corner of 12, reduces in thickness and has one curve [i.e. trough] at point adjacent to axially inner portion of 13, right Fig 4) and has a wave structure with only one wave trough wherein the inner ring section via a transition curve (just described) having (italicized and strike through limits not limiting, method limit in product claim: “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production., MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 14, Greutgen discloses the wheel disc according to claim 13, wherein the inner ring section between the connecting flange and the disc transition has the wave structure with one wave trough (as described in paragraph 38 of this document) or two wave troughs.
Regarding Claim 20, Greutgen discloses a vehicle wheel, in particular for a passenger car, with a wheel disc and a wheel rim, wherein the wheel disc a front side visible in the .
Regarding Claim 21, Greutgen discloses the vehicle wheel according to claim 20, wherein the wheel disc a fully formed rim flange and a rim section (Figs 19, 22) is connected on (Figs 19, 22) the rear side of the wheel disc in the area of the outer disc edge or the outer ring portion radially offset outside to the outer transition curve into the outer ring portion (Figs 19, 22).
Regarding Claim 23, Greutgen discloses the wheel disc according to claim 1, wherein the transition surface has, at least on the upper side of the preform facing the tool during flow forming, a wave structure with more than 3 wave crests (four crests shown in radially inside of 12, of 15, 115”material reduction zone” Figs 7, 8 and more than 5 wave troughs (five troughs shown in radially inside of 12, of 15, 115”material reduction zone” Figs 7, 8).
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.
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) 6-12, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruetgen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US- 20120291283-A1 to Ikeda (“Ikeda”).
Regarding Claim 6, Gruetgen discloses a wheel disc (10) according to claim 1, including ventilation holes (18 as described in paragraph 28 of this document, the ventilation holes having various shapes [i.e. contours]) and bridge webs with a material thickness that changes in the radial direction are arranged between adjacent hole contours (as described in paragraph 28 of this document), but does not disclose wherein the ventilation holes include at least two hole contours that differ from one another or hole contours arranged differently from one another, wherein these hole contours together form a pattern field which is repeated in the circumferential direction at least one more time.
Ikeda discloses wherein the ventilation holes have at least two hole contours (a hole group formed by ten 6, “ornamental holes” having five truncated triangular and five rectangular shapes, Fig 2) which differ (in shape) from one another and which are arranged differently (alternating circumferentially, forming a repeating pattern by one truncated triangular hole and one rectangular hole repeated 5 times, wherein the truncated triangular holes extend farther radially outward than the rectangular holes, and a partial section [i.e. a radial line can be extended between vent holes, between 8 and 4, Fig 2) from one another, and wherein bridge webs (5 “spoke portions”, Para 32, 5 have a straight shape, running in parallel pairs at each side of the rectangular holes, and running skewed pairs at each side of the truncated triangular holes with a constant width [i.e. straight asymmetrical strut shape] over a portion of the extension length of 5, as shown Fig 2) with a material thickness (Fig 1) that changes (at near rounded corners, Fig 2) in the radial direction are arranged between adjacent hole contours.
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel disc and the wheel disc having at least two hole contours which differ from eachother and are arranged differently, in a single combined apparatus.
The specific shape and arrangement thereof of the ventilation holes is/are not an inventive concept, but rather a design choice made from many possible aesthetic (i.e. shape and arrangement of ventilation holes) choices, made as a part of routine design optimization giving proper consideration of, aesthetics, use, design loads, material and manufacturing requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected specific shapes and arrangement for the ventilation holes of the wheel disc of Gruetgen, specifically triangular and square shapes (like Ikeda), such that the ventilation holes had shapes including at least two hole contours which differ from eachother and are arranged differently, with the motivation achieve a specific aesthetic design for the wheel disc, while ensuring the wheel disc was also sufficiently designed to meet the design parameters just described. This combination/modification being done with a reasonable expectation of success and having equivalent function in the combination as in the separately configurations.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Gruetgen and Ikeda discloses the wheel disc according to claim 6, wherein each pattern field has several ventilation holes, discloses wherein each pattern field has several ventilation holes having with different hole contours and intermediate struts between the ventilation holes with changing material thickness (as described in paragraph 47 of this document).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Gruetgen and Ikeda discloses the wheel disc according to claim 6, wherein each pattern field has at least one partial section (as described in paragraph 47 of this document) , and is not interrupted by ventilation holes, and has a changing material thickness viewed in the radial direction.
Regarding Claim 9, Gruetgen discloses the wheel disc according to claim 1, including ventilation holes in the transition surface (as described in paragraph 28 of this document, the ventilation holes having various shapes [i.e. contours]) and bridge webs with a material thickness that changes in the radial direction are arranged between adjacent hole contours (as described in paragraph 28 of this document).
Gruetgen does not specifically disclose the shape of the ventilation holes, nor that the ventilation holes have at least two hole contours which differ from one another or hole contours which are arranged differently from one another.
Ikeda discloses wherein the ventilation holes have at least two hole contours (a hole group formed by ten 6, “ornamental holes” having five truncated triangular and five rectangular shapes, Fig 2) which differ (in shape) from one another and which are arranged differently (alternating circumferentially, forming a repeating pattern by one truncated triangular hole and one rectangular hole repeated 5 times, wherein the truncated triangular holes extend farther radially outward than the rectangular holes) from one another, and wherein bridge webs (5 “spoke portions”, Para 32, 5 have a straight shape, running in parallel pairs at each side of the rectangular holes, and running skewed pairs at each side of the truncated triangular holes with a constant width [i.e. straight asymmetrical strut shape] over a portion of the extension length of 5, as shown Fig 2) with a material thickness (Fig 1) that changes (at near rounded corners, Fig 2) in the radial direction are arranged between adjacent hole contours.
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel disc and the wheel disc having at least two hole contours which differ from eachother and are arranged differently, in a single combined apparatus.
The specific shape and arrangement thereof of the ventilation holes is/are not an inventive concept, but rather a design choice made from many possible aesthetic (i.e. shape and arrangement of ventilation holes) choices, made as a part of routine design optimization giving proper consideration of, aesthetics, use, design loads, material and manufacturing requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected specific shapes and arrangement for the ventilation holes of the wheel disc of Gruetgen, specifically triangular and square shapes (like Ikeda), such that the ventilation holes had shapes including at least two hole contours which differ from eachother and are arranged differently, with the motivation achieve a specific aesthetic design for the wheel disc, while ensuring the wheel disc was also sufficiently designed to meet the design parameters just described. This combination/modification being done with a reasonable expectation of success and having equivalent function in the combination as in the separately configurations.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Greutgen and Ikeda discloses the wheel disc according to claim 9, wherein the bridge webs (as described in paragraph 35 of this document) have a constant width at least partially over a partial extension length (as described in paragraph 53 of this document).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Greutgen and Ikeda discloses the wheel disc according to claim 9 wherein several bridge webs run parallel to one another (as described in paragraph 63 of this document) or skew to one another (as described in paragraph 53 of this document) and/or cross each other, and/or wherein the bridge webs are designed as round curves, straight struts (as described in paragraph 63 of this document) and/or asymmetrical struts. Specifically, the bridge webs are designed as straight struts and asymmetrical struts (as described in paragraph 53 of this document).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Greutgen and Ikeda discloses the wheel disc according to claim 9, wherein several ventilation holes having different hole contours with the associated bridge webs, form a hole group (as described in paragraph 53 of this document) in an area, said different hole contours comprise round, or triangular with rounded corners, or square with rounded corners (rectangular being a stretched square, as described in paragraph 53 of this document).
Regarding Claim 24, Greutgen discloses the wheel disc according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the ventilation holes in the disc transition a pattern field which is repeated in the circumferential direction at least three times.
Ikeda discloses wherein the ventilation holes have at least two hole contours (a hole group formed by ten 6, “ornamental holes” having five truncated triangular and five rectangular shapes, Fig 2) which differ (in shape) from one another and which are arranged differently (alternating circumferentially, wherein the truncated triangular holes extend farther radially outward than the rectangular holes), the holes forming a repeating pattern (alternating one truncated triangular hole and one rectangular) forming a pattern field that is repeated (5 times.
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel disc and the ventilation holes in the disc transition portion have at least two hole contours that differ from one another or hole contours arranged differently from one another, wherein these hole contours together form a pattern field which is repeated in the circumferential direction at least three times, in a single combined apparatus.
The specific shape and arrangement thereof of the ventilation holes is/are not an inventive concept, but rather a design choice made from many possible aesthetic choices (i.e. shape and arrangement of ventilation holes, arrangement and patterns formed thereof), made as a part of routine design optimization giving proper consideration of, aesthetics, use, design loads, material and manufacturing requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected specific shapes for, arrangement of, and patterns form by the ventilation holes of the wheel disc of Gruetgen, specifically triangular and square shapes (like Ikeda), such that the ventilation holes included at least two hole contours that differ from one another, were arranged differently from one another, form a pattern field that is repeated in the circumferential direction at least three times, with the motivation achieve a specific aesthetic design for the wheel disc, while ensuring the wheel disc was also sufficiently designed to meet the design parameters just described. This combination/modification being done with a reasonable expectation of success and having equivalent function in the combination as in the separately configurations.
Claim(s) 15-16 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greutgen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US- 6473967 to Coleman (“Coleman”).
Regarding Claim 15, Greutgen discloses the wheel disc according to claim 1, including an outer ring section (14).
Greutgen does not disclose the wheel disc with a rim flange and the outer ring section has a ring zone with a planar surface , aligned orthogonally to an axis of rotation of the wheel disc, wherein the ring zone has a length a length of the ring zone of at least 25 mm, 28 mm, 32 mm or 35 mm in the radial direction, and/or a length in the radial direction, which is larger than 1/20 of a for strikeout font see paragraphs 18 and 26-28, and 34 of this document).
Coleman discloses a wheel disc (450, Col 4 lines 36, Col 7 lines 30-Col 8 line 39, Figs 37, 38) with a rim flange (Radially outermost portion of 444 bent axially in Fig 37, 38) and the outer ring section has a ring zone (444) with a planar surface (radially outer portion of 444 perpendicular to axis X1, having the 454 “outer end portion” with a bend therein between having a radially inner concave portion [i.e. trough] and an radially outer convex portion [i.e. crest] a Fig 37, 38) aligned orthogonally to an axis of rotation (X1) of the wheel disc, wherein the ring zone has a length (length of ring zone is trimmed to a length, Col 8, lines 13-20, Fig 36-37, 38).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel disc and the wheel with a rim flange and the outer ring section has a ring zone with a planar surface, aligned orthogonally to an axis of rotation of the wheel disc, wherein the ring zone has a length a length of the ring zone, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel disc of Greutgen and the wheel with a rim flange and the outer ring section has a ring zone with a planar surface, aligned orthogonally to an axis of rotation of the wheel disc, wherein the ring zone has a length (like Coleman) to modify the wheel disc of Greutgen, specifically the attachment of the wheel disc to a rim, such that the outer ring section of the wheel disc had a ring zone with a planar surface, aligned orthogonally to an axis of rotation of the wheel disc (like Coleman), wherein the ring zone has a length, with the motivation to provide a flat portion to improve the connection to the outer ring flange , having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success. The specific dimensions for the length of the ring zone is/are not an inventive concept, but rather a design choice made from many possible dimensional choices, made as a part of routine design optimization giving proper consideration of fit, use, design loads, material and manufacturing requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected specific dimensions for the length of the ring zone of the wheel disc of the combination of Greutgen and Coleman, such that the length of the ring was of at least 25 mm and/or a length in the radial direction, which is larger than 1/20 of a , with the motivation to ensure wheel disc was sufficiently designed to meet the design parameters just described, specifically to fit the rim to the desired wheel dimensions, This combination/modification being done with a reasonable expectation of success and having equivalent function.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Greutgen and Coleman discloses the wheel disc according to claim 15, wherein one wave crest or has both a wave crest and a wave trough. Specifically the later case of the “or”, both a wave crest and a wave trough as described in paragraph 55 of this document).
Regarding Claim 22, Greutgen discloses the vehicle wheel according to Claim 21, wherein the wheel disc on the outer ring (14) .
Greutgen does not disclose the outer ring has a ring zone with a planar surface,
Coleman discloses a wheel disc (450, Col 4 lines 36, Col 7 lines 30-Col 8 line 39, Figs 37, 38) with a rim flange (Radially outermost portion of 444 bent axially in Fig 37, 38) and the outer ring section has a ring zone (444) with a planar surface (radially outer portion of 444 perpendicular to axis X1, and a convex surface [i.e. wave crest] and a concave surface [i.e. wave trough] at transition to bend, as shown Figs 36 -38) aligned orthogonally to an axis of rotation (X1) of the wheel disc, wherein the ring zone has a length (length of ring zone is trimmed to a length, Col 8, lines 13-20, Fig 36-37, 38).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel disc and the wheel with a rim flange and the outer ring section has a ring zone with a planar surface, aligned orthogonally to an axis of rotation of the wheel disc, wherein the ring zone has a length, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel disc of Greutgen and the wheel with a rim flange and the outer ring section has a ring zone with a planar surface, aligned orthogonally to an axis of rotation of the wheel disc, wherein the ring zone has a length (like Coleman) to modify the wheel disc of Greutgen, specifically the attachment of the wheel disc to a rim, such that the outer ring section of the wheel disc had a ring zone with a planar surface, aligned orthogonally to an axis of rotation of the wheel disc (like Coleman), wherein the ring zone has a length a length of the ring, with the motivation to provide a flat portion to improve the connection to the outer ring flange , having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
The specific dimensions for the length of the ring zone is/are not an inventive concept, but rather a design choice made from many possible dimensional choices, made as a part of routine design optimization giving proper consideration of fit, use, design loads, material and manufacturing requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected specific dimensions for the length of the ring of the wheel disc of the combination of Greutgen and Coleman, such that the length of the ring zone was of at least 25 mm and/or a length in the radial direction, which is larger than 1/20 of a , with the motivation to ensure wheel disc was sufficiently designed to meet the design parameters just described, specifically to fit the rim to the desired wheel dimensions, This combination/modification being done with a reasonable expectation of success and having equivalent function.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed on PTO-982, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and discloses wheel having wheel discs, with at least one of: inner rings that connect to a wheel hub, and outer ring portions having a rim flange or connecting to a rim flange, and a disc body having transition portions having wave structure including crests and troughs, on at least one surface of the transition portions, and vent holes having different shapes and arrangements that form patterns and patter fields, and the transitions having a varying thickness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights