DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
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 reaction element (optionally) located on the wheel (claim 2) and reaction protrusions with (optional) a rounded or chamfered edge or reaction protrusions that tapers (claim 7; protrusions shown as constant diameter with a flat end) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “offered towards” should be changed to “moved towards”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“reaction element” and “reaction surface” in claims 1, 2, 4, 5
“anchoring feature” in claim 11
“engagement mechanism” in claim 17
“socket features” and “engagement features” in claims 19-20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 2 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 claims 1 and 2, as noted above, the drawings do not show the reaction element on the wheel (only shown on the hub) and the specification fails to specifically disclose how the reaction surface would be positioned on the wheel (particularly when looking to the optional limitation of claim 2 that the socket is arranged around the reaction element). Therefore, it is unclear how the claimed reaction surface could be positioned on the wheel.
Additionally, regarding claim 1, the limitation that “the socket and the reaction element are simultaneously engageable with the nut and the reaction surface, respectively” is unclear because it may be interpreted to define relative positions by indicating that the engagement is made simultaneously (at the same time) as the tool is moved into engagement with the nut and hub, or merely that the components can be in engagement at the same time once installed. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the components can be in engagement at the same time once installed, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
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, 2, 4-7, 19-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hulbrock et al. (2022/0025920).
Regarding claim 1, HU discloses a wheel fastening system for a vehicle, the wheel fastening system comprising: a hub (shown as 15A of prior art in Fig. B) on which a wheel (12A) is mountable, the hub comprising a threaded surface; a nut (110) which is engageable with the threaded surface to fasten the wheel to the hub; and a tool (200) comprising: a socket (210) that is engageable with the nut; a reaction element (220) that is engageable with a reaction surface (122) on the hub or the wheel, wherein, when the wheel is mounted on the hub and the nut is engaged with the threaded surface, the socket and the reaction element are simultaneously engageable with the nut and the reaction surface, respectively; and a gearbox (drive tool 300 disclosed as any number of HYTORC® drivers, including HYTORC® Lithium Series®, having a gearbox, as shown in Fortoloczki 11,077,543, provided as extrinsic evidence) configured to simultaneously apply opposing torques to the socket and the reaction element.
Regarding claim 2, HU further discloses that the reaction element is arranged concentrically around the socket, and wherein the reaction surface is located on the wheel.
Regarding claim 4, HU further discloses that the reaction element comprises a first set of reaction features which are engageable with a second set of reaction features (122) on the reaction surface (Shown engaged in Figs. 11C-11D).
Regarding claim 5, HU further discloses that the first set of reaction features and the second set of reaction features are arranged in a ring about a central axis of the hub when the reaction element is engaged with the reaction surface.
Regarding claim 6, HU further discloses that a first one of the first set and the second set of reaction features includes a set of reaction protrusions and a second one of the first set and second set of reaction features includes a set of reaction openings in which the reaction protrusions are engageable (both sets include protrusions with openings therebetween).
Regarding claim 7, HU further discloses that each reaction opening has an area that is larger than a maximum cross-sectional area of each of the reaction protrusions (necessary to allow the protrusions to enter the openings), or wherein each reaction opening has a first angular extent that is larger than a second angular extent of each of the reaction protrusions (as seen in Fig. 11C), the first angular extent and the second angular extent being defined relative to a central axis of the hub when the reaction element is engaged with the reaction surface.
Regarding claim 19, HU further discloses that the socket comprises a set of socket features (shown but not numbered in Figs. 7A and 7C) which are engageable with a set of engagement features (112) on the nut.
Regarding claim 20, HU further discloses that the set of socket features and the set of engagement features are arranged in a ring about a central axis of the hub when the socket is engaged with the nut.
Regarding claim 21, HU further discloses that a first one of the set of socket features and the set of engagement features includes a set of engagement protrusions and a second one of the set of socket features and the set of engagement features includes a set of engagement openings in which the engagement protrusions are engageable (both sets include protrusions with openings therebetween).
Regarding claim 22, HU further discloses that each of the engagement protrusions has an end with a rounded or chamfered edge (clearly shown as chamfered in Fig. 7C), or wherein each of the engagement protrusions has a cross-sectional area that tapers (radially outwardly) towards an end of the engagement protrusion.
Regarding claim 26, HU further discloses that the tool have electric motors (paragraph 84), which are configured to apply torque to the input of the gear box (again, drive tool 300 disclosed as any number of HYTORC® drivers, including HYTORC® Lithium Series®, having a gearbox and motor 102 , as shown in Fortoloczki 11,077,543, provided as extrinsic evidence).
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.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulbrock et al. (2022/0025920; to be referred to hereinafter as HU).
While Hulborck does not disclose an actual vehicle, Hulbrock does disclose that the wheel fastening system is configured for connecting a wheel to a vehicle (effectively any structure having wheels may be considered a “vehicle”, but also understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to be intended for motor vehicles such as cars), such that it would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to provide a vehicle having the hub(s) disclosed by Hulbrock, to have the wheels mounted thereto.
Claims 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulbrock et al. (2022/0025920 to be referred to hereinafter as HU) as applied to claim 1, and in view of Leypoldt et al. (DE 3844169 A1; to be referred to hereinafter as LE).
Regarding claim 11, HU discloses that the tool further comprises a first anchoring feature (protruding from center of the socket), but does not disclose a second anchoring feature on the hub. LE discloses a similar wheel fastening system, also having a hub (2), nut (6) and tool (17) for driving the nut, and teaches that the hub includes a set of locking balls (4) to effectively lock the nut in place when installed and prevent unintentional removal of the nut, with the tool having a anchoring feature (19) that is configured to engage a second anchoring feature (locking pin 8) on the hub when the socket is engaged with the nut, to release the locking balls to an unlocked positions, to allow for installation or removal of the nut. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the system of HU with a similar locking mechanism for the nut, such that the anchoring feature shown by HU will engage with a similar second anchoring feature (locking pin 8) on the hub when the socket and the reaction element are engaged with the nut and the reaction surface, to provide the same locking/unlocking function taught by LE.
Regarding claim 13, when providing the hub with the locking mechanism taught by LE, and engaging with the tool of HU, the first anchoring feature includes an anchoring protrusion and the second anchoring feature includes an anchoring opening (housing the locking pin and locking balls therein) in which the anchoring protrusion is engageable.
Regarding claim 14, when providing the hub with the locking mechanism taught by LE, and engaging with the tool of HU, the anchoring protrusion is arranged such that the anchoring protrusion will engages the anchoring opening before the socket and the reaction element engage the nut and the reaction surface, respectively, when the tool is moved towards the hub along the axis of the hub (due to the anchoring protrusion extending well beyond the socket and reaction element).
Regarding claim 15, when providing the hub with the locking mechanism taught by LE, and engaging with the tool of HU, the first anchoring feature is arranged so that it is centered about a central axis of the hub when the socket and the reaction element are engaged with the nut and the reaction surface, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, when providing the hub with the locking mechanism taught by LE, and engaging with the tool of HU, the first anchoring feature and the second anchoring feature have circular cross-sections.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulbrock et al. (2022/0025920 to be referred to hereinafter as HU) as applied to claim 1, and in view of Matsumura et al. (5,490,439; to be referred to hereinafter as MA).
Regarding claim 24, as discussed supra, the gearbox provided in the cited HYTORC® driver tool does not disclose the specific claimed structure. However, MA discloses a similar driver, also having a planetary gear system, including a sun gear (27a), planet gears (28) and ring gear (226), and MA teaches that an inner socket (32) is connected to the plat gears (28) and the outer socket (3) is connected to the sun ring gear (26) for rotation in opposite directions, similar to the HYTORC® driver. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the drive of MA as the gearbox for the tool of HU, having similar function and structure as the gearbox of the HYTORC® driver, for driving the socket and reaction element of HU in opposite directions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 2 September 2026
Prosecution Insights