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 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 features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The “actuator integrated in the wheel hub” from claim 11. Fig. 2 appears to show the actuator (10) as a component that is separate from the wheel hub which sits inside the central bore, as opposed to a single integrated unit.
The variation from claim 16 “wherein the at least two movable disc segments (7) have a flat contour and, when tilted, are brought into a convex contour or a concave contour to form the air gap (17).” No initial flat contour is shown. The drawings show the at least two movable disc elements each maintaining their initial convex contour after tilting.
The variation from claim 17 “wherein the at least two movable disc segments (7) have a concave contour and, when tilted, are brought into a flat contour or a convex contour to form the air gap (17).” No initial concave contour is shown. The drawings show the at least two movable disc elements each maintaining their initial convex contour after tilting.
The variation from claim 18 “wherein the at least two movable disc elements … when tilted, are brought into a flat contour or a concave contour to form the air gap (17).” The drawings show the at least two movable disc elements each maintaining their initial convex contour after tilting.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.84(r) for using arrows on the ends of lead lines pointing to individual components rather than an entire section. It is suggested to remove the arrows from lead lines pointing to single components.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(4). Fig. 2 shows 2 positions of the invention on the same drawing without using a broken line to show the moved position. This makes the drawing confusing and difficult to read clearly.
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 “electromagnetic actuator” has been referred both by reference numeral “10” (throughout the specification and drawings) and reference numeral “8” (pg. 6, para. 27).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his 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.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “movable bearing point”. There is no description in the disclosure of what would make the claimed bearing point “movable”. From the drawing it appears that the bearing point is fixed to the spoke and does not move with the tilting of the disc segments so it is unclear what is meant by “movable”. In order to advance prosecution, it is assumed, based on the seemingly fixed bearing point in the drawings and lack of explanation otherwise, the applicant intended to claim that the disc segments are movable in relation to, or about, the bearing point.
Claims 16-18 describe the contour of the movable disc segments changing when tilting. However, it is unclear from the claims, specification or drawings how the contour of the movable disc segments changes when they are tilted. Figure 2 shows the movable disc segments having a convex contour both before and after they are tilted.
Claims 12-15 and 19-20 are dependent on rejected claim 11.
Claims 11-20 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.
The term “via”, as used in claim 11, lines 9 and 11 and in claim 19, line 2, is generally narrative and indefinite term that does not fully describe a structural relationship between the elements with which it is used.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the movable bearing points on the wheel spokes” on the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the prior mention of “movable bearing points” does not limit them to being “on the wheel spokes”.
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.
Claims 11-13, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wippler US 20170043616 A1 in view of Tsiberidis US 11618279 B2.
Regarding claim 11, Wippler teaches a wheel for a motor vehicle, comprising: a wheel hub disposed centrally in the wheel and having wheel spokes 234 (referred to as a “support”); a wheel rim 214 disposed radially in a circumferential region of the wheel; a wheel disc 216 (referred to as “spokes” as they are more prominently seen but do not serve the structural function of spokes like the “support” 234 does) disposed in an intermediate region between the wheel hub and the wheel rim 214; and an actuator 224 ; wherein the wheel disc 216 is divided into at least two movable disc segments separated from one another by a respective separating gap and wherein the actuator 234 is connected to the at least two movable disc segments 216 via connecting elements 238; wherein the at least two movable disc segments 216 are tiltable and are connected to the wheel spokes 234 via movable bearing points 236; wherein an angular position of the at least two movable disc segments 216 is changeable by tilting the at least two movable disc segments 216 about the movable bearing points 236 on the wheel spokes 234. (Figs 12-15)
Wippler does not teach the actuator integrated in the wheel hub. Rather that each spoke gets an individual actuator/”servo”. Tsiberidis teaches a wheel with movable segments using several different types of actuator both on the spokes and in the central hub area to move radial connecting rods outward and inward in order to open and close the wheel segments. (Fig. 2a and 2b show on the spoke; Figs. 7-10 show various central actuators) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a central actuator instead of individual actuators on each spoke to save cost with a reasonable expectation of success
Regarding claim 12, Wippler and Tsiberidis teach the wheel according to claim 11. Wippler further teaches wherein when the at least two movable disc segments 216 are tilted, an air gap is formed between an edge region, adjacent to the wheel rim 214, of the at least two movable disc segments 216 and the wheel rim 214. (Fig. 14 shows the air gap is between the disc segment and the flat surface the disc segments sit against when flat)
Regarding claim 13, Wippler and Tsiberidis teach the wheel according to claim 11. Wippler further teaches wherein the connecting elements 238 are tilting joints or hinge joints. (Fig. 14; hinge joints are on either end of the connecting linkage bar)
Regarding claim 15, Wippler and Tsiberidis teach the wheel according to claim 11. Wippler further teaches wherein the at least two movable disc segments 216 consist of a dimensionally stable material. (Figs. 14 and 15; the disc segments do not deform when moved)
Regarding claims 16 , Wippler and Tsiberidis teach the wheel according to claim 12. Wippler further teaches the disc segments have a flat contour which is then brought into a convex contour when tilted to form the air gap.
Regarding claim 19, Wippler and Tsiberidis teach the wheel according to claim 11. Wippler further teaches wherein the actuator 236 is controllable wirelessly via a control unit 44 of the motor vehicle by a control signal. (para. 46, Fig. 14)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Back et al. US 20180281510 A1 teaches a wheel with vents that open by centrifugal force. Davis et al. US 20080036285 A1 teaches a wheel cover with movable openings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX R PALMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm MST.
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) 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.
/AP/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights