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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "22" and "28" have both been used to designate the same element in Figure 2. Given the fact that reference character “22” denotes an overall element of the invention, it should include an arrowhead at the end of its leader line.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “30” has been used to designate both the inner surface of the wheel in Figure 1 and the coating system in Figure 3.
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. 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: Paragraph [0001] fails to provide the 371 status of the application.
In paragraphs [0026] and [0030], reference to US Applications is improper, given the fact that an Application is not a published document readily available to the general public. The Application numbers should be replaced with the US Patent numbers associated therewith. Furthermore, see section 2 above.
Reference character “54” is used to denote the PVD metal layer in paragraph [0027] and the first light portion in paragraph [0028].
Reference character “58” is used to denote the translucent coating in paragraph [0027] and the red coloration in paragraph [0028].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term - -a- - should be inserted between the terms “to” and “base” in line 2, for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-15 is 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what element of the invention includes “a second portion” being reflected by the translucent polymer coating. Furthermore, if the aforementioned “second portion” is part of the “first portion of light” that illuminates the wheel, it is unclear how the “second portion” can both “reflect” and “pass therethrough” the translucent polymer coating.
The term “about” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No quantitative or qualitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the polymer resin" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stebbins et al (10,399,380).
Per claim 1, Stebbins et al shows a vehicle wheel 10 including a face (i.e. disk) portion 14 and a rim portion 12, which define a wheel surface 24. The face portion 14 includes a plurality of spokes 22 (See Figure 1). As shown in Figure 3, the wheel surface 24 includes thereon a translucent polymer coating (40 and/or 42) defining an outermost coating, which may be tinted. A first portion of light illuminating the wheel will reflect a second portion thereof from the surface of the outermost coating, while a third portion thereof may pass through the outermost coating to reflect a forth portion of light from one or more of the other coating layers on the wheel surface 24.
Per claim 2, the translucent polymer coating 240/242 may be adhered to an alloy substrate 232 defining the wheel surface 224 (Figure 5).
Per claim 3, Figure 3 shows the translucent polymer coating 40/42 is adhered to a base polymer layer 34 defining the wheel surface 24. The base polymer 34 is pigmented.
Per claim 4, Figure 3 shows the translucent polymer coating 40/42 adhered to a PVD metal layer 38 defining the wheel surface 24.
Per claim 5, Figure 5 shows the translucent polymer coating 240/242 adhered to at least one of a base polymer layer 234 and an alloy substrate 232 defining the wheel surface 224.
Per claim 6, Figure 5 shows the translucent polymer coating 240/242 adhered to at least one of a PVD metal layer 238 and an alloy substrate 232 defining the wheel surface 224.
Per claim 8, the translucent polymer coating 40/42 may be a pigmented powder coating material.
Per claim 9, Stebbins et al discloses that in Figure 3, the base polymer layer 34 may be pigmented a first hue, while the translucent polymer coating 40/42 may be pigmented a second hue.
Per claim 10, Stebbins et al discloses that in Figure 3, both the base polymer layer 34 and the translucent polymer coating 40/42 may be pigmented the same hue.
Per claim 11, Stebbins et al discloses that at least one of the translucent polymer coating and the base coating may include an additive having “light reflective properties” (i.e. metal flake).
Per claim 13, the second portion of light would define a first hue, while the fourth portion of light would define a third hue.
Per claim 14, the outermost translucent polymer coating 40/42 is defined by one of a high, medium, or low gloss.
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(s) 7, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbins et al.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Stebbins et al does not disclose the film thickness of the translucent polymer coating 40 and/or 42. However, it is well known in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the film thickness of an outermost coating is a result effective variable, dependent upon the desired level of gloss and/or depth of color of a paint job.
Regarding claim 15, Stebbins et al does not disclose the outermost translucent coating 42 including approximately 20% by weight of pigment. However, it is well known in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the percentage by weight of pigment is a result effective variable, which determines the desired strength or depth of color.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show wheels having multiple layered painted surfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights