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 cover hood from claim 20 (Note: Paragraph 0030 of the specification discloses “a cover element 90 in the form of a cover hood” which makes it appears that the cover element and the cover hood are the same element. How can the cover element include a cover hood if the cover hood is the cover element? Should claim 20 be amended to recite --wherein the cover element is a cover hood--?)
The hubcap from claim 27
The commercial vehicle tire from claims 28 and 29
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 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, 16, 17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badstue (US 2007/0169818 A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 7,234,485 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Badstue discloses a venting system, comprising:
a base body (102) having a mounting section (the section around 106) and a sealing section (the section where 130 is located), wherein the base body and/or the mounting section and/or the sealing section extend in a longitudinal direction (along the axial centerline of 102 in Figure 1), and wherein the base body has a fluid channel (112, 114, 116, 124, 126, 128) which extends from the mounting section into the sealing section; and
at least one sealing ring (130) held in at least circumferential groove (130 is located in a recessed portion of the sealing section as shown in Figure 1) in the sealing section, wherein the at least one groove is configured to be brought into fluid connection with the fluid channel via breakthroughs (128).
Badstue does not disclose that a sound-absorbing element is arranged within the fluid channel.
Yamamoto et al. teaches a sound-absorbing element (45 is made of foam in the same manner as Applicant’s sound-absorbing element thus meeting the claim limitation; Column 6 / Lines 38-45) arranged within a fluid channel (the area where 45) for the purpose of preventing foreign debris from passaging through the valve (Column 4 / Lines 12-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the venting system of Badstue to have a sound-absorbing element arranged within the fluid channel for the purpose of preventing foreign debris from passaging through the valve, as taught by Yamamoto et al.
Regarding claim 13, Badstue discloses that the at least one groove includes a rounded side wall (130 is a ring-shaped member thus the side wall is viewed as being rounded) or a rounded groove base.
Regarding claim 16, Badstue discloses that the sealing section has an outer cylindrical or polygonal section (see Figure 1), and wherein the at least one groove is provided in this section in the direction of a radial direction (left-to-right in Figure 1) and/or in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 17, Badstue in view of Yamamoto et al. discloses that the sound-absorbing element comprises a foam material (Column 6 / Lines 38-45; Yamamoto et al.).
Regarding claim 19, Badstue discloses that the venting system has a cover element (134) that covers the at least one sealing ring arranged in the sealing section (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 20, Badstue discloses that the cover element includes a cover hood (134 is viewed as a cover hood).
Regarding claim 21, Badstue discloses that the at least one sealing ring is radially arranged in the sealing section (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 22, Badstue discloses that the cover element is fixed to the base body (the cover element appears to mound to the necked down portion of 102 as shown in Figure 5 thus the 134 is viewed as being mounted to the base body).
Regarding claim 23, Badstue discloses that the cover element is reversibly fixed to the base body (the cover element appears to mound to the necked down portion of 102 as shown in Figure 5 thus the 134 is viewed as being mounted to the base body; as best understood, the phrase “reversibly fixed” is viewed as meaning 134 is capable of being detached from the base body, and that method of detaching is viewed as being broad which can constitute various methods of removal).
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US 11,712,922 B2) in view of Badstue (US 2007/0169818 A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 7,234,485 B2).
Regarding claim 27, Henry et al. discloses a hubcap (4) with a venting system (2).
Henry et al. does not disclose that the venting system is according to claim 11.
Badstue in view of Yamamoto et al. teaches a venting system according to claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above) for the purpose of providing a pressure relief device that is resistant to wear and tear and which allows for a variable threshold pressure level (see Paragraph 0009 of Badstue).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the venting system of Henry et al. to be the venting system according to claim 11 for the purpose of providing a pressure relief device that is resistant to wear and tear and which allows for a variable threshold pressure level, as taught by Badstue in view of Yamamoto et al.
Regarding claim 28, Henry et al. in view of Badstue in view of Yamamoto et al. discloses a method of venting a commercial vehicle tire (see Figure 1 of Henry et al.) comprising providing the hubcap according to claim 27, and sound-absorbing venting the commercial vehicle tire via the hubcap.
Regarding claim 29, Henry et al. in view of Badstue in view of Yamamoto et al. discloses a method of venting a commercial vehicle tire (see Figure 1 of Henry et al.) comprising providing the venting system according to claim 11, and sound-absorbing the commercial vehicle tire via the venting system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14, 15, 18, and 24-26 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Allsop (US 7,438,367 B2) discloses a hub cap with an air valve for bearing cavity pressurization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights