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 because in Fig. 2 number 220 points to the radially outer area and number 210 points to the radially inner area. While in fig 3-5 they are switched, number 220 points to the radially inner area and number 210 points to the radially outer area. Also, in fig 2 numbers 210 and 220 point to cross sectional cutout of the wheel. While in fig 1, and fig 3-5 item numbers 210 and 220 point to the axial side of the insert, while claims states “radial side” of insert.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “second area” as described in the specification.
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 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a step in a widthwise direction” without pointing out direction. Examiner understood it to mean “a step in an axially widthwise direction”. 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.
Claims 1-5, 11, and 13-14 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 Claim 1, the omitted structural cooperative relationship is: “a first area surrounded by the insertion area and the cover area.” It is unclear whether “surround” is in a circumferential direction all the way around the insert, or the cross section of the insert as shown in fig. 2, or both. Also, the “first area” is on the “inner area” which is cross sectionally a flat surface, which cannot be surrounded.
Regarding Claim 2, the omitted structural cooperative relationship is: it is unclear the relationship between the “first area” and the “second area”.
Regarding Claim 3 the omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the first and second areas are “disposed along a circumferential direction of the wheel”, but the areas are on the insert, not the wheel. Examiner understood it to be, “disposed along a circumferential direction of the insert”
Regarding Claim 4, the omitted structural cooperative relationships are: The “inner groove” is recited in relation to the “first area”, but, as in claim 2, the location of the first area is unclear.
Regarding Claim 5, the omitted structural cooperative relationships are: As in claim 2, the location of the first and second areas are unclear.
Regarding claim 11, the omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the “outer holes having a shape passing in a widthwise direction of the wheel are formed in the outer area”. However, from claim 1 the “outer area” is in a “radially inward direction”. The drawings show the holes in an axial direction which does not match the claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the omitted structural cooperative relationships are: “columns” are inserted into the “holes” of claim 11, which as previously noted doesn’t match the location of claim 1.
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 1-4 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US20160200138A1, Wagner et al. hereinafter Wagner), and further in view of (JPH02128958A Taima et al. hereinafter Taima).
Regarding claim 1 Wagner teaches a wheel comprising a rim, a center and an insert. “A wheel assembly comprising: a wheel; and an insert (Wagner, Abstract, line 1 “a wheel according to the invention comprises a rim and a wheel center. At least the wheel center is made out of composite material and comprises an insert.” see fig. 5 below) configured to be inserted into the wheel, (Wagner, Abstract, line 1) wherein the insert (Wagner, paragraph 0011, line 4, comprises an insert.) includes: an outer area defining a side of the insert in a radially outward direction, wherein the radially outward direction is defined as a direction in which a center of the wheel faces an outer peripheral surface of the wheel; (Wagner, paragraph 0013, line 3, has an in principle annular shape which surrounds a center opening.) and an inner area extending from the outer area in a radially inward direction opposite to the radially outward direction, and configured to define a side of the insert in the radially inward direction, (Wagner, paragraph 0011, line 11, distribution between the rim and a hub) wherein the wheel includes: an insertion area configured such that the outer area is inserted thereinto; and a cover area extending from the insertion area in the radially inward direction and configured to surround a portion of the inner area, (Wagner, Abstract, line 5, at least partially embedded in a composite material) and wherein the inner area includes a first area surrounded by the insertion area and the cover area.” (Wagner paragraph 0013, line 8, “merges into a support which interacts in a mounted position of the wheel”).
PNG
media_image1.png
506
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wagner fail to teach “an insert configured to be inserted into the wheel”. However, Taima, teaches “an insert piece”, to prevent creeping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Wagner to incorporate the teachings of Taima to use one insert instead of multiple, to strengthen the wheel.
Regarding claim 2 Wagner teaches, the wheel of claim 1 further-in-view-of (FIV) Taima, and “the insert has a ring shape, in which a hollow is formed, (Wagner paragraph 0013, line 3, “annular shape which surrounds a center opening”) and wherein the inner area further includes: a second area, of which an end in the radially inward direction is exposed to the hollow of the insert (Wagner paragraph 0013, line 7 “extends into the center opening and merges into a support which interacts in a mounted position of the wheel”). As they are both in the same art, wheels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the insert of Wagner FIV Taima and make the insert hollow to achieve a lower weight while maintaining sufficient durability.
Regarding claim 3, Wagner FIV Taima teaches the wheel of claim 1, and a plurality of first areas and a plurality of second areas are alternately disposed along a circumferential direction of the wheel. (Wagner, paragraph 0044, line 12 “Several projections 24 extend into the center opening”). As they are both in the same art, wheels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Wagner FIV Taima to make the insert grooved to achieve a lower weight while maintaining sufficient durability.
Regarding claim 4, Wagner FIV Taima teaches the wheel of claim 1, and an inner groove having a shape recessed in the radially outward direction with respect to the second area is formed in the first area, and wherein the cover area is inserted into the inner groove (see fig. 5 above). As they are both in the same art, wheels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Wagner FIV Taima to incorporate the teachings of Wagner to make the insert grooved with a cover in the center to achieve a lower weight while maintaining sufficient durability.
Regarding claim 11, Wagner FIV Taima teaches the wheel of claim 1, and an outer groove having a shape recessed in the radially inward direction, and an outer hole having a shape passing in a widthwise direction of the wheel formed in the outer area, wherein a plurality of outer grooves and a plurality of outer holes are alternately disposed along a circumferential direction of the wheel. (see annotated Fig 5 below) As they are both in the same art, wheels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Wagner FIV Taima to incorporate the teachings of Wagner to make the insert grooved to achieve a lower weight while maintaining sufficient durability.
PNG
media_image2.png
467
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Wagner FIV Taima teaches the wheel of claim 1, and the outer area and the inner area are formed integrally (see annotated Fig 5 above). As they are both in the same art, wheels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Wagner FIV Taima to incorporate the teachings of Wagner to make the insert out of one piece of material to achieve a lower weight while maintaining sufficient durability.
Regarding claim 13 Wagner FIV Taima teaches the wheel of claim 1, and the wheel assembly of claim 11, and a plurality of column areas (filaments) inserted into the plurality of outer holes, respectively. As they are both in the same art, wheels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Wagner FIV Taima to incorporate the teachings of Wagner to make the insert able to receive columns to hold it in place and to achieve a lower weight while maintaining sufficient durability.
Regarding claim 14 Wagner FIV of Taima teaches the wheel of claim 1, and the wheel assembly of claim 11, and claim 13, and the insertion area, the cover area, and the plurality of column areas are formed integrally. “embedding the reinforcing fibers in a matrix material” (Wagner paragraph 0017, line 10). As they are both in the same art, wheels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Wagner FIV Taima to incorporate the teachings of Wagner to make the insert able to receive columns to hold it in place and to achieve a lower weight while maintaining sufficient durability.
Regarding claim 15, Wagner FIV of Taima teaches the wheel of claim 1, and the insert is disposed to be spaced apart from a center of the wheel to one side in a widthwise direction of the wheel (see annotated Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
588
667
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As they are both in the same art, wheels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Wagner FIV Tiama to incorporate the teachings of Wagner to offset the insert from the center of the wheel, as is well known in the art of wheels. Doing so would improve load on wheel mounting point.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Wagner FIV Taima and (US20190389245A1 Bedeschi, hereinafter Bedeschi).
Regarding claim 16, Wagner FIV Taima teaches the wheel of claim 1, Wagner fails to teach, a stiffness of a material of the insert is higher than a stiffness of a material of the wheel. However, Badeschi teaches “a body 7 made of highly deformable polymeric material” and “the insert 2 can advantageously be made of high mechanical strength”. (Badeschi, paragraph 0032, line 4). As they are both in the same art, wheels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Wagner FIV Taima to incorporate the teachings of Badeschi to make the insert of a harder material than the rest of the wheel to achieve a lower weight than a wheel made only of the harder material while maintaining sufficient durability.
Regarding claim 17, Wagner FIV Taima teaches the wheel of claim 1, Wagner fails to teach, the material of the insert is a metal, and the material of the wheel is plastic. However, Badeschi teaches “a body 7 made of highly deformable polymeric material” (Badeschi, paragraph 0032, line 4) and “an insert 2 which is made of metallic material” (Badaschi, paragraph 0023, line 1). As they are both in the same art, wheels, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Wagner FIV Taima to incorporate the teachings of Badeschi to make the insert out of metal and the rest of the wheel of plastic to achieve a lower weight than a wheel made only of metal while maintaining sufficient durability.
Regarding claim 18 Wagner FIV Taima teaches a wheel comprising a rim, a center and an insert. “A wheel assembly comprising: a wheel; and an insert (Wagner, Abstract, line 1 “a wheel according to the invention comprises a rim and a wheel center. At least the wheel center is made out of composite material and comprises an insert.” (see annotated Fig 5 below) configured to be inserted into the wheel, (Wagner, Abstract, line 1) wherein the insert (Wagner, paragraph 0011, line 4, comprises an insert.) includes: an outer area defining a side of the insert in a radially outward direction, wherein the radially outward direction is defined as a direction in which a center of the wheel faces an outer peripheral surface of the wheel; (Wagner, paragraph 0013, line 3, has an in principle annular shape which surrounds a center opening.) and an inner area extending from the outer area in a radially inward direction opposite to the radially outward direction, and configured to define a side of the insert in the radially inward direction, (Wagner, paragraph 0011, line 11, distribution between the rim and a hub) wherein the wheel includes: an insertion area configured such that the outer area is inserted thereinto; and a cover area extending from the insertion area in the radially inward direction and configured to surround a portion of the inner area, (Wagner, Abstract, line 5, at least partially embedded in a composite material) and wherein the inner area includes a first area surrounded by the insertion area and the cover area.” (Wagner paragraph 0013, line 8, “merges into a support which interacts in a mounted position of the wheel”). Wagner FIV Taima fails to teach “A vehicle comprising: a vehicle body; and a wheel assembly configured to be mounted on the vehicle body”. However, Bedeschi discloses a wheel to mount on a wheel assembly on a vehicle (Bedeschi, paragraph 0011, line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wheel of Wagner FIV Taima to incorporate the teachings of Bedeschi to use the wheel on a vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 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 and any intervening claims and overcoming the §112 (b) rejection against Claim 5.
`The following is a statement of reason for the indication of the allowable subject matter: The closest Prior art of record is over Wagner which discloses wheel assembly includes a wheel, and an insert that is inserted into the wheel of Claim 1 as set forth above. However, Wagner fails to teach a width of the first area in a circumferential direction of the wheel is smaller than a width of the second area, and the insert with a steeped area of claims 6-10. To arrive at the claimed invention, using Wagner would require hindsight as it requires the redesign of the insert of Wagner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD BINNS whose telephone number is (571)272-9456. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/HOWARD PATRICK BINNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights