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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “disk” should be replaced with the term - -disk- - or - -spider- - throughout the specification, given the fact that a “disk” is ONLY the portion of a wheel on which a tire is mounted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “disk” should be replaced with the term - -disk- - or - -spider- - throughout the specification, given the fact that a “disk” is ONLY the portion of a wheel on which a tire is mounted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (US11318781B2 Kim et al, Hereinafter, Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a wheel for a vehicle. The wheel 10 comprising a disk 13 having a rotation axis and one or more openings 14 for placing an inner volume of the disk in communication with a space outside the disk and in front of the disk according to the rotation axis; and one or more vanes 20 coupled to the disk 13 in a movable manner between a closed configuration and an open configuration, wherein the one or more vanes 20 close and open at least partially the one or more openings 14, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the wheel of claim 1 and one or more openings 14 place said inner volume in direct communication with said outer space.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the wheel of claim 1 and a disk “cover” (i.e. the outer face of the disk 13) forming part of the disk 13, wherein the disk 13 has an end (i.e. the outer periphery) according to the rotation axis, the end being annular and delimiting internally a first opening 14 covered frontally and partially by the disk cover according to the axis, the disk cover having one or more second through openings 14 defined by said one or more openings.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the wheel of claim 3 and the second through openings 14 and the vanes 20 have respective shapes or cross-sections according to an orthogonal plane or respective planes incident to the rotation axis with shapes tapered radially toward the rotation axis (see fig 5. below, with the “variable flap” equivalent to the claimed vanes).
PNG
media_image1.png
261
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the wheel of claim 1 and the one or more vanes 20 are pivoted to the disk 13 about respective radial axes with respect to the rotation axis, and wherein the one or more vanes 20 are rotatable about the respective radial axes between the closed configuration and the open configuration (see fig 5. above).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the wheel of claim 1 and a mechanism 40 drivable to move the one or more vanes 20 in a coordinated manner from the closed configuration to the open configuration and vice versa.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the wheel of claim 6 and the mechanism 40 comprises a rotor 30 supported by the disk 13 in a rotatable manner with respect to the disk about the rotation axis and one or more transmissions respectively configured to transmit a rotation of the rotor to the one or more vanes in a predefined manner (See Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the wheel of claim 7 and the mechanism 30 comprises at least one pinion gear 31a (fig 3. see below), and wherein the rotor comprises a crown gear 32 arranged around the rotation axis so as to mesh with the pinion gear 31a, such that a rotation of the pinion gear 31a by means of a motor 31 causes the rotation of the rotor.
PNG
media_image2.png
476
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches the wheel of claim 6 and a drive assembly, in turn comprising the mechanism and at least one motor arranged to drive the mechanism (Kim, Figure 3), and a control unit 50 configured to control the drive assembly so as to move the one or more vanes 20 between the closed configuration and the open configuration, based on an operational state of the vehicle or the wheel, or based on a request from a driver of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches a wheel for a vehicle. The wheel 10 comprising a disk 13 comprising: an outwardly-facing front side; an inner volume (see below); a rotation axis; and an opening 14 for placing the inner volume of the disk 13 in communication with a space outside the disk and in front of the disk (see below); and a vane 20 movably coupled to the disk, wherein the vane 20 is movable between a closed position and an open position, wherein the vane 20 at least partially closes the opening when the vane 20 is in the closed position (see below), and wherein the vane 20 at least partially opens the opening when the vane is in the open position.
PNG
media_image3.png
312
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the wheel of claim 13 and the vane completely closes the opening when the vane is in the closed configuration.
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches the wheel of claim 13 and an actuator 30 configured to move the vane 20 from the closed position to the open position.
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) 11-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1-8, 10 and 13-15 above, and further in view (FIV) of Muffatto (EP3848208B1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the wheel of claim 10. Kim fails to teach the operational state comprises the temperature of one or more components of the wheel. However, Muffatto teaches “the cover can be moved by the actuator into an open position”. “The gap is opened in such a way that the brake of the wheel, for example, can be cooled”. 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 Kim to incorporate the teachings Muffatto to use temperature to open the flaps. Doing so would aid in cooling braking elements in the vicinity of the wheels.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the wheel of claim 10. Kim fails to teach the operational state comprises a requested deceleration of the vehicle or wherein the driver's request is a request for braking the vehicle. However, However, Muffatto teaches “the cover (vane) can be moved by the actuator into an open position”. “The actuator can be remotely controlled (by the driver)…at least one cover can be moved, in particular automatically”. 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 Kim and to incorporate the teachings of Muffatto to have the controller open the vanes, when the brakes are actuated. Doing so would assist in cooling and braking.
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the wheel of claim 15. Kim fails to teach the actuator is responsive to a control signal to move the vane to the open position when the brakes of the vehicle have been actuated. However, However, Muffatto teaches “the cover (vane) can be moved by the actuator into an open position”. “The actuator can be remotely controlled (by the driver)…at least one cover can be moved, in particular automatically”. 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 Kim and to incorporate the teachings of Muffatto to have the controller open the vanes, when the brakes are actuated. Doing so would assist in cooling and braking.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim FIV Muffatto as applied to claims 11-12 and 16 above, and further in view of Pettey (US6540282B2).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches a vehicle, comprising: a braking device, a wheel 10 comprising: a disk 13 comprising: an outwardly-facing front side; an inner volume; a rotation axis; and an opening 14 for placing the inner volume of the disk 13 in communication with a space outside the disk and in front of the disk; and a vane 20 pivotably movable relative to the disk 13, wherein the vane 20 is movable between a first position and a second position, wherein the vane 20 at least partially closes the opening when the vane is in the first position, and wherein the vane at least partially opens the opening when the vane is in the second position; and an actuator 30 operable to move the vane 20 from the first position to the second position; and a control unit 50 configured to transmit a control signal to the actuator 30 to move the vane 20 into the second position.
Kim fails to teach a variable vent to allow air outside the disk and in front of the disk to flow onto the braking device. Also, a control unit configured to transmit a control signal to the actuator to move the vane into the second position when the braking device is actuated. However, Muffatto teaches “the cover can be moved by the actuator into an open position”, (Muffatto, Column 1, line 2). “The gap is opened in such a way that the brake of the wheel, for example, can be cooled”, (Muffatto, Column 2, line 33). “The actuator can be remotely controlled (by the driver)…at least one cover can be moved, in particular automatically”, (Muffatto, Column 3, line 13).
Also, Pettey teaches a vehicle, comprising: a braking device. A control unit 14 configured to transmit a control signal to the actuator to move an airfoil (vane) 12 into the second position when the braking device is actuated. 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 Kim and to incorporate the teachings of Muffatto and Pettey to have the controller open the vane to allow air to flow to the brakes when the brakes are actuated. Doing so would assist in brake cooling.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim FIV Muffatto and Pettey as applied to claims 17 above, and further in view of Josephson (US1339895A).
Regarding claim 18, Kim FIV Muffatto and Pettey teach the vehicle of claim 17. However, they don’t teach the control unit is configured to actuate the braking device in response to an input from the driver of the vehicle. However, Josephson teaches brakes of the vehicle employed by foot-operated (by the driver) means.
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 vehicle of Kim FIV Muffatto and Pettey to incorporate the teachings of Josephson to have the brakes activate with input from the driver. Doing so would slow down the vehicle.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim FIV Muffatto and Pettey as applied to claims 17 above, and further in view of Canfield (US2213383A).
Regarding claim 19, Kim FIV Muffatto and Pettey teach the vehicle of claim 17. However, the don’t teach the braking device is at least partially positioned in the inner volume of the disk. However, Canfield teaches brake drums at least partially positioned in the inner volume of the disk (see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
449
249
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 vehicle of Kim FIV Muffatto and Pettey to incorporate the teachings of Canfield to have the brakes inside the disk. Doing so would allow the air flow to cool the brakes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but wouldbe allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reason for the indication of the allowable subject matter: The closest Prior art of record is over Kim which discloses the wheel of claim 7, and the movable vanes by means of a crown gear (ring gear). However, Kim fails to teach the arrangement of the various components as claimed in Claim 9 specifically the transmissions comprise a pivot and a crank having a first end fixed with respect to the pivot and a second end coupled or hinged to the rotor. To arrive at the claimed invention, using Kim would require hindsight as it requires the rearrangement of Kim’s components which would add the cranks and transmissions of Favaretto.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. FR3100480B1 Eric Palpacuer, Frederic Guingand. VEHICLE WHEEL WITH MODIFICATION OF AIR CIRCULATION BEYOND A PREDEFINED THRESHOLD TEMPERATURE.
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
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights