DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. 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 limitations “each inner vane has a flared shape centered on the central axis, diverging from the outer face towards the inner side” as recited in claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the reference character “40B” has been used to designate a distinct structure compared to “40A”, “40C”, “40D”, “40E”, and “40F” in Fig. 1.
4. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q) because the following reference characters are not properly underlined.
· “-35-“ should be amended to read “35” in Fig. 1.
· “-V2-“ should be amended to read “V2” in Fig. 2.
· “-32-“ should be amended to read “32” in Fig. 3.
· “-34-“ should be amended to read “34” in Fig. 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. 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
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
· “the other openings 37 and 38..” should be amended to read “the other openings 37 and 38.” in para [0052], line 2.
· “the inner side 33” should be amended to read “the inner side 31” in para [0064], line 4.
· “wheel cap A” should be amended to read “wheel cap 3” in para [0074], line 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. The claim 11 is objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
· “a forward rotation direction R” should be amended to read “a forward rotation direction (R)” in line 3.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claim 2 is 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.
· The limitation “each inner vane has a flared shape centered on the central axis, diverging from the outer face towards the inner side” as recited in claim 2 is not described by the specification nor shown in the drawings.
9. 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.
10. Claim 2 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 2 recites the limitation "the peripheral part" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the limitation “each inner vane has a flared shape centered on the central axis, diverging from the outer surface towards the inner side” is unclear what structural characteristics define the recited “flared shape” and what structure is intended to be “diverging” from the outer face towards the inner side. Further, no objective reference point is provided for determining the degree or extent of the alleged divergence. Applicant may amend the claim to recite an objective structural relationship, such as an angle relative to the central axis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
12. 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.
13. Claims 1, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Palpacuer et al (FR3011769A1; hereinafter “Palpacuer”).
Regarding claim 1, Palpacuer discloses a wheel cap 20, comprising: an inner side (Refer to the inner side in the below annotated Fig. 2), for attaching the wheel cap 20 to a wheel rim 11 of a wheel 10; a peripheral edge 22 (Refer to the peripheral edge in the below annotated Fig. 1), coaxial with a central axis (Refer to the central axis in the below annotated Fig. 1) of the wheel cap 20; an outer face (Refer to the outer face in the below annotated Fig. 1), opposite to the inner side, wherein the outer face is delineated by the peripheral edge and comprises a peripheral portion and a central portion (Refer to the peripheral and central portion in the below annotated Fig. 1), centered on the central axis; and openings, connecting the peripheral portion to the inner side (Refer to the opening in the below annotated Fig. 1); wherein the outer face is concave (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 1; “The hubcap blades can advantageously be inclined at an angle between 3° and 13° relative to the general plane of the hubcap” per para [0015]; This demonstrates that the peripheral portion is recessed inwardly relative to the peripheral edge and that the central portion recessed inwardly relative to the peripheral portion, as the blades are inclined from the central portion toward the peripheral edge), so that: the central portion is recessed inwards relative to the peripheral portion along the central axis; and the peripheral portion is recessed inwards relative to the peripheral edge along the central axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
503
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 1 of Palpacuer
PNG
media_image2.png
344
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Palpacuer
Regarding claim 9, Palpacuer discloses the wheel cap 20 further comprises inner blades 25 arranged at the inner side and protruding inwardly (Fig. 2; The blades 25 are protruding inwardly along the central axis).
Regarding claim 10, Palpacuer discloses the inner side comprises a peripheral inner face (Refer to the peripheral inner face in the below annotated Fig. 2), centered on the central axis, delineated peripherally by the peripheral edge and centrally by the openings; and the inner blades protrude inwardly from the peripheral inner face (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
319
679
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Palpacuer
Regarding claim 11, Palpacuer discloses each inner blade 25 is oriented radially relative to the central axis (Figs. 1 and 2), and extends from the peripheral edge towards the central axis (Figs. 1 and 2) and wherein each inner blade 25 comprises an intrados oriented in a forward rotation direction R of the wheel cap, and an extrados oriented opposite (Refer to the intrados and extrados in the below annotated Fig. 1), wherein each inner blade 25 is curved (Para [0015]) so that the intrados is concave and the extrados is convex (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
503
636
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig.1 of Palpacuer
14. Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fattouche (US11254160B2).
Regarding claim 1, Fattouche discloses a wheel cap 100 (Fig. 3; Col. 8, lines 39-62), comprising: an inner side (Refer to the inner side in the below annotated Fig. 4a), for attaching the wheel cap 100 to a wheel rim of a wheel (Figs. 1A and 1B; Col. 8, lines 59-62); a peripheral edge (Refer to the peripheral edge in the below annotated Fig. 4A), coaxial with a central axis (Refer to the central axis in the below annotated Fig. 8A; Col. 14, lines 6-18) of the wheel cap; an outer face (Refer to the outer face in the below annotated Fig. 8A), opposite to the inner side, wherein the outer face is delineated by the peripheral edge (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 8A) and comprises a peripheral portion and a central portion (Refer to the peripheral portion and central portion in the below annotated Fig. 8A), centered on the central axis; and openings (Refer to the opening in the below annotated Fig. 8A), connecting the peripheral portion to the inner side (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 4A and 8A); wherein the outer face is concave, so that: the central portion is recessed inwards relative to the peripheral portion along the central axis (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 8A; Col. 8, lines 50-54); and the peripheral portion is recessed inwards relative to the peripheral edge along the central axis (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 8A).
PNG
media_image5.png
747
625
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4A of Fattouche
PNG
media_image6.png
551
1001
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8A of Fattouche
Regarding claim 9, Fattouche discloses the wheel cap 100 further comprises inner blades (Refer to the inner blade in the below annotated Fig. 4A) arranged at the inner side and protruding inwardly (Fig. 4A; The blades 55 are protruding inwardly along the central axis).
PNG
media_image7.png
735
695
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4A of Fattouche
15. Claims 1 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Reynolds et al (GB2109317A; hereinafter “Reynolds”).
Regarding claim 1, Reynolds discloses a wheel cap 3, comprising: an inner side (Refer to the inner side in the below annotated Fig. 2), for attaching the wheel cap 3 to a wheel rim (Refer to the rim in the below annotated Fig. 2) of a wheel 2; a peripheral edge (Refer to the peripheral edge in the below annotated Fig. 2), coaxial with a central axis (Refer to the central axis in the below annotated Fig. 2) of the wheel cap; an outer face (Refer to the outer face in the below annotated Fig. 2), opposite to the inner side, wherein the outer face is delineated by the peripheral edge (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 2) and comprises a peripheral portion and a central portion (Refer to the peripheral portion and central portion in the below annotated Fig. 2), centered on the central axis; and openings, connecting the peripheral portion to the inner side (Fig. 1; Refer to the opening in the below annotated Fig. 2); wherein the outer face is concave (Fig. 2), so that: the central portion is recessed inwards relative to the peripheral portion along the central axis (Refer to the central portion and peripheral portion in the below annotated Fig. 2); and the peripheral portion is recessed inwards relative to the peripheral edge along the central axis (Refer to the peripheral portion and peripheral edge in the below annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image8.png
695
725
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Reynolds
Regarding claim 12, Reynolds discloses the outer face has a parabolic shape centered on the central axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Reynolds discloses a wheel 2, comprising: the wheel cap 3 of claim 1; and a wheel rim (Refer to the rim in the below annotated Fig. 2), comprising a central outer boss (Refer to the central outer boss in the below annotated Fig. 2), wherein the wheel cap 3 is attached to the wheel rim by means of the inner side of the wheel cap 3 being attached to the central outer boss of the wheel rim (Page 2, Col. 2, lines 10-21; Refer to the below annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image9.png
686
682
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Reynolds
Regarding claim 14, Reynolds discloses the wheel rim comprises an outer peripheral rim (Examiner interprets the claimed “outer peripheral rim” as a peripheral annular portion of the wheel and not necessarily as the axially outermost portion thereof) centered on the central axis, wherein an annular gap (Refer to the annular gap in the below annotated Fig. 2) is defined between the peripheral edge and the outer peripheral rim.
PNG
media_image10.png
697
507
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Reynolds
Regarding claim 15, Reynolds discloses a truck, comprising the wheel of claim 13 (Abstract; Page 1, lines 5-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
17. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
18. 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.
19. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hel (FR2548968A1) in view of Palpacuer (FR3003200A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hel discloses a wheel cap 1 (Fig. 1), comprising: an inner side (Refer to the inner side in the below annotated Fig. 2), for attaching the wheel cap 1 to a wheel rim 4 of a wheel; a peripheral edge (Refer to the peripheral edge in the below annotated Fig. 1), coaxial with a central axis (Refer to the central axis in the below annotated Fig. 2) of the wheel cap 1; an outer face (Refer to the outer face in the below annotated Fig. 2), opposite to the inner side, wherein the outer face is delineated by the peripheral edge and comprises a peripheral portion (Refer to the peripheral portion in the below annotated Fig. 2) and a central portion (Refer to the central portion in the below annotated Fig. 2), centered on the central axis; and openings (7 and 8 “openings”; Para [0003]; Refer to the openings in the below annotated Fig. 2; Fig. 4), connecting the peripheral portion to the inner side (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 2),
PNG
media_image11.png
394
1126
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Hel
but fails to disclose the outer face is concave, so that: the central portion is recessed inwards relative to the peripheral portion along the central axis; and the peripheral portion is recessed inwards relative to the peripheral edge along the central axis.
Palpacuer, however, teaches a profile of an outer face of a wheel cap 2 is concave (Para [0005]; Fig. 1; Refer to the below annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image12.png
581
832
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 1 of Palpacuer
It would have been obvious to one having 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 cap of Hel by substituting its convex outer face for the concave outer face, as taught by Palpacuer, such wheel cover profile is well known in the art for providing a suitable wheel cover configuration while maintaining desirable airflow characteristics and cooling performance of the wheel assembly.
Hel further fails to disclose the openings include central openings having a diffuser shape which opens towards the inner side of the wheel cap and diverges from the outer face to the inner side as recited in claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one having 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 cap of Hel by substituting its converging opening profile for the diffuser-shaped opening profile as a matter of routine optimization of airflow characteristics with the motivation to promote a wider distribution of airflow through the wheel cap openings and thereby improve cooling of the wheel assembly.
Regarding claim 4, Hel further discloses at least one of the openings is an arcuate opening, which has an arcuate shape centered on the central axis (7 and 8 “openings”; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Hel further discloses the arcuate opening comprises: a first orthoradial end; a second orthoradial end; a peripheral side, connecting the first orthoradial end to the second orthoradial end, wherein the peripheral side has an arcuate shape centered on the central axis; and a central side, connecting the first orthoradial end to the second orthoradial end; wherein the central side has an arcuate shape centered on the central axis (Refer to the peripheral side, central side, first orthoradial end, and second orthoradial end in the below annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image13.png
516
717
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 of Hel
Regarding claim 6, Hel further discloses at least one of the openings is a first peripheral opening and at least one of the openings is a second peripheral opening (Refer to the first and second peripheral openings in the below annotated Fig. 4), the first peripheral opening being positioned between the peripheral edge (Refer to the peripheral edge in the below annotated Fig. 4) and the second peripheral opening, so that the first peripheral opening and the second peripheral opening are radially successive relative to the central axis, wherein the second peripheral opening is recessed inwards relative to the first peripheral opening (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image14.png
554
635
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 of Hel
Regarding claim 12, Hel further discloses the outer face has a parabolic shape centered on the central axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Hel further discloses a wheel (Fig. 2), comprising: the wheel cap 1 of claim 1; and a wheel rim 4, comprising a central outer boss (Refer to the central outer boss in the below annotated Fig. 2), wherein the wheel cap 1 is attached to the wheel rim 4 by means (6 “fixing element”; Fig. 2; “the central disc has in its centre a circular cutout allowing the passage of a fixing element 6 to the centre of the wheel by clipping, claw or staple” per Para [0005] of the inner side (Refer to the inner side in the below annotated Fig. 2) of the wheel cap 1 being attached to the central outer boss of the wheel rim 4 (Although the below annotated Fig. 2 does not explicitly identify a central outer boss of the wheel rim, the fixing element is shown as being secured to the wheel rim. As such, the fixing element necessarily interfaces with and is supported by a central outer boss portion of the wheel rim. Accordingly, the central outer boss is inherently disclosed).
PNG
media_image15.png
361
1129
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Hel
Regarding claim 14, Hel discloses the wheel rim 4 comprises an outer peripheral rim (Refer to the outer peripheral rim in the below annotated Fig. 2) centered on the central axis, wherein an annular gap is defined between the peripheral edge and the outer peripheral rim (Refer to the annular gap in the below annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image16.png
292
1124
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Hel
Regarding claim 15, Hel discloses a truck, comprising the wheel of claim 13 (The recitation of a truck merely identifies an intended use of the claimed wheel and does not further limit the structure of the wheel. Hel discloses the wheel that is capable of use in a truck. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
21. Claims 3 and 7 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
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose wheel covers configured to direct airflow for cooling brake components.
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON (TAE) CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights