DETAILED ACTION
This is a First Action on the Merits addressing the disclosure provided 22 November 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
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 Information Disclosure Statement dated 21 February 2025, is entered.
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 sensor in the cavity, per claim 9, 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 § 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 1-20 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.
Below is a reproduction of the claims with the examiner’s comments in bold italics.
Claim 1: A lug nut of a wheel assembly of a vehicle, the lug nut comprising,
a base portion including a receiving orifice disposed at a first end of the lug nut and configured to receive a lug of a hub of the wheel assembly; and
a secure lug wrench interface disposed at a second end opposite the base portion; the secure lug wrench interface comprising:
a central portion centered along a vertical axis of the lug nut; and
a plurality of columns surrounding the central portion,
wherein first outer edges of the plurality of columns disposed at the second end define at least vertices of a first hexagonal pattern, wherein the plurality of columns are operably coupled to the central portion and the base portion at an intersection of the secure lug wrench interface and the base portion, and are spaced apart from the central portion at the second end, and
wherein the first outer edges of the plurality of columns are separated by gaps between each individual column (indefinite as written as it is unclear if a single gap is between each individual adjacent column or a plurality of gaps are between each individual adjacent column; also unclear as claimed if gap(s) are between individual adjacent columns or non-adjacent columns) of the plurality of columns.
Claim 2: The lug nut of claim 1, wherein the first hexagonal pattern has a diameter between common hex sizes (“common” is indefinite as to the metes and bounds of what constitutes “common”).
Claim 3: The lug nut of claim 1, wherein a key attachment (indefinite as written as only a lug nut is claimed, not a lug nut in combination with a key attachment; the scope of the claim cannot be determined) engages the secure lug wrench interface at the gaps and on a surface of the central portion. Based on the nature of this claim, applicant is encouraged to amend the claim to either 1) claim the combination of the lug nut and key attachment, or 2) claim the key attachment in function only without positively claiming the key attachment.
Claim 4: The lug nut of claim 3, wherein a second outer edge of the key attachment defines a second hexagonal pattern having a diameter corresponding to a common hex size (indefinite for reasons previously provided).
Claim 7: The lug nut of claim 5, wherein a depth of the inbound grooves are different values (indefinite as to the metes and bounds of what constitutes “different values” and if each individual groove has a different value for a depth or one groove has a different depth from another groove) , and
wherein a different type of the key attachment (indefinite as to the metes and bounds of “different type”) is required depending on the depth of the inbound groove.
Claim 13: A set of lug nuts of a wheel assembly of a vehicle, the set of lug nuts comprising:
a first group of lug nuts; and
a security lug nut; each one of the first group of lug nuts and the security lug nut further comprising:
a base portion including a receiving orifice disposed at a first end of the lug nut and configured to receive a lug of a hub of the wheel assembly; and
a secure lug wrench interface disposed at a second end opposite the base portion; the secure lug wrench interface comprising:
a central portion centered along a vertical axis of each one of the set of lug nuts; and
a plurality of columns surrounding the central portion, wherein outer edges of the plurality of columns disposed at the second end define at least vertices of hexagonal patterns,
wherein the plurality of columns are operably coupled to the central portion and the base portion at an intersection of the secure lug wrench interface, and the base portion and are spaced apart from the central portion at the second end,
wherein the first outer edges of the plurality of columns of the security lug nut are separated by a gap between each individual column of the plurality of columns,
wherein outer edges of the security lug nut define at least vertices of a first hexagonal patterns of the hexagonal patterns (indefinite as this has already been provided with respect to the columns; this language is considered redundant as written), and
wherein outer edges of the first group of lug nuts nut define at least vertices of a second hexagonal patterns of the hexagonal patterns. The claim has issues previously addressed which will not be repeated here for brevity. In addition, the language of the claim is indefinite as the “group of lug nuts” and “security lug nut” are claimed as separate, however, the features of the nuts are identical as claimed.
Claim 14: The set of lug nuts of claim 13, wherein the first hexagonal pattern has a diameter between common hex sizes. The claim has issues previously addressed which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim 15: The set of lug nuts of claim 13, wherein a key attachment engages the secure lug wrench interface of the security lug nut at the gaps and on a surface of the central portion, torque transfer occurs between the key attachment and the secure lug wrench interface of the security lug nut as the security lug nut transitions from a locked state and an unlocked state. The claim has issues previously addressed which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim 16: The set of lug nuts of claim 15, wherein an outer edge of the key attachment defines a third hexagonal pattern having a diameter corresponding to a common hex size. The claim has issues previously addressed which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim 19: The set of lug nuts of claim 17, wherein a depth of the inbound grooves are different values, and wherein a different type of the key attachment is required depending on the depth of the inbound groove. The claim has issues previously addressed which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim 20: A lug nut of a wheel assembly of a vehicle, the lug nut comprising,
a base portion including a receiving orifice disposed at a first end of the lug nut and configured to receive a lug of a hub of the wheel assembly; and
a secure lug wrench interface disposed at a second end opposite the base portion; the secure lug wrench interface comprising:
a central portion centered along a vertical axis of the lug nut; and
a plurality of columns surrounding the central portion,
wherein first outer edges of the plurality of columns disposed at the second end define at least vertices of a first hexagonal pattern, and
wherein the plurality of columns are operably coupled to the central portion and the base portion at an intersection of the secure lug wrench interface and the base portion, and are spaced apart from the central portion at the second end. The claim has issues previously addressed which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Those claims listed under this heading but not directly addressed are rejected as either being dependent from a rejected claim or containing language substantially identical to prior addressed language, which was not repeated for brevity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 2, 8, 11-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bainbridge et al. (U.S. Patent 5,314,149), hereafter “Bainbridge” and equivalent.
Below is a reproduction of the claims with the examiner’s comments in bold italics.
Claim 1: Bainbridge discloses A lug nut of a wheel assembly of a vehicle, the lug nut comprising,
a base portion (17) including a receiving orifice (threaded portion containing 30) disposed at a first end of the lug nut and configured to receive a lug of a hub of the wheel assembly (as disclosed); and
a secure lug wrench interface (extending from 23 to 21 as shown in Fig. 4) disposed at a second end opposite the base portion; the secure lug wrench interface comprising:
a central portion (21 and 40 as shown in Fig. 4) centered along a vertical axis of the lug nut; and
a plurality of columns (24) surrounding the central portion,
wherein first outer edges of the plurality of columns disposed at the second end define at least vertices of a first hexagonal pattern (as shown in Fig. 8), wherein the plurality of columns are operably coupled to the central portion and the base portion at an intersection of the secure lug wrench interface and the base portion (via proximate 23), and are spaced apart from the central portion at the second end (as shown), and
wherein the first outer edges of the plurality of columns are separated by gaps (22) between each individual column of the plurality of columns (as shown).
Claim 2: Bainbridge discloses The lug nut of claim 1, wherein the first hexagonal pattern has a diameter between common hex sizes (as shown and best understood using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure).
Claim 8: Bainbridge discloses The lug nut of claim 1, wherein the lug nut is formed via additive manufacturing. The language of this claim is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2133. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 11: Bainbridge discloses The lug nut of claim 1, wherein airflow travels between at least the plurality of columns (this would occur via the grooves between the columns, which would permit the claimed airflow).
Claim 12: Bainbridge discloses The lug nut of claim 1, wherein space exists between a top portion of the plurality of columns down to the central portion, and
wherein space exists (as shown in Fig. 4) from the first outer edges of the plurality of columns into the central portion (between 40).
Claim 13: A set of lug nuts (Fig. 1: plurality of 14) of a wheel assembly of a vehicle, the set of lug nuts comprising:
a first group of lug nuts (three of element 14); and
a security lug nut (a fourth element 14); each one of the first group of lug nuts and the security lug nut further comprising:
a base portion (17) including a receiving orifice (threaded portion containing 30) disposed at a first end of the lug nut and configured to receive a lug of a hub of the wheel assembly (as disclosed); and
a secure lug wrench interface (extending from 23 to 21 as shown in Fig. 4) disposed at a second end opposite the base portion (as shown); the secure lug wrench interface comprising:
a central portion (21 and 40 as shown in Fig. 4) centered along a vertical axis of each one of the set of lug nuts; and
a plurality of columns (24) surrounding the central portion, wherein outer edges of the plurality of columns disposed at the second end define at least vertices of hexagonal patterns (as shown in Fig. 8),
wherein the plurality of columns are operably coupled to the central portion and the base portion at an intersection of the secure lug wrench interface (via proximate 23), and the base portion and are spaced apart from the central portion at the second end (as shown),
wherein the first outer edges of the plurality of columns of the security lug nut are separated by a gap (22) between each individual column of the plurality of columns,
wherein outer edges of the security lug nut define at least vertices of a first hexagonal patterns of the hexagonal patterns (as shown and best understood, as this language is redundant), and
wherein outer edges of the first group of lug nuts nut define at least vertices of a second hexagonal patterns of the hexagonal patterns (as these have the same limitations as the security lug nut, the limitation is necessarily met).
Claim 14: Bainbridge discloses The set of lug nuts of claim 13, wherein the first hexagonal pattern has a diameter between common hex sizes (as shown and best understood using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure).
Claim 20: Bainbridge discloses A lug nut of a wheel assembly of a vehicle, the lug nut comprising,
a base portion (17) including a receiving orifice (threaded portion containing 30) disposed at a first end of the lug nut and configured to receive a lug of a hub of the wheel assembly (as disclosed); and
a secure lug wrench interface (extending from 23 to 21 as shown in Fig. 4) disposed at a second end opposite the base portion; the secure lug wrench interface comprising:
a central portion (21 and 40 as shown in Fig. 4) centered along a vertical axis of the lug nut; and
a plurality of columns (24) surrounding the central portion,
wherein first outer edges of the plurality of columns disposed at the second end define at least vertices of a first hexagonal pattern (as shown in Fig. 8), and
wherein the plurality of columns are operably coupled to the central portion and the base portion at an intersection of the secure lug wrench interface and the base portion (via proximate 23), and are spaced apart from the central portion at the second end (as shown).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Below is a substantial reproduction of the claims addressing all limitations with the examiner’s comments in bold italics.
Claim(s) 3-7 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bainbridge in view of Lanham et al. (U.S. Patent 6,036,419), hereafter “Lanham”
Claim 3: Bainbridge provides The lug nut of claim 1, except specifically wherein a key attachment engages the secure lug wrench interface at the gaps and on a surface of the central portion. Lanham teaches a similarly shaped lug nut (Fig. 5: generally), that incorporates a key attachment (Fig. 12) that engages the respective lug at respective gaps (via 57 as shown in Fig. 13). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a key attachment with the system in Bainbridge, in like manner as provided in Lanham. One having ordinary skill in the art would use a key shaped to remove and attach the lug in order to prevent unwanted scratching and damage to the system. Further, while the key attachment in Lanham appears to have a portion to contact the central portion (see boxed portion from Fig. 12 from Lanham, below), the feature is not specifically disclosed. The examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the contact in order to further secure the lug in the key when attaching and removing.
[AltContent: textbox (Portion contacting central portion)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
136
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 12 from Lanham
Claim 4: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The lug nut of claim 3, wherein a second outer edge of the key attachment defines a second hexagonal pattern (60) having a diameter corresponding to a common hex size (as best understood it is a common size using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure provided).
Claim 5: The obvious modification of the prior art provide The lug nut of claim 3, wherein the central portion includes inbound grooves (portions between adjacent element 27) corresponding to the gaps of the plurality of columns (they are at the distal end portion of the gaps), and
wherein ends of the key attachment further interface with the inbound grooves (as rendered obvious).
Claim 6: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The lug nut of claim 5, wherein responsive to the key attachment interfacing with inbound grooves, the gaps, and the surface of the central portion, torque transfer occurs between the key attachment and the secure lug wrench interface as the lug nut transitions from a locked state and an unlocked state. The examiner takes the position that this would be a natural result based on the relationship between the hey attachment and lug nut.
Claim 7: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The lug nut of claim 5, wherein a depth of the inbound grooves are different values (as shown in Fig. 9, the surface is curved which results in different values), and
wherein a different type of the key attachment is required depending on the depth of the inbound groove (the examiner takes the position that this would be met based on various sizes of lug nuts accommodating different sized lugs).
Claim 15: Bainbridge provides The set of lug nuts of claim 13, except specifically wherein a key attachment engages the secure lug wrench interface of the security lug nut at the gaps and on a surface of the central portion, torque transfer occurs between the key attachment and the secure lug wrench interface of the security lug nut as the security lug nut transitions from a locked state and an unlocked state. Lanham teaches a similarly shaped lug nut (Fig. 5: generally), that incorporates a key attachment (Fig. 12) that engages the respective lug at respective gaps (via 57 as shown in Fig. 13). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a key attachment with the system in Bainbridge, in like manner as provided in Lanham. One having ordinary skill in the art would use a key shaped to remove and attach the lug in order to prevent unwanted scratching and damage to the system. Further, while the key attachment in Lanham appears to have a portion to contact the central portion (see boxed portion from Fig. 12 from Lanham, below, the feature is not specifically disclosed. The examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the contact in order to further secure the lug in the key when attaching and removing. Regarding the torque transfer, the examiner takes the position that this would be a natural result based on the relationship between the hey attachment and lug nut.
Claim 16: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The set of lug nuts of claim 15, wherein an outer edge of the key attachment defines a third hexagonal pattern (60) having a diameter corresponding to a common hex size (as best understood it is a common size using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure provided).
Claim 17: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The set of lug nuts of claim 15, wherein the central portion of the security lug nut includes inbound grooves portions between adjacent element 27) corresponding to the gaps of the plurality of columns (they are at the distal end portion of the gaps), and
wherein ends of the key attachment further interface with the inbound grooves (as rendered obvious).
Claim 18: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The set of lug nuts of claim 17, wherein responsive to the key attachment interfacing with inbound grooves, the gaps, and the surface of the central portion, torque transfer occurs between the key attachment and the secure lug wrench interface of the security lug nut as the security lug nut transitions from a locked state and an unlocked state. The examiner takes the position that this would be a natural result based on the relationship between the hey attachment and lug nut.
Claim 19: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The set of lug nuts of claim 17, wherein a depth of the inbound grooves are different values (as shown in Fig. 9, the surface is curved which results in different values), and wherein a different type of the key attachment is required depending on the depth of the inbound groove (they are at the distal end portion of the gaps).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bainbridge in view of Jurisch et al. (U.S. Publication 2023/0258520 A1), hereafter “Jurisch”..
Claim 9: Bainbridge provides The lug nut of claim 8, wherein the base portion is initially formed with a cavity (as shown the cavity includes portions proximate 29 as shown in Fig. 4).
Bainbridge does not specifically disclose the features directed to the sensor. Jurisch discloses a nut (1) that includes a sensor (7) and an RFID reader, which would require the sensor to be an RFID sensor. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a sensor in the cavity and enclosed. A sensor would aid in providing information needed when tightening and removing the nut, and to have the sensor enclosed would be obvious in order to prevent damage to the sensor.
The language directed to the method of making and order of making as in this claim are considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2133. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 10: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The lug nut of claim 9, wherein the sensor is an RFID sensor or a torque sensor (it is an RFID sensor as explained above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For similar systems see the following:
Weis et al. (U.S. Patent 9,593,707 B2)
Davis et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0149071 A1)
Schermer (U.S. Publication 2014/0205396 A1)
Ichim (U.S. Design D1,121,405 S)
Reynolds (U.S. Patent 5,139,380)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM V GILBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-0430 Eastern.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571.272.6928. 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.
/WILLIAM V GILBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights