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 .
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cover surface" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The phrase “fin shape” in claim 3 is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “fin shape” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as a fin shape may not be the same as what another person considers as a fin shape thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined. Fins come in various shapes thus it is unclear exactly what shape must be present to meet the claim limitation.
Claim 4, line 2, recites “a second convex portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear how there can be a second convex portion without a previously claimed first convex portion. A first convex portion is claimed in claim 2, but claim 4 does not depend from claim 2.
Claim 6, line 2, recites “the wheel covers” which is indefinite because the Applicant has not previously claimed a plurality of wheel covers. Should claim 1 be amended to recite --at least one wheel cover--, and should claim 6 be amended to recite --wherein the at least one wheel cover consists of a wheel cover on the left side of the vehicle and a wheel cover on the right side of the vehicle--?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the facing wheel" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, line 2, recites “the outer fixing portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear which one of the plurality of outer fixing portions the Applicant is referring to. Claim 6 a pair of wheel covers, and each wheel cover has an outer fixing portion.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the opposing wheel cover" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 discloses two wheel covers therefore it is unclear which wheel cover the Applicant is referring to.
The phrase “fin shape” in claim 7, line 4, is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “fin shape” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as a fin shape may not be the same as what another person considers as a fin shape thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined. Fins come in various shapes thus it is unclear exactly what shape must be present to meet the claim limitation.
Claim 8, line 2, recites “the central fixing portion” which is indefinite because the Applicant has not previously claimed a plurality of central fixing portions. Should claim 5 be amended to recite --at least one central fixing portion--, and should claim 8 be amended to recite --wherein the at least one central fixing portion is comprised of a plurality of central fixing portions--?
Claim 8, line 4, recites “the outer fixing portions” which is indefinite because the Applicant has not previously claimed a plurality of outer fixing portions. Should claim 5 be amended to recite --at least one outer fixing portion--, and should claim 8 be amended to recite --wherein the at least one outer fixing portion is comprised of a plurality of outer fixing portions--?
Claim 8, line 8, recites “the central fixing portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear which one of the plurality of central fixing portions the Applicant is referring to.
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 1-5, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuo (JP 8-20319 A; see Applicant provided machine translation) in view of Japan (JP 60-20842 Y2; see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ikuo discloses a saddle-ride vehicle comprising:
a wheel (17) having a hub (20) and supported by an axle (19);
a brake disc (23) attached to the hub;
a brake caliper (22) capable of clamping the brake disc; and
a wheel cover (24) held between the hub and the brake disc and covering a side surface of the wheel (see Figure 2),
wherein the wheel cover forms a gap with the wheel at an outer peripheral end (the gap between the top of 24 and the top of 18 in Figure 2), and
the wheel cover is provided with vent holes (103, 203) penetrating the cover surface in a direction of the axle.
Ikuo does not disclose that the wheel cover is formed larger than the brake disc.
Japan teaches a wheel cover (6) that is formed larger than a brake disc (4).
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 wheel cover of Ikuo to be formed larger than the brake disc, as taught by Japan, for the purpose of increasing the heat dissipation qualities of the wheel disc via the increased surface area.
Regarding claim 2, Ikuo discloses that the wheel cover is provided with a first convex portion (203) extending in a circumferential direction (around the axial centerline of 201 in Figure 4b) of the axle on a radially outer side of the axle.
Regarding claim 3, Ikuo discloses that the first convex portion has a fin shape (203 are disclosed as being fins thus they are viewed as being fin shaped, as best understood).
Regarding claim 4, Ikuo discloses that a second convex portion (203) protruding toward the wheel is provided on an inner surface (203 extends inwards from the surface opposite of 202 in Figure 4a thus is viewed as meeting this claim limitation) of an outer peripheral portion (202) of the wheel cover.
Regarding claim 5, Ikuo discloses that the wheel cover includes a central fixing portion (the central through hole in Figure 4b) on a radial center side, and an outer fixing portion (the four holes that are radially outward from the viewed central fixing portion as shown in Figure 4b) provided radially outside the central fixing portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsuoka et al. (US 2019/0193462 A1) discloses a wheel cover that attaches to a wheel rim, and the wheel cover has a plurality of vent holes.
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
