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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 3, figures 3a-3b; claims 1-6, 8-15 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the handwritten reference numerals are not clear and legible as required by the rule. 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it’s not in the correct format or have the correct content, see above. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification should include headings for the appropriate sections as described in CFR 37 § 1.77.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the phrase “in particular” which renders the claim indefinite as it is not certain if the limitation which follows is required or not. This is an example of broad/narrow limitation, see MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 2 is further unclear because it is unclear what is meant by “or the generic term of claim 1”.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 all have instances of antecedent basis issues likely due to depending upon the wrong claims. The limitations in question include “the maximum”, “the root diameter”.
Claims 8, and 9 are also indefinite in light of utilizing the phrase “preferably constant” which has the same issue as claim 1 and 11. It is a broad/narrow limitation which renders the scope unclear as to what the claim is actually limited to.
Claim 14 has antecedent basis issues with “the ring body”. Perhaps applicant meant for this claim to depend on claim 11.
Claim 15 also has issues because it depends upon claim 1 but claim 1 never positively requires the composite wheel, it is simply intended use in this claim. Perhaps Applicant meant for this to depend on claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Shiga et al. (USpgpub 20020043124 A).
Regarding claim 1, Shiga et al. discloses a hub body (2) for a composite wheel, in particular a composite gear wheel (intended use, does not limit the claim), comprising
an axis of rotation (seen in fig.1),
a first front side of the hub (seen in fig.2),
a second front side of the hub (seen in fig.2),
an outer lateral surface (surface with teeth 5) arranged along the axis of rotation (seen in fig.2) between the first front side of the hub and the second front side of the hub, wherein the outer lateral surface has an engagement gearing with at least one engagement tooth (teeth on surface 5),
characterized in that the outer lateral surface (as seen in fig.2, it has a convex outer lateral section forming the teeth) comprises a convex outer lateral section (seen in fig.2).
Regarding claim 2, Shiga et al. discloses hub body according to claim 1 or the generic term of claim 1, characterized in that a root diameter of the engagement gearing comprises a progression of the root diameter along the at least one engagement tooth with a maximum (seen in fig.2, there is a progression along the tooth and there is a maximum in the center area).
Regarding claim 3, Shiga et al. discloses Hub body characterized in that the maximum of the progression of the root diameter is arranged in the convex outer lateral section (seen in fig.2).
Regarding claim 4, Shiga et al. discloses Hub body, characterized in that the first front side of the hub comprises a first front surface of the hub and the second front side of the hub comprises a second front surface of the hub, wherein the maximum is arranged at a distance from the first front surface of the hub and/or the second front surface of the hub, and/or is arranged centrally or off-center between the first front surface of the hub and the second front surface of the hub (the maximum is in the middle).
Regarding claim 5, Shiga et al. discloses Hub body characterized in that a first root front surface diameter arranged in the first front surface of the hub is equal to or unequal to a second root front surface diameter arranged in the second front surface of the hub (evident in fig.2, the first root diameters at the beginning of each side are equal).
Regarding claim 6, Shiga et al. discloses the progression of the root diameter is continuous and/or differentiable from the first front surface of the hub to the second front surface of the hub (seen in fig.2, the progression in continuous given the BRI of the term).
Regarding claim 8, Shiga et al. discloses the progression of the root diameter comprises a first concave section (see fig.2 below) with a first cavity radius, that is preferably constant.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Shiga et al. discloses the progression of the root diameter comprises a second concave section (see fig. above) with a second cavity radius that is preferably constant, wherein the first cavity radius is equal or unequal to the second cavity radius (seen in fig.2).
Regarding claim 11, Shiga et al. discloses a composite gearwith a hub body according to claim 1 and a ring body (4) arranged radially outside the hub body, comprising a first axial ring body end and a second axial ring body end (ends clearly seen in fig.2), wherein the ring body and the engagement gearing are arranged into each other in a meshing manner (seen in fig.2).
Regarding claim 12, Shiga et al. discloses the first axial ring body end and/or the second axial ring body end is arranged on the hub body exclusively on the outer lateral surface (seen in fig.2).
Regarding claim 13, Shiga et al. discloses the ring body comprises a first front surface of the ring at the first axial ring body end and the engagement gearing is arranged to intersect the first front surface of the ring (seen in fig.2).
Regarding claim 14, Shiga et al. discloses the ring body comprises a second front surface of the ring arranged axially opposite the first front surface of the ring at the second axial ring body end, wherein the engagement gearing is arranged to intersect the second front surface of the ring (seen in fig.2).
Regarding claim 15, Shiga et al. disclose a steering unit of a vehicle with a composite wheel according to claim 1 (see background).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiga et al. (Uspgpub 20020043124 A) in view of Lee (KR 100788741 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Shiga et al. fails to explicitly disclose the engagement gearing is configured as helical gearing.
Lee discloses a similar composite gear which utilizes a hub body having engagement gearing (24) wherein the gearing is in the form of helical gearing (evident in fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the engagement teeth in Shiga et al. to be in the form of helical teeth instead of spur teeth as taught/suggested in Lee, since by applying the same technique it would result in the same predictable result of facilitating the connection of an outer composite wheel to the hub body. In addition, switching from one type of known gearing to another type of known gearing is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is common knowledge. There is nothing inventive by applying this concept.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art contains numerous examples of similar composite wheels and/or composite elements which showcase various types of hub bodies and arrangements to facilitate the attachment of hub bodies to a wheel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617