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 .
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 fins that are extended along the axial direction such that extension directions in which the fins are extended intersect with each other from claim 12 (Note: Figure 14 shows two extension directions that are formed of two different curves, but those curves do not intersect each other. The fins never connect to each other or cross each other thus cannot be viewed as intersecting.) 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 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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 7 discloses that “in a state in which the wheel mounting member is mounted on the wheel and rotates together with the wheel, the angle is set according to a position at which air flowing into the annular rim of the wheel from an inside of the vehicle to an outside of the vehicle flows out of the vehicle in the circumferential direction of the wheel” which is not understood because it is unclear how the angle can be set when air flowing into the annular rim of the wheel from an inside of the vehicle to an outside of the vehicle is a variable. The air which flows through the wheel is viewed as being variable because wind can come in various directions thus the air flowing into the annular rim is not a constant value. How can one skilled in the art determine the angle of the fins in light of the position of the air when the direction, speed, etc. of the air is not constant?
Claim 8 discloses “the angle is set according to a rotation speed of the wheel mounting member that generates a pressure for causing the air to flow out of the vehicle due to a centrifugal force generated by rotation” which is not understood because it is unclear how the angle can be set when the rotation speed of the wheel mounting member is a variable. The rotation speed of the wheel is viewed as being variable because wheel rotation speed varies as a vehicle accelerates and decelerates. How can one skilled in the art determine the angle of the fins in light of the rotation speed of the wheel mounting member being not constant i.e. variable?
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 6-9 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 6, line 2, recites “the fin” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly which fin the Applicant is referring to. Claim 1 discloses a plurality of fins, and the Applicant has not previously singled out one of the plurality of fins.
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, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges (US 2011/0018335 A1) in view of Hiroaki (JP 59-143701 A; see Applicant provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hodges discloses a vehicle wheel structure comprising:
a wheel (400) **[configured to be mounted on a vehicle]**; and
a wheel mounting member (402) configured to be mounted on the wheel,
wherein the wheel mounting member includes:
a body portion (486) that is fixed to an inner peripheral surface (452) of an annular rim (400), the annular rim forming the wheel and supporting a tire (see Paragraph 0029; tires attach to the outer surface of 400) on an outer peripheral surface of the annular rim.
Hodges does not disclose that the wheel mounting member includes fins that are extended along an axial direction of the body portion on an inner peripheral surface of the body portion, and
a weir portion that is extended on the inner peripheral surface of the body portion along a circumferential direction of the body portion to block air flowing along the axial direction in a state in which the wheel mounting member is mounted on the wheel and rotates together with the wheel.
Hiroaki teaches fins (13) that are extended along an axial direction (the axial centerline of 3) on an inner peripheral surface (the inner surface of 3) of a wheel (3), and
a weir portion (shown below) that is extended on the inner peripheral surface of wheel along a circumferential direction **[to block air flowing along the axial direction in a state in which the wheel mounting member is mounted on the wheel and rotates together with the wheel]** for the purpose of improving a cooling function and to enhance steering stability (see lines 1-2 of Paragraph 0001 of the machine translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Hiroaki (JP 59-143701 A)
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 mounting member of Hodges to have fins that are extended along an axial direction on an inner peripheral surface of the wheel mounting member, and to have a weir portion that is extended on the inner peripheral surface of wheel mounting member along a circumferential direction to block air flowing along the axial direction in a state in which the wheel mounting member is mounted on the wheel and rotates together with the wheel for the purpose of improving a cooling function and to enhance steering stability, as taught by Hiroaki.
Regarding claim 2, Hodges in view of Hiroaki discloses that the fins are disposed in a pair in parallel along the circumferential direction of the body portion (see each 13 in Figure 3 of Hiroaki).
Regarding claim 3, Hodges in view of Hiroaki discloses that the weir portion is extended along the circumferential direction of the body portion to connect the fins to each other (the weir portion shown above extends circumferentially as shown in Figure 3 of Hiroaki).
Regarding claim 4, Hodges in view of Hiroaki discloses that the weir portion is extended to connect end portions of the fins on an inner side of the vehicle (see the annotated figure above; Hiroaki).
Regarding claim 5, Hodges in view of Hiroaki discloses that the weir portion is extended such that the axial direction and an extension direction (the direction along which the viewed weir portion of Hiroaki extends when viewed in a cross-section i.e. vertically in the same manner as Applicant’s extension direction (DW) is viewed in Applicant’s Figure 2) of the weir portion are orthogonal to each other.
Regarding claim 10, Hodges in view of Hiroaki discloses that the fins are extended along the axial direction such that extension directions (the centerline of each fin) in which the fins are extended are parallel to each other (see Figure 3 of Hiroaki).
Regarding claim 14, Hodges in view of Hiroaki discloses that a pair of the fins and the weir portion are **[configured to lift up the air that has flowed into the annular rim from an inside of the vehicle to an outside of the vehicle downward in a vertical direction of the annular rim such that the air flows out of the vehicle behind the wheel in a front-rear direction of the vehicle with respect to an inflow position of the air, in a state in which the wheel mounting member is mounted on the wheel and rotates together with the wheel]**.
Regarding claim 15, Hodges in view of Hiroaki discloses that the fins and the weir portion are provided to correspond to air holes (12; Hiroaki) provided in a disk (1; Hiroaki) forming the wheel and are **[configured to cause the lifted-up air to flow out of the vehicle via the air holes]**.
Claims 6-8 and 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges (US 2011/0018335 A1) in view of Hiroaki (JP 59-143701 A; see Applicant provided machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawakami (US 12,168,366 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Hodges in view of Hiroaki discloses an extension direction (the centerline of each fin) of each fin.
Hodges in view of Hiroaki does not disclose that each fin is extended is inclined at an angle toward a rotation direction of the body portion with respect to the axial direction of the body portion.
Kawakami teaches fins (20A, 20B, 20C) that each extend at an angle toward a rotation direction of a body portion (the body of the wheel) with respect to an axial direction (the rim width direction shown in Figure 10A) of the body portion.
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 fins of Hodges in view of Hiroaki to be inclined at an angle toward a rotation direction of the body portion with respect to the axial direction of the body portion, as taught by Kawakami, for the purpose of increasing the surface area of the fins thereby increasing the cooling effect of the fins.
Regarding claim 7, Hodges in view of Hiroaki in view of Kawakami discloses that in a state in which the wheel mounting member is mounted on the wheel and rotates together with the wheel, the angle is set according to a position at which air flowing into the annular rim of the wheel from an inside of the vehicle to an outside of the vehicle flows out of the vehicle in the circumferential direction of the wheel (the air which flows through the wheel is viewed as being variable because wind can come in various directions thus the air flowing into the annular rim is not a constant value. As best understood, the angle of the fins of Hodges in view of Hiroaki in view of Kawakami is viewed as meeting this claim limitation because the fin structure of Hodges in view of Hiroaki in view of Kawakami extend at an angle relative to the axial centerline of the wheel).
Regarding claim 8, Hodges in view of Hiroaki in view of Kawakami discloses that the angle is set according to a rotation speed of the wheel mounting member that generates a pressure for causing the air to flow out of the vehicle due to a centrifugal force generated by rotation (the rotation speed of the wheel is viewed as being variable because wheel rotation speed varies as a vehicle accelerates and decelerates; as best understood, any rotation of the wheel of Hodges in view of Hiroaki in view of Kawakami is going to generate some amount of pressure thus the structure of Hodges in view of Hiroaki in view of Kawakami is viewed as meeting this claim limitation because the fin structure of Hodges in view of Hiroaki in view of Kawakami extend at an angle relative to the axial centerline of the wheel).
Regarding claim 16, Hodges in view of Hiroaki discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the wheel mounting member is formed of a resin material.
Kawakami teaches fins (20) that are made of resin (Column 7 / Lines 1-3).
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 mounting member of Hodges in view of Hiroaki to be made of a resin material, as taught by Kawakami, for the purpose of providing a lightweight material. The fins of Hodges in view of Hiroaki are attached to the wheel mounting member thus once Hodges in view of Hiroaki is modified by Kawakami, the fins and the wheel mounting member would both be made of resin.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges (US 2011/0018335 A1) in view of Hiroaki (JP 59-143701 A; see Applicant provided machine translation) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gebeau (US 2014/0191565 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hodges in view of Hiroaki discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that at least one of the fins is extended along the axial direction so as to be curved.
Gebeau teaches a wheel (100) that has a plurality of curved fins (112) for the purpose of creating a partial vacuum under the vehicle allowing for increased traction and greater vehicle stability (see Paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the fins Hodges in view of Hiroaki to be curved for the purpose of creating a partial vacuum under the vehicle allowing for increased traction and greater vehicle stability, as taught by Gebeau.
**The above statements in brackets are instances of intended use and functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, see MPEP 2114. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
The allowability of claim 9 cannot be determined in light of the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 12 and 13 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (CN 119974822 A) discloses a wheel assembly that is comprised of a wheel, a wheel mounting member attached to an inner circumferential surface of the wheel, and the wheel mounting member having a plurality of fins attached to an inner peripheral surface.
Ruff (US 2011/0018334 A1) discloses a wheel structure that is comprised of a wheel and a wheel mounting member that attaches to an inner circumferential surface of the wheel.
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
Prosecution Insights