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 § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 217918174U) in view of Mukherjee et al. (US 6481970 B2), hereinafter Muckherjee, and further in view of Knorowski et al. (US 4,497,612), hereinafter Knorowski. Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a wheel assembly comprising a hub 10, a rim 30, and an intermediate body (spoke plate/web) 20 extending between and connecting the hub 10 and the rim 30 (Fig. 3). Wang further teaches that the hub 10, intermediate body 20, and rim 30 are separate components that are individually processed and subsequently assembled to form the wheel assembly (Figs. 1-4). The intermediate body 20 is connected between the hub 10 and rim 30, wherein the hub 10 is received within a middle connecting hole 21 of the intermediate body 20 and an outer edge of the intermediate body 20 is received within an annular groove 31 of the rim 30 (Fig. 6). Wang further teaches that the intermediate body 20 and rim 30 are connected by insertion into the annular groove 31 and that the hub 10 is assembled into the connecting hole 21 of the intermediate body 20 (Fig. 6). Such connections correspond to radial interference/shrink-fit connections under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed shrink fit connections. Wang further teaches that the hub 10, the rim 3, and the intermediate body 20 are separate, individual components. It should be noted that the spoke plate 20 corresponds to the claimed intermediate body and extends between and connects the hub 10 and the rim 30, as the hub 10 is inserted into the middle connecting hole 21 of the spoke plate 20, and the outer plate edge of the spoke plate (20) is inserted into the annular groove 31 of the rim 30. Furthermore, Wang teaches that the hub 10, spoke plate 20, and rim 30 are respectively processed and then assembled to form the wheel, thereby disclosing that the hub, the rim, and the intermediate body are separate, individual components. See Figs. 1-4 in Wang. Wang further teaches that the separate components as hub, intermediate body and the rim may be made of steel and may be made of different types of steel to obtain desired strength and wear-resistant performance. Wang specifically discloses, "in this embodiment, hub 10, web 20, rim 30 made of steel. According to the use requirement, hub 10, web 20, rim 30 can be made of steel of different labels, to obtain the strength and wear-resistant performance meets the need of the guide wheel." See page 6, lines 1-3 of the attached translation. It should be noted that the steel of different labels considered to be materials even the if the differences are relatively small.
To the extent Wang does not expressly disclose a predetermined interference fit amount for the shrink-fit connections, Mukherjee teaches a wheel assembly having an insert received within a bore of a hub by a predetermined interference fit (insert 22 received within bore 20), wherein the interference fit creates compressive stress and improves the operating characteristics and reliability of the rotating wheel (Fig. 2; assembly description). Mukherjee further teaches that the interference fit is selected based on desired operating stresses and may be achieved by shrinking the insert or expanding the hub during assembly (assembly methods). Mukherjee further different materials may be selected for the insert and hub depending on required mechanical performance (assembly description).
Knorowski further teaches a rotating wheel assembly wherein wheel hub sections are secured to shaft surfaces by interference shrink fits between the radially inner surfaces of the hub sections and corresponding shaft step surfaces to prevent relative rotation and improve operational reliability (hub sections 40, 46; inner surfaces 42, 48; shaft step surfaces 44, 50). Knorowski also teaches that interference shrink-fit connections provide a secure connection between rotating components during operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s wheel assembly by incorporating the interference shrink-fit retention principles taught by Mukherjee and Knorowski because applying these known interference-fit techniques to Wang’s wheel assembly would have provided the predictable benefit of increasing connection strength, improving rotational stability, reducing relative movement between assembled components, and improving reliability of the wheel assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches that the intermediate body 20 is connected to the rim 30 by insertion into the annular groove 31 of the rim 30 (Fig. 6), and the hub 10 is received within the connecting hole 21 of the intermediate body 20 (Fig. 6). As discussed above, these connections correspond to shrink-fit/interference-fit connections under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Additionally, Mukherjee teaches an interference fit between an insert 22 and a hub bore 20, wherein the interference fit secures the components together and provides increased structural integrity during rotation (Fig. 2). Knorowski likewise teaches interference shrink-fit retention between rotating wheel components, including the hub sections 40, 46 and shaft step surfaces 44, 50.
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches that the hub 10 is assembled into and retained within the connecting opening 21 of the intermediate body 20 (Fig. 6). Mukherjee teaches that an insert 22 is assembled into a hub bore 20 using an interference fit to secure the components together (Fig. 2; assembly description). Knorowski teaches interference shrink-fit engagement between a wheel hub and shaft surface to prevent relative movement between rotating components (hub sections 40, 46; shaft surfaces 44, 50).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches that the hub 10, intermediate body 20, and rim 30 are separate components assembled into a wheel structure (Figs. 1-4). Mukherjee teaches that interference-fit assembled components may be formed from different materials, including aluminum alloys, steels, and composite materials, depending on desired mechanical properties (assembly description). Knorowski further teaches interference-fit retention of wheel components where secure coupling and improved operational performance are desired (hub sections 40, 46 and shaft step surfaces 44, 50). Therefore, selecting suitable materials and applying interference-fit connections to Wang’s wheel components would have been an obvious design modification to achieve improved strength and reliability.
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Mukherjee and Knorowski renders obvious a shrink-fit connection having a selected interference amount. Mukherjee expressly teaches that the amount of interference in an interference-fit assembly is selected based on desired stress conditions and operating requirements (assembly description). Mukherjee further teaches that the interference is determined to provide a desired compressive stress level at operating conditions. It would have been obvious to optimize the interference amount of Wang’s shrink-fit connections using Mukherjee’s teachings because selecting an appropriate interference value is a known design consideration for achieving desired connection strength, stress control, and reliability of rotating components. Such optimization would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
3. Claims 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Wang in view of Knorowski and further in view of Mukherjee. Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses a wheel assembly comprising a hub 10, an intermediate body (spoke plate/web) 20, and a rim 30, wherein the hub 10, intermediate body 20, and rim 30 are separate components assembled together to form the wheel (Figs. 1-4). Wang further teaches that these components may be manufactured from different types of steel depending on desired strength and wear-resistant performance, thereby disclosing that at least two of the hub 10, intermediate body 20, and rim 30 may comprise different materials (description, page 6). Wang further teaches that the intermediate body includes a disc-shaped body having a radially inner annular portion, a radially outer annular portion, and a plurality of spoke portions (20a-20c) extending between the inner annular portion and the outer annular portion. Wang further teaches that the separate components as hub, intermediate body and the rim may be made of steel and may be made of different types of steel to obtain desired strength and wear-resistant performance. Wang specifically discloses, "in this embodiment, hub 10, web 20, rim 30 made of steel. According to the use requirement, hub 10, web 20, rim 30 can be made of steel of different labels, to obtain the strength and wear-resistant performance meets the need of the guide wheel." See page 6, lines 1-3 of the attached translation. It should be noted that the steel of different labels considered to be materials even the if the differences are relatively small.
Knorowski teaches a rotating wheel assembly having hub sections 40, 46 secured by interference shrink-fit connections to corresponding shaft step surfaces 44, 50, wherein the interference fit provides secure attachment and prevents relative movement during operation. Knorowski further teaches that rotating wheel components may include different structural portions configured to withstand operational stresses. Mukherjee teaches an interference-fit assembly between an insert 22 and hub 16, wherein different materials may be selected for the insert and hub depending on required mechanical performance (assembly description). Mukherjee further teaches that interference-fit connections are selected to provide desired stress characteristics and improve operating life. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang’s multi-component wheel assembly using the interference-fit and material-selection teachings of Knorowski and Mukherjee in order to improve the strength, reliability, and operational durability of Wang’s wheel assembly.
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches that the hub 10, intermediate body 20, and rim 30 are provided as separate individual components that are assembled together to form the wheel (Figs. 1-4). Knorowski teaches interference-fit retention of separately assembled rotating wheel components (hub sections 40, 46; shaft surfaces 44, 50), and Mukherjee teaches interference-fit assembly techniques for improving stress performance and component life (insert 22 and hub bore 20). Accordingly, the additional limitations of claim 11 would have been obvious for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches that the intermediate body 20 is connected to the rim 30 through engagement with annular groove 31 and the hub 10 is connected to the intermediate body 20 through engagement with opening 21 (Fig. 6). Knorowski teaches interference shrink-fit connections between wheel components to prevent relative rotation and improve reliability (hub sections 40, 46; shaft step surfaces 44, 50). Mukherjee teaches predetermined interference fits for securing rotating components (insert 22 and hub bore 20). Therefore, the claimed shrink-fit connection would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Mukherjee teaches that the amount of interference in an interference-fit connection may be selected based on desired stress and performance requirements (assembly description). Knorowski teaches interference shrink-fit retention of rotating wheel components (hub sections 40, 46; shaft step surfaces 44, 50). It would have been obvious to select the interference amount of Wang’s shrink-fit connection according to Mukherjee’s teachings because optimizing interference values is a known design choice used to achieve desired retention strength, stress control, and operating reliability of rotating assemblies.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments directed to the previous rejection of the claims over Wang and Mukherjee have been considered but are rendered moot because the present rejection relies on the combination of Wang, Mukherjee, and Knorowski, which is necessitated by the amendments to claims 1 and 7.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Krause (DE 102017107408 A1) teaches a wheel having separate components connected together by shrink fit technique.
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
July 9, 2026
