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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed February 13, 2025 lists four non-patent literature documents, but the copies of the non-patent literature documents filed by the Applicant on February 13, 2025 do not have labels thus it is unclear which document corresponds to a respective one of the non-patent literature documents. Accordingly, the references have been crossed-out of the information disclosure statement because it is unclear if the filed pictures correlate to the non-patent literature documents cited on the information disclosure statement.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 6 has solid shading which is not permitted. See 37 CFR 1.84(m).
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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to because it only uses English units. Per MPEP 608.01(IV): “In order to minimize the necessity in the future for converting dimensions given in the English system of measurements to the metric system of measurements when using printed patents as research and prior art search documents, all patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications.” The Applicant is advised to add metric units to the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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.
The term “about” in claim 1, line 12, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 about 13 inches or about 18.5 inches may not be the same as what another person considers as about 13 inches or about 18.5 inches thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 1, lines 13-14, recites “wherein the trailer wheel is suitable for use with a tire with a tire pressure rating of from 50 psi to 125 psi” which is indefinite because it is unclear what makes a trailer wheel suitable for a tire with that pressure rating, and what makes a trailer wheel not suitable for a tire with that pressure rating. What structure must be present to meet this claim limitation? Are there trailer wheels that are not suitable for use with a tire with a tire pressure rating of from 50 psi to 125 psi?
The term “about” in claim 2, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 about 5% or about 20% may not be the same as what another person considers as about 5% or about 20% thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 3, line 2, recites “a distance” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the distance from claim 3 is different from or related to the distance from claim 2, line 3. Should claim 3, line 2, be amended to recite --the distance--?
The term “about” in claim 3, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 about 5% or about 10% may not be the same as what another person considers as about 5% or about 10% thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 4, line 2, recites “a distance” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the distance from claim 4 is different from or related to the distance from claim 2, line 3. Should claim 4, line 2, be amended to recite --the distance--?
The term “about” in claim 4, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 about 10% may not be the same as what another person considers as about 10% thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
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 1-4 and 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant provided Non-Patent Literature (hereinafter referred to as ANPL; the figure below shows which Applicant provided NPL is being used in the rejection. There is no label on the figure thus it is unclear what the origin of the picture is. The Applicant disclosed that the NPL figure was obtained from Google Images around January 2023 or August 2023 thus is viewed as having a publication date before Applicant’s effective filing date) in view of Mason (US 2021/0178808 A1) and in view of C. S. Ash (US 2,542,455 A).
Regarding claim 1, ANPL discloses a trailer wheel with a center cap (shown below), the trailer wheel comprising:
a plurality of spokes (shown below) having first ends (shown below) generally extending from a circular outer edge (shown below), and having second ends (shown below) extending to respective bottom portions (shown below) of the center cap;
the respective bottom portions of the center cap extending in a curved manner to a body portion (the body of the center cap shown below) of the center cap;
wherein the trailer wheel is **[suitable for use with a tire with a tire pressure rating of from 50 psi to 125 psi]**.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated copy of Applicant provided Non-Patent Literature
ANPL does not disclose that the center cap is built-in and integral with the trailer wheel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to center cap to be built-in and integral with the trailer wheel, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). While it is viewed that the center cap has to be fastened to the wheel in some manner or else it would simply fall off during use, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to fasten the center cap to the wheel for the purpose of providing a structure that prevents the center cap from disengaging the wheel aiding in preventing damage, wear, and loss of the center cap.
While it is well-known for wheels to have inner and outer edges to support ad tire, and to have a tire receiving body between the inner and outer edges, ANPL does not explicitly disclose that the trailer wheel has an opposing pair of circular outer edges with a tire-receiving body therebetween, the opposing pair of circular outer edges including an external circular outer edge and an internal circular outer edge, and that the trailer wheel has an outer diameter of from about 13 inches to about 18.5 inches.
Mason (US 2021/0178808 A1) teaches a trailer wheel (100; Paragraph 0067) that has inner (the right 110 in Figure 1C) and outer edges (the left 110 in Figure 1C) to support a tire (220), and to have a tire receiving body (102a) between the inner and outer edges, and that the trailer wheel has an outer diameter of from about 13 inches to about 18.5 inches (Paragraph 0024 discloses that diameter d1 is in a range of 14 inches to 25 inches).
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 trailer wheel of ANPL to have an opposing pair of circular outer edges with a tire-receiving body therebetween, to have the opposing pair of circular outer edges include an external circular outer edge and an internal circular outer edge, and to have the trailer wheel has an outer diameter of from about 13 inches to about 18.5 inches, as taught by Mason, for the purpose of providing a wheel structure aids in preventing the tire from disengaging the wheel in an axial direction, and for the purpose of providing a wheel diameter that has a sufficient load rating and which can support tires of well-known sizes.
ANPL does not explicitly discloses that where the body portion is shaped as a generally frustoconical hollow body.
C. S. Ash (US 2,542,455 A) teaches a center cap (16) that is shaped as a discloses a generally frustoconical hollow body (see the shape of 16 in Figure 1).
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 body portion of the center cap of ANPL to be shaped as a generally frustoconical hollow body, as taught by C. S. Ash, for the purpose of a structure that directs foreign debris away from the wheel thus aiding in keeping the wheel clean.
Regarding claim 2, ANPL in view of Mason discloses that the body portion including a portion (the top end of the cap of ANPL; shown above) of the built-in center cap partially extending beyond the external circular outer edge (see the annotated figure above), where the partially extending portion extends beyond the external circular outer edge a distance of from about 5% to about 20% of a distance between the opposing pair of circular outer edges (in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 2 above, the partially extending portion is viewed as extending beyond the external circular outer edge a distance of from about 5% to about 20% of a distance between the opposing pair of circular outer edges).
Regarding claim 3, ANPL in view of Mason discloses that the partially extending portion extends beyond the external circular outer edge a distance of from about 5% to about 10% of the distance between the opposing pair of circular outer edges (in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 2 above, the partially extending portion is viewed as extending beyond the external circular outer edge a distance of from about 5% to about 10% of the distance between the opposing pair of circular outer edges).
Regarding claim 4, ANPL in view of Mason discloses that the partially extending portion extends beyond the external circular outer edge a distance of about 10% of the distance between the opposing pair of circular outer edges (in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 2 above, the partially extending portion is viewed as extending beyond the external circular outer edge a distance of about 10% of the distance between the opposing pair of circular outer edges).
Regarding claim 6, ANPL in view of Mason and in view of C. S. Ash discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the trailer wheel is made of an aluminum alloy.
Mason teaches a wheel that is made of an aluminum alloy (see Paragraph 0031).
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 trailer wheel of ANPL in view of Mason and in view of C. S. Ash to be made of an aluminum alloy, as taught by Mason, for the purpose of providing a trailer wheel that is light in weight and resistant to corrosion.
Claim 5, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant provided Non-Patent Literature (hereinafter referred to as ANPL; the figure below shows which Applicant provided NPL is being used in the rejection. There is no label on the figure thus it is unclear what the origin of the picture is. The Applicant disclosed that the NPL figure was obtained from Google Images around January 2023 or August 2023 thus is viewed as having a publication date before Applicant’s effective filing date) in view of Mason (US 2021/0178808 A1) and in view of C. S. Ash (US 2,542,455 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weld (US 2009/0315390 A1).
Regarding claim 5, ANPL in view of Mason and in view of C. S. Ash discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the body portion of the built-in center cap including external shaped hole portions extending into lug holes.
Weld teaches a body portion (the body of 280) of a center cap (280) including external shaped hole portions (310) extending into lug holes (230).
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 body portion of the built-in center cap of ANPL in view of Mason and in view of C. S. Ash to include external shaped hole portions extending into lug holes, as taught by Weld, for the purpose of providing a structure that aids in protecting the lugs from damage.
Claim 7, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant provided Non-Patent Literature (hereinafter referred to as ANPL; the figure below shows which Applicant provided NPL is being used in the rejection. There is no label on the figure thus it is unclear what the origin of the picture is. The Applicant disclosed that the NPL figure was obtained from Google Images around January 2023 or August 2023 thus is viewed as having a publication date before Applicant’s effective filing date) in view of Mason (US 2021/0178808 A1) and in view of C. S. Ash (US 2,542,455 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of etrailer.com Dexstar Steel Mini Mod Trailer Wheel Non-Patent Literature (hereinafter referred to as etrailer; the provided copy of Wayback Machine webpage directed to etrailer.com has a publication date of September 27, 2022).
Regarding claim 7, ANPL discloses that the trailer wheel is lug centric relative to a corresponding vehicle hub (the member that the lugs mount to in the figure above).
ANPL in view of Mason and in view of C. S. Ash does not disclose that the trailer wheel has zero wheel offset.
etrailer teaches a wheel that has zero wheel offset (see the Specs section of the document).
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 offset of the trailer wheel of ANPL in view of Mason and in view of C. S. Ash to have a zero wheel offset, as taught by etrailer, for the purpose of providing a wheel with improved bearing load distribution.
Claims 8 and 9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant provided Non-Patent Literature (hereinafter referred to as ANPL; the figure below shows which Applicant provided NPL is being used in the rejection. There is no label on the figure thus it is unclear what the origin of the picture is. The Applicant disclosed that the NPL figure was obtained from Google Images around January 2023 or August 2023 thus is viewed as having a publication date before Applicant’s effective filing date) in view of Mason (US 2021/0178808 A1) and in view of C. S. Ash (US 2,542,455 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2003/0001430 A1).
Regarding claim 8, ANPL in view of Mason discloses that the body portion of the built-in center cap extending to an outermost portion (the top end of the center cap of ANPL shown above).
ANPL in view of Mason and in view of C. S. Ash does not disclose that the body portion of the built-in center cap receives a snap-in cap.
Wang teaches a body portion (the body of 4) of a center cap (4) extends to an outermost portion (the left most portion of 4 in Figure 2) which receives a snap-in cap (5).
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 outermost portion of the body portion of the built-in center cap of ANPL in view of Mason and in view of C. S. Ash to receive a snap-in cap, as taught by Wang, for the purpose of providing a structure that aids in preventing foreign debris from entering in the center cap.
Regarding claim 9, ANPL in view of Mason and in view of C. S. Ash and further in view of Wang discloses that the outermost portion including a notch (431; Wang) **[for assistance with installation and removal of the snap-in cap]**.
**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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tchaghlassian (US D1,092,350 S) discloses a wheel that has opposing circular outer edges, a center cap, a plurality of spokes extending between the center cap and one of the outer edges, and the center cap having a plurality of openings.
Brown (US 3,598,450 A) discloses a vehicle wheel with a center cap attached to it, and the center cap has a frustoconical shape.
Stevens (US D1,137,071 S) discloses a wheel that has similar structural features to the wheel of the current application.
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