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
1. Each distinct part, including modified parts, should be labeled with a distinct reference
character to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). Note at least the following informalities:
· The elements represented by reference characters 14 and 141-145 in the embodiment shown in Figs. 9-16 are distinct from the elements represented by these same reference characters shown in the embodiments of Fig. 5.
· The element represented by reference character 157 in the embodiment shown in Figs. 14, 15, and 16 is distinct from the element represented by the same reference character shown in the embodiment of Fig. 12.
· Note that Applicant is also required to revise the specification to reflect the corresponding changes made to the drawings in response to the above drawing objections.
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
· Reference character “143” has been used to designate both “inlet” and “obstruction section”. Refer to the reference character located at the bottom right of Fig. 2.
· Reference character “143” has been used to designate both “inlet” and “obstruction section” in Fig. 13.
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
· Fig. 6: “J”; “D”; “P”
4. The drawings are objected to because:
· The reference character “13” should be replaced with --11-- in Fig. 6. The reference character 13 does not correspond to the structure indicated in the figure.
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 Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
· “the flow of the air” should be replaced with --the flow of air-- for clarity and consistency in line 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 9-11 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 9 is indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by the recitation “to cover a whole of a surface of the wheel”. Note that, as shown in Figs. 1 and 4, the wheel cover does not appear to cover the entire surface of the wheel, as at least the spoke portions of the wheel remain uncovered. Therefore, it is unclear whether “a whole of a surface of the wheel” is intended to include spoke portions or only the portions, i.e., air openings 117 of the wheel covered by the wheel cover as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
9. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Noma (JP 6927079 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Noma discloses a vehicle wheel structure (Fig. 1) comprising: a wheel 1 (Fig. 1) configured to support a tire (Although the tire is not explicitly shown in the drawings, the tire is inherently supported by the wheel 1), the wheel 1 being assembled into a vehicle (The wheel is inherently being assembled in to a vehicle); and a wheel mounting member 2 (Fig. 1) mounted on the wheel 1, wherein the wheel mounting member 2 (Note that the Examiner also interprets the combination of all five body members as collectively forming the wheel mounting member) mounted on the wheel 1 (Figs. 1 and 2) assembled into the vehicle includes a diversion mechanism (Fig. 7), the diversion mechanism including a first member disposed on an inner side (Refer to the first member and inner side in the annotated Fig. 7 below) of the vehicle, a second member disposed on an outer side of the vehicle (Refer to the second member and outer side in the annotated Fig. 7 below) with an interval to the first member (Refer to the interval in the annotated Fig. 7 below), an inlet (Refer to the inlet in the annotated Fig. 7 below) provided to the first member to lead air to a space (Refer to the space in the annotated Fig. 7 below) between the first member and the second member in an air opening 16 (Fig. 3) provided to a disk (The claimed disk corresponds to the central portion of the wheel 1, including the spokes extending between the hub 14 and the rim 12 as shown in Fig. 3) having a plate shape (Fig. 3), the disk being provided to the wheel 1, the air being air moved by a flow of air directed from the inner side of the vehicle to the outer side of the vehicle (Para [0035]-[0036]; Fig. 7), an obstruction section (Refer to the obstruction section in the annotated Fig. 7 below) configured to obstruct the flow of the air led from the inlet, and an outlet provided to the second member to lead the air moved by the flow of air obstructed by the obstruction section to the outer side of the vehicle (Refer to the annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 7 of Noma
Regarding claim 2, Noma discloses the inlet and the outlet (Refer to the inlet and outlet in the annotated Fig. 7 above) are provided not to overlap in an axial direction (Refer to the axial direction in the annotated Fig. 7 above) of the wheel 1.
Regarding claim 5, Noma discloses the inlets and the outlets are each provided along a circumferential direction of the wheel 1 (Figs. 1-3 and 7; Each fan-shaped wall portion 22 comprises the inlets and outlets as shown in Fig. 7 and each wall portion 22 is arranged in a circumferential direction of the wheel 1 as shown in Figs. 1-3. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 6, Noma discloses the outlet 24 is provided to be spaced apart from a rim (Refer to the rim and outlet in the annotated Fig. 1 below; The outlet is radially spaced apart from the rim) provided to the wheel 1 and configured to support the tire on an outer circumferential surface (Although the tire is not explicitly shown in the drawings, the tire is inherently supported by the outer circumferential surface of the rim) toward a center of the wheel 1 (Refer to the center of the wheel 1 in the annotated Fig. 1 below) in a radial direction (in a direction extending toward or away from the center of the wheel 1) of the wheel 1 by a predetermined distance (The Examiner interprets the claimed “predetermined distance” as being measured between the rim portion on which the tire would be mounted, as indicated by the arrow in annotated Fig. 1 below, and the bottom portion of the outlet. Because the outlet has a radial extent, the Examiner reads the bottom portion of the outlet, which is closer to opening 16, as satisfying the claimed spacing. The claim does not further limit or specify the particular locations from which the predetermined distance must be measured), the rim having an annular shape (Figs. 1 and 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
427
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 1 of Noma
Regarding claim 7, Noma discloses the predetermined distance is a distance determined such that, when the air is led to the outer side of the vehicle from the outlet, the led air flows apart from a sidewall of the tire (Although the tire sidewall is not shown, Noma discloses the wheel structure on which the tire would be mounted. Thus, by virtue of the position and spacing of the outlet relative to the rim, the disclosed arrangement is capable of directing air toward the outer side of the vehicle such that the discharged air flows apart from the sidewall of the tire, thereby satisfying the claimed predetermined distance).
Regarding claim 8, Noma discloses the obstruction section is provided to be located between the inlet and the outlet in an axial direction of the wheel 1 (Refer to the obstruction, inlet, outlet, and axial direction in the annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 7 of Noma
Regarding claim 9, Noma discloses the second member (Refer to the second member in the annotated Fig. 7 above) is provided to serve as a body section (Refer to the body section in the annotated Fig 3 below) of the wheel mounting member (The combination of all five body members as collectively forming the claimed wheel mounting member) provided to cover a whole of a surface of the wheel 1 (As best understood, Noma meets this limitation in view of Fig. 1) corresponding to the outer side of the vehicle when mounted on the wheel (It is inherent that the wheel cover is mounted on the side of the wheel facing the outside of the vehicle).
PNG
media_image3.png
414
677
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Noma
Regarding claim 10, Noma discloses the body section includes a plurality of body formation members (Refer to the body formation member in the annotated Fig. 3 above) and a coupling section (Refer to the coupling section in the annotated Fig. 4 below; Para [0033]) configured to couple the body formation members along a circumferential direction of the wheel 1 when mounted on the wheel 1 (Figs. 1 and 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
387
583
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 of Noma
Regarding claim 12, Noma discloses the wheel mounting member 2 is formed by using a resin material (Para [0032]).
11. Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shankar et al (US 2025/0214548 A1; hereinafter “Shankar”).
Regarding claim 1, Shankar discloses a vehicle wheel structure (Fig. 1) comprising: a wheel 1 (Figs. 2 and 4) configured to support a tire 63 (Fig. 4), the wheel 1 being assembled into a vehicle 9 (Fig. 4); and a wheel mounting member 3 (Figs. 1-3) mounted on the wheel 1 (Fig. 4), wherein the wheel mounting member 3 mounted on the wheel 1 assembled into the vehicle 9 (Fig. 4) includes a diversion mechanism (Fig. 2), the diversion mechanism including a first member (Refer to the first member in the annotated Fig. 2 below) disposed on an inner side (Refer to the inner side in the annotated Fig. 2 below) of the vehicle 9, a second member (Refer to the second member in the annotated Fig. 2 below) disposed on an outer side (Refer to the outer side in the annotated Fig. 2 below) of the vehicle 9 with an interval (Refer to the interval in the annotated Fig. 2 below) to the first member, an inlet (Refer to the inlet in the annotated Fig. 2 below) provided to the first member to lead air to a space (Refer to the space in the annotated Fig. 2 below) between the first member and the second member in an air opening 24 provided to a disk having a plate shape (Shankar discloses the plate-shaped disk portion extending between the central outer boss 21 and the outer peripheral rim 22 and having a plurality of air openings 24 formed therein; Fig. 2; Para [0055]-[0056]), the disk being provided to the wheel 1, the air being air moved by a flow of air directed from the inner side of the vehicle to the outer side of the vehicle (Para [0060]), an obstruction section (Refer to the obstruction section in the annotated Fig. 2 below) configured to obstruct the flow of the air led from the inlet, and an outlet provided to the second member to lead the air moved by the flow of air obstructed by the obstruction section to the outer side of the vehicle (Para [0060]; The Examiner interprets the protruding ridge 43 as the claimed obstruction section because the ridge 43 protrudes into the airflow path at the opening, thereby obstructing and altering the flow of air passing through the opening).
PNG
media_image5.png
538
625
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Shankar
Regarding claim 2, Shankar discloses the inlet and the outlet are provided not to overlap in an axial direction of the wheel 1 (Refer to the inlet, outlet, and axial direction in the annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 3, Shankar discloses the inlet and the outlet are provided to have different distances from a center of the wheel in a radial direction of the wheel (Refer to the inlet, outlet, center of the wheel, and radial direction in the annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
538
569
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Shankar
Regarding claim 4, Shankar discloses the distances are set such that the distance to the inlet is greater than the distance to the outlet (Refer to the distances of the inlet and outlet in the annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
513
562
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Shankar
Regarding claim 5, Shankar discloses the inlets and the outlets (Refer to the inlet and outlet in the annotated Fig. 2 above) are each provided along a circumferential direction of the wheel 1 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Shankar discloses the outlet (Refer to the outlet as discussed above with respect to claim 1 and annotated Fig. 2 above) is provided to be spaced apart from a rim 2 (Fig. 2) provided to the wheel 1 and configured to support the tire 63 on an outer circumferential surface (Fig. 4) toward a center of the wheel 1 in a radial direction of the wheel 1 by a predetermined distance (The claimed predetermined distance corresponds to the radial distance between the outlet and outer peripheral rim 22), the rim 2 having an annular shape (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Shankar discloses the predetermined distance is a distance determined such that, when the air is led to the outer side of the vehicle from the outlet, the led air flows apart from a sidewall of the tire (By virtue of the position and spacing of the outlet relative to the rim, the disclosed arrangement is capable of directing air toward the outer side of the vehicle such that the discharged air flows apart from the sidewall of the tire, thereby satisfying the claimed predetermined distance).
Regarding claim 9, Shankar discloses the second member (Refer to the second member in the annotated Fig. 1 below) is provided to serve as a body section (Refer to the body section in the annotated Fig. 1 below) of the wheel mounting member 3 provided to cover a whole of a surface of the wheel 1 (Fig. 1) corresponding to the outer side of the vehicle 9 when mounted on the wheel 1 (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
632
616
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig.1 of Shankar
Regarding claim 10, Shankar discloses the body section includes a plurality of body formation members (Refer to the body formation member in the annotated Fig. 1 below) and a coupling section (Refer to the coupling section in the annotated Fig. 1 below; Or 36 “attaching means”; Fig. 2; Para [0044] and [0055]) configured to couple the body formation members along a circumferential direction of the wheel 1 when mounted on the wheel 1.
PNG
media_image9.png
647
657
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 1 of Shankar
Regarding claim 11, Shankar discloses the coupling section couples the body formation members in a middle section (Refer to the coupling section in the annotated Fig. 1 below; Or 36 “attaching means”; Fig. 2; Para [0044] and [0055]) of the wheel 1 when mounted on the wheel 1 (Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
13. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
14. 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.
15. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noma in view of Huguet et al (FR3065397A1; hereinafter “Huguet”) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 12 above.
Regarding claim 11, Noma fails to disclose the coupling section couples the body formation members in a middle section of the wheel when mounted on the wheel.
Huguet, however, teaches a wheel cover (Fig. 1) including a coupling section 30 (Figs. 9 and 12) that couples body formation members (20 “secondary insert”; Figs. 9, 12, and 13) at a middle section 103 (Figs. 9, 14, and 16) of a wheel 100 (Fig. 9) when mounted on the wheel 100 (Fig. 1).
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 wheel cover of Noma by including a center locking portion configured to connect the body formation members of the wheel cover to one another and to connect the wheel cover to the center of the wheel, as taught by Huguet, since such center-mounted connections for wheel covers are well known in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a more secure and stable connection between the wheel cover and the wheel during rotation.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose a wheel cover including air-through holes.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON (TAE) CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights