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
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
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 hub from claim 4 that is not a part of the central part from claim 4, and the extension of the interface portion from claim 9 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 Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Reference character “A” in Figure 8 should be placed in parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 9 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, lines 2-3, recites “is more than 10%, more than 15%, 15-30%, 20-30%, 25-35% of a width of the wheel” which is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to --is more than 10%, more than 15%, 15-30%, 20-30%, or 25-35% of a width of the wheel--.
Claim 17, line 2, recites “wherein curb-side rim part” which is grammatically incorrect and should be changed to --wherein the curb-side rim part--.
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 6-15 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.
Claim 6, line 3, recites “the interface portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear which one the three previously disclosed interface portions the Applicant is referring to. Reference characters in parentheses are not read into the claim and do not affect the scope of a claim per MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 7, lines 1-2, recites “the interface portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear which one the three previously disclosed interface portions the Applicant is referring to. Reference characters in parentheses are not read into the claim and do not affect the scope of a claim per MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 8, line 1-2, recites “the interface portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear which one the three previously disclosed interface portions the Applicant is referring to. Reference characters in parentheses are not read into the claim and do not affect the scope of a claim per MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the extension" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, what extension is the Applicant trying to reference? Is the extension a separate element from the interface portion?
Claim 9, line 2, recites “the interface portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear which one the three previously disclosed interface portions the Applicant is referring to. Reference characters in parentheses are not read into the claim and do not affect the scope of a claim per MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 9, line 3, recites “a width of the wheel” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly which width the Applicant is referring to. A wheel can made of a plurality of structural elements can have a multitude of widths depending on what part is being looked at. Exactly what width is the Applicant trying to reference. The metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the interface portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, lines 1-2, recites “the car-side interface portion has an outer diameter that is smaller than an inner diameter” which is indefinite because a frame of reference has not been disclosed which would allow one to determine what is to be considered outer and inner. Should lines 1-2 be amended to recite --the car-side interface portion has an outer diameter on an outer axial side of the car-side interface portion that is smaller than an inner diameter on an inner axial side of the car-side interface portion--?
Claim 12, line 1-2, recites “the interface portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear which one the three previously disclosed interface portions the Applicant is referring to. Reference characters in parentheses are not read into the claim and do not affect the scope of a claim per MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the curb-side interface portion" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13, lines 1-3, recites “the curb-side interface portion has an outer diameter that is smaller than an inner (second) diameter” which is indefinite because a frame of reference has not been disclosed which would allow one to determine what is to be considered outer and inner. Should lines 1-3 be amended to recite --the curb-side interface portion has an outer diameter on an outer axial side of the car-side interface portion that is smaller than an inner diameter on an inner axial side of the car-side interface portion--?
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the interface portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14, lines 2-3, recites “wherein an outer thickness is greater than an inner thickness” which is indefinite because a frame of reference has not been disclosed which would allow one to determine what is to be considered outer and inner. Furthermore, is the Applicant referring to an axial thickness, a radial thickness, or a circumferential thickness? Should lines 1-3 be amended to recite --wherein an outer radial thickness on an outer axial side of the curb-side interface portion that is greater than an inner radial thickness on an inner axial side of the curb-side interface portion--?
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the curb-side interface portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15, line 2, recites “tapers off (inner thickness t2 ~ 0)” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicant intends to have the language in the parentheses be a part of the claim. Reference characters in parentheses are not read into the claim and do not affect the scope of a claim per MPEP 608.01(m), but the language in the parentheses appears to be more than a reference character. The language in the parentheses has not been read into the claim.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 17, and 19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumgartner (US 4,363,347 A).
Regarding claim 1, Baumgartner discloses a multi-part wheel comprising a curb-side rim part (2) and a car-side rim part (3), wherein the curb-side rim part comprises an outer rim-base portion (the horizontal portion of 2 in Figure 3), and the car-side rim part comprises an inner rim-base portion (the surface of 3 directly below the outer rim-base portion shown in Figure 3) and a center part (the middle structural portion of the wheel).
Regarding claim 2, Baumgartner discloses that the center part comprises at least a portion of spokes (Column 3 / Lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 3, Baumgartner discloses that the center part comprises a hub (the part of the wheel that 7 is formed on) and the spokes.
Regarding claim 4, Baumgartner discloses that the multi-part wheel further comprises a hub (the part of the wheel that 7 is formed on) that is configured to be attached to the center part to form part of the center part.
Regarding claim 5, Baumgartner discloses that the center part is an integral part of the car-side rim part (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Baumgartner discloses that each rim part has an interface portion (the surface of 2 and the surface of 3 that are in direct contact with each other as shown in Figure 3) that when joined together form an interface portion (see Figure 3) for the wheel, and wherein the interface portion extends in a direction substantially parallel to a center axis (the axial centerline of the wheel) of the wheel.
Regarding claim 7, Baumgartner discloses that the interface portion does not extend in a direction orthogonal to the center axis (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Baumgartner discloses that the extension parallel to the center axis of the interface portion is more than 10%, more than 15%, 15-30%, 20-30%, 25-35% of a width of the wheel (in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above regarding claim 9, the structure of Baumgartner meets this claim limitation because the length of the viewed interface portion of the curb-side rim part is longer (i.e. more than 10%) a width (the axial width of the vertical part of 12) of the wheel thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 10, Baumgartner discloses that the interface portion of the car-side rim part has a shape of a truncated cone (18 is a conical angle).
Regarding claim 11, Baumgartner discloses that the car-side interface portion has an outer diameter (the left end of the interface portion of 1 as shown in Figure 3) that is smaller than an inner diameter (the right end of the interface portion of 1 as shown in Figure 3; 18 shows an angle that is larger as it extends in the right direction in Figure 3 thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 12, Baumgartner discloses that the interface portion has a shape of a truncated cone (18 is a conical angle).
Regarding claim 13, Baumgartner discloses that the curb-side interface portion has an outer diameter (the left end of the interface portion of 2 as shown in Figure 3) that is smaller than an inner (second) diameter (the right end of the interface portion of 2 as shown in Figure 3; 18 shows an angle that is larger as it extends in the right direction in Figure 3 thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 14, Baumgartner discloses that the interface portion of the curb-side rim part has a tapered shape (see the chamfer on the right end of 2 in Figure 3; it is noted that the entirety of the interface portion of the curb-side rim part does not need to be tapered to meet the claim limitation as currently written), wherein an outer thickness (the thickness of 2 to the left of the chamfer in Figure 3) is greater than an inner thickness (the thickness of the rightmost end of the chamfered portion of 2 in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 17, Baumgartner discloses that the curb-side rim part and the car-side rim part are joined together through being glued together using an adhesive (Column 3 / Lines 59-61).
Regarding claim 19, Baumgartner discloses that the curb-side rim part and the car-side rim part have been joined together through heat bonding (Column 3 / Lines 53-54).
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 8, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (US 4,363,347 A) in view of Cvijanovic et al. (US 6,073,347 A).
Regarding claim 8, Baumgartner discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the interface portion extends in a direction that is within +/- 10 degrees, +/- 5, +/- 3 degrees relative the center axis, or within +/- 2 degrees relative the center axis.
Cvijanovic et al. teaches an interface portion (18, 27) that extends in a direction that is 5 degrees relative to a center axis (the axial centerline of 10).
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 interface portion of Baumgartner to be within +/- 10 degrees, +/- 5, +/- 3 degrees relative the center axis, or within +/- 2 degrees relative the center axis, as taught by Cvijanovic et al., for the purpose of providing an angle that allows for easy fitment of the two wheel parts together.
Claims 15 and 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (US 4,363,347 A) in view of Dudley et al. (US 11,975,566 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Baumgartner discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the curb-side interface portion tapers off.
Dudley et al. teaches a wheel that has a curb-side interface portion (80) that tapers off (see Figure 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 curb-side interface portion of Baumgartner to taper off, as taught by Dudley et al., for the purpose of reducing the weight of the wheel.
Regarding claim 16, Baumgartner discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the wheel is made of a composite material.
Dudley et al. teaches a wheel that is made of a composite material (carbon fiber; Column 4 / Lines 27-28).
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 of Baumgartner to be made of a composite material, as taught by Dudley et al., for the purpose of providing a wheel structure that is light in weight and resistant to rust.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (US 4,363,347 A) in view of Overbeck et al. (US 4,610,482 A).
Regarding claim 18, Baumgartner discloses that the curb-side rim part and the car-side rim part have been joined together.
Baumgartner does not disclose that the joining is through pressure fit.
Overbeck et al. teaches a curb-side rim part (14) and a car-side rim part (12) that have been joined together through pressure fit (Column 3 / Lines 55-62).
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 joining of the curb-side rim part and the car-side rim part of Baumgartner to be made through a pressure fit, as taught by Overbeck et al., for the purpose of providing a connection that keeps the wheel parts together without the use of adhesive or a heating process thus aiding in reducing costs and expediting assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
F. C. Frank (US 2,105,317 A) discloses a wheel formed of a curb-side part and a rim-side part, the car-side part having an inner rim-base portion and a center part, and the curb-side part and the car-side part are connected to each other through an interface portion.
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