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 because Figure 1 and Figure 2 are sectional views which are required to have hatching. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 15, recites “the distance” which should be changed to --the axial distance-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 1, line 25, recites “the centre axis” which should be changed to --the central axis-- to maintain consistent claim language.
Claim 1, line 31, recites “the centre axis” which should be changed to --the central axis-- to maintain consistent claim language.
Claim 1, line 44, recites “the centre axis” which should be changed to --the central axis-- to maintain consistent claim language.
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 1-13 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 “high” in claim 1, line 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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 high may not be the same as what another person considers as high thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the region" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner lateral surface" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rim ring" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the Applicant trying to refer to the wheel rim from line 3?
Regarding claim 1, line 15, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1, lines 16-17, recites “wherein the wheel rim, the wheel disc and the wheel hub are designed in one piece as a monoblock wheel” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the Applicant means by “designed”. The function of designing does not necessarily mean the structure is formed as the design intended. Is the Applicant trying to claim --wherein the wheel rim, the wheel disc and the wheel hub are integral to each other thereby forming a one-piece monoblock wheel--?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axial position" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the radial position" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flange area" in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the Applicant trying to refer to the flange from claim 1, line 7?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the radial inner and axial outer corner" in lines 29-30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the area" in line 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axial position" in line 38. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the radial position" in line 39. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the axial position" in line 44. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the radial position" in line 45. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the curvature direction" in line 49. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the two ends" in line 50. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, line 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, line 6, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5, line 6, recites “S1” and “S2” which is indefinite because the Applicant has not signified what structure each designator is linked to. Should claim 3, line 4, be amended to recite --a thickness S2 of the wheel disc adjacent to the wheel hub-- and should claim 3, line 5, be amended to recite --a thickness S1 of the wheel disc adjacent to the wheel rim--?
Regarding claim 4, line 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5, line 5, recites “a second section” which is indefinite because it is unclear how there can be a second section without a previously claimed first section. A first section is claimed in claim 4, but claim 5 does not depend from claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, line 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second section" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A second section is claimed in claim 5, but claim 6 does not depend from claim 5.
Claim 7, line 5, recites “a third section” which is indefinite because it is unclear how there can be a third section without a previously claimed first section and second section. A first section is claimed in claim 4 and a second section is claimed in claim 5, but claim 7 does not depend from claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, line 4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first section" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A first section is claimed in claim 4, but claim 10 does not depend from claim 4.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first straight lines" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, line 25, only discloses a singular first straight line. How do the plurality of first straight lines relate to the first straight line from claim 1, line 25?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first section" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A first section is claimed in claim 4, but claim 11 does not depend from claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, line 6, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, line 4, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 13, line 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13, line 5, recites “RB1”, “RB”, and “LC” which is indefinite because the Applicant has not signified what structure each designator is linked to. What structures correspond to each designator? Should claim 13, line 4, be amended to recite --an axial width RB1--?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed combination of elements recited in claim 1, wherein a monoblock wheel is comprised of a radial outer wheel rim, a radial inner wheel hub, a wheel disc which connects the wheel rim to the wheel hub, the wheel rim having a running surface, a flange, an outer side surface in a first plane and an inner side surface in a second plane, the first plane and the second plane are orthogonal to the central axis, the wheel rim has a reference plane running orthogonally to the central axis, the reference plane is shifted outwards in parallel by an axial distance, the axial distance is 50 mm to 80 mm, the wheel rim, the wheel disc, and the wheel hub are designed in one piece as a monoblock wheel, the wheel disc has a median line the course of which is defined by a plurality of design points, the median line and for the design points, the following conditions apply: a) First design point which is the intersection of a third plane orthogonal to the central axis that determines the axial position and a first straight line that determines the radial position, the third plane is displaced inward parallel to the reference plane by an axial distance and runs through the flange, the first straight line passes through a base point at a radial inner and axial outer corner of the wheel rim and is opposite a second straight line parallel to the central axis at an angle between 0° and 14°, the median line of the wheel disc runs parallel to the reference plane in an area of the first design point, b) a second design point that is the vertex of the median line, the second design point is the intersection of a fifth plane orthogonal to the central axis that determines the axial position and a diameter that determines the radial position, the fifth plane is shifted outwards parallel to the reference plane by an axial distance, c) a third design point that is the intersection of a fourth plane orthogonal to the central axis that determines the axial position and a diameter that determines the radial position, the fourth plane lies between the third plane and the fifth plane and is shifted parallel to these two planes, d) a fourth design that is a turning point at which the curvature direction of the median line changes or a point on a straight line adjacent to the two ends of which the curvature direction of the median line changes.
K. Eklund (US 3,127,212 A) and O’Neil et al. (US 785,759 A) disclose a wheel for a track vehicle that is comprised of a wheel rim, a wheel hub, a wheel disc that connects the wheel rim to the wheel hub, the wheel rim having a running surface, a flange, an outer side surface, and an inner side surface, the wheel disc having a median line that is formed of a plurality of curved sections. K. Eklund and O’Neil et al. do not disclose structure(s) that meet the design points as presently claimed.
While the prior art, as described above, discloses wheels, wheel rims, wheel hubs, wheel discs, running surfaces, flanges, side surfaces, medial lines, curved sections, and design points, the prior art does not teach or render obvious the monoblock wheel as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to connect the elements of each prior art reference to make the applicant's invention absent improper hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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