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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 9, recites “and retracts when turned leftward” and “and retracts when turned rightward”, the placement of these recitations, after the clause reciting “the head section thereof to come off”, is confusing as it could be interpreted as meaning the head section retracts, or the screw retracts. Examiner suggests moving the recitations to before the clause beginning with “rotation of which…”, for greater clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 1-3, recitations of “An/The aluminum-wheel design cover”, suggest the cover is formed of aluminum, and it is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitations to “An/The wheel design cover”, for greater clarity.
Claim 1 recites “provided” which is grammatically incorrect. It is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitation to “is provided”, for greater clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitations: “, and retracts when turned leftward” and “, and retracts when turned rightward” and the placement thereof after the respective preceding clauses reciting “the head section thereof to come off”, renders the recitations indefinite because as written it is unclear which part retracts, the screws or the heads of the screws. It is suggested by the Examiner to move the recitations to before respective clauses beginning with “ rotation of which…”, for greater clarity.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2014043162-Ato Matsuno (“Matsuno”), and further in view of JP-S5994901-U to Hitachi (“Hitachi”).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuno (English Translation “ET” pages 1-13, Figs 1-18) discloses an 3 “wheel cap/disk” of thin metal plate constituting a having a three dimensional shape, having a non-rotationally symmetric 11 “pattern/design” [two-dimensional on axial sides of], the thickness is increased or decreased within the design to rotationally balance the mass”, ET Abstract, ET Page 1, Para 2 beginning “The present invention…”, Page 10, Para 2 beginning “In addition you may…”, Page 10 Para 3 beginning “In the above embodiment…”, ) comprising: a design cover part (11) that has a rotationally asymmetric design (11 has a rotationally asymmetric symbol [i.e. design/shape]) and is configured to be fitted onto (via five fasteners, in 2 “coupling portion” of 11, to hub, Page 10 Para 4 beginning “When the wheel according…”, Figs 1-15) a vehicle wheel (1 “wheel having excellent rotational balance” [i.e. rotationally symmetric without disk attached], Abstract; Page 1, Fig 14, 14a, 14b) having a rotationally symmetric design (just described); and a balance-adjustment weight part (additional material added to 11 to “increase thickness” to “intentionally balance”, ET Page 10 Para 3) is provided on the design cover part in such a manner to suppress vibrations (“if not wheel is not rotationally symmetric… vibrations are generated” ,“so as not to generate vibrations”, Page 1, Para 4, beginning “if he wheel 1 is not…”, Page 11, Para 3 beginning “Further, when”, Page 11 last line to Page 12 Para 1, lines 1-5 beginning “as mentioned above..”, ”embodiments can be combined…without departing from scope of invention”) when the design cover part is fitted onto the vehiclewheel and a vehicle tire is rotated.
Matsuno does not disclose the vehicle wheel material is an aluminum wheel.
Hitachi discloses a vehicle wheel made of aluminum material (English Translation “ET”, Para 1) motivation reduce weight, aluminum being light weight (Hitachi, ET Para 1).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the vehicle wheel and the vehicle wheel made of an aluminum material, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the vehicle wheel of Matsuno and the vehicle wheel made of an aluminum material of Hitachi, to modify the material of the wheel (of Matsuno) such that it was aluminum (like Hitachi), with the motivation to reduce the weight of the wheels and vehicle, thus reducing the energy requirements of the vehicle, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno, further in view of Hitachi, further in view of US-5713705-A to Grunbichler (“Grunbichler”).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Matsuno and Hitachi discloses the comprises an anti-theft mechanism for theft prevention when fitted onto the vehicle aluminum wheel.
Grunbichler discloses an anti-theft mechanism comprising at least one theft prevention fastener (5 “tamper-proof bolt”, having a 3 “torque head” with upper limit shear torque limit, that is fastened by screwing right or left handed threads into correspondingly threaded hole, the handedness of the bolt adds to confusion [i.e. confusion of a potential thief] which increases the tamper resistance of the bolt); the head is designed to shear off if rated shear torque limit is exceeded [thus if fastened but torque is not exceeded fastener remains removeable], intended to replace fasteners in various applications including upon vehicles, to enhance theft prevention (Col 3 lines 20-25, 46 -51; Col 4 lines 6-11, 43-45, Col 5 lines 22-28, Col 4 lines 43-45, Col 9-20, Figs 11a-c, 12a-c fig 11b)).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel design cover and the anti-theft mechanism comprising at least one theft prevention fastener, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel design cover of the combination of Matsuno and Hitachi and the anti-theft mechanism comprising at least one theft prevention fastener of Grunbichler, to modify the fasteners used to connection the wheel design cover (of the combination of Matsuno and Hitachi) such that they comprised an anti-theft mechanism comprising at least two theft prevention fasteners (like Grunbichler), each of which advance when turned in a first direction, and retract when turned in an opposite direction, the rotation of each is restricted at a certain torque or higher, causing a head section thereof to come off when turned further, with the motivation to prevent or deter theft of the cover and or wheels (as just described above), and such that at least one fastener was a right-hand threaded right screw part that advances when turned rightward, and retracts when turned leftward, and at least one fastener was a (left-hand threaded) left screw part that advances when turned leftward with the motivation to add additional confusion to a potential thief (as just described above), having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Matsuno, Hitachi and Grunbichler discloses the fastened with a plurality of screw components, the plurality of screw components including a right-hand threaded right screw part that advances when turned rightward, rotation of which is restricted at a certain torque or higher, causing a head section thereof to come off when turned further, and retracts when turned leftward, and a left screw part that advances when turned leftward, rotation of which is restricted at a certain torque or higher, causing a head section thereof to come off when turned further, and retracts when turned rightward, and wherein the anti-theft mechanism is constituted by containing the right screw part and the left screw part (as described in paragraph 13 of this document ).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed on PTO-892 is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and discloses at least one of : an aluminum rotationally symmetric wheel, an asymmetric cover, balanced with weights, connected to wheel via at least two theft proof fasteners having a predetermined torque upon which the head disconnects or breaks after which retraction is not possible, each fastener having either right handed threads or left handed threads.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 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 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
