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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/24/25 has been entered.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification as originally filed does not provide support for the limitation “wherein the first end and the second end of each one of the first component and the second component are opposite to each other along a longitudinal axis of said component part”. The specification does not mention the ends being opposite to each other and the drawings show a particular point but do not show the length of the structure. The drawings appear to show them being opposite to each other widthwise, but not longitudinally.
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(s) 1, 4-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashiki, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0264536 in view of Colgrove et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0194619.
Yashiki teaches an annular component part formed from a plurality of fiber reinforced thermoplastic structures. Each of the plurality of fiber reinforced thermoplastic structures are wound and seamed, wherein the seam of each fiber reinforced thermoplastic structure is offset relative to the seam of the other fiber reinforced thermoplastic structure about the circumference of the annular component part. See paragraph 0092-0095. Each of the seams are offset at 45 degrees from others. See figure 4; paragraphs 0111-0123. The fibers in the structure can be unidirectionally disposed in a resin matrix. See paragraphs 0046-0047. Each sheet of fibers can be made up of multiple plies. See paragraph 0059. The sheets which are wrapped around correspond to the claimed component parts and there can be four or more component parts or sheets as shown by figure 4, paragraphs 0111-0123.
Yashiki teaches that each ply should not form a gap when wrapped circumferentially and that preferably also there is no overlap, which means that Yashiki teaches an abutting seam at each of the starting locations. See paragraph 0101. Further, since Yashiki teaches that the seams are offset by 45 degrees, and there are multiple layers, the structure meets the limitations that the seams are opposite to each other along a longitudinal axis of said component part, in that the seam would extend at least along a portion of the longitudinal axis and the claims do not require that the seams are opposite along the entire length. See figure 5. Yashiki teaches that the wound sheets can include a combination of sheets, where the sheets are at different angles relative to each other. See paragraph 0111.
With regard to the particular shape of the structure, Yashiki differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the structure is a bicycle wheel rim or has a dished profile .
However, Colgrove discloses annular composite structures useful as bicycle rims.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the structure of Yashiki to form other types of wound items such as bicycle wheels and items having a dished profile or any particular shape.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the disclosure of Yashiki at paragraph 0101 is with regard to the laminated or overlapping sheets rather than the referring to the seam being abutting or overlapping. However, Yashiki is referring to circumferential overlapping, which refers to the whether the materials which are wrapped overlap or not. Further, Yashiki teaches that forming abutting seams provides improved circumferential uniformity. See paragraph 0007.
With regard to the start and end point of the wrapping layers, since Yashiki teaches that there should not be overlap or a gap, Yashiki teaches that the start and end points should form an abutting seam. See paragraph 0101.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Suze are noted. A modified rejection employing the new Colgrove reference which clearly teaches bicycle rims formed from composite materials is set forth above . Additionally, as set forth above, it would have been obvious to have selected the particular shape of the annular composite material depending upon its intended use.
Applicant argues that the since Yashiki teaches a rod, the seams would be across from each other in the width but not in the length, however, , as set forth above, Yashiki teaches that the ends should meet without overlaps and without gaps, which is equated with forming an abutting seam. Further, since the seam would extend to at least some degree along the length of the structure, it meets the limitation of being opposite in the longitudinal direction, since the claims do not require the seams to be across from each other along the entire length.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789