DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected Group I, claims 1-12, 14, 16-17, 22, 24-35, 42 without traverse in the February 27, 2025 response.
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.
Claim 5 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.
As to claim 5, this claim recites “one or more first inserts” and should have depended on claim 4 (which has “one of said first inserts”) instead of claim 3 (which has no insert). Claim 5 is interpreted to depend on claim 4 in the prior art rejections below.
Claim 27 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 27 recites the broad recitation 60 to 100 C, and the claim also recites 70 to 95 C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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, 10-12, 14, 16, 22, 32, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by D’Armancourt (WO 2019113701A1).
As to claims 1 and 10-12, D’Armancourt teaches a method of assembling a bicycle rim (Figs. 1-4). D’Armancourt provides a pattern (52, 62) of removable material ([000131]), the pattern has an outer shape configured to produce an inner shape of at least part of said rim. D’Armancourt covers the outer sides of the pattern of removable material with one or more layers of webs of fiber material (Fig. 6, items 67 and 69; Fig. 15A) forming the rim (Fig. 16C). D’Armancourt places the covered pattern of removable material into an internal cavity of a mold (Figs. 9A-11, items 96 and 97) corresponding to an outer shape of the rim. D’Armancourt further teaches injecting resin (Fig. 9C, item 92) and heating the mold to a temperature ([000186]) that meets the claimed third temperature. While heating to the third temperature, D’Armancourt would inherently heat to/through first and second lower temperatures on the way to the third temperature.
As to claims 14 and 16, D’Armancourt teaches applying a vacuum ([000151]) to the mold during the resin injection/introduction, which is before/prior to heating the mold ([000186]). As to claim 22, D’Armancourt provides a pattern with a recess (See Fig. 2, location of 28 for example). As to claim 32, D’Armancourt provides glass fiber layers ([000138]). As to claim 33, D’Armancourt (Figs. 9C-11) show a supported pattern in a support apparatus (item 91, 96, and 97) that clamps around it. As to claim 34, D’Armancourt teaches a wax pattern ([000131]) which would inherently remain stable at temperatures below those where it melts.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 6-9, 35, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Armancourt (WO 2019113701A1) in view of Meggiolan (US 6,761,847). D’Armancourt teaches the subject matter of claim 2 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above.
As to claims 2 and 3, D’Armancourt is silent to multiple pattern segments covered with webs and combined to form a pattern.
Meggiolan teaches patterns formed by three (4:22) pattern segments (15) covered with layers of web material (12). Although it is unknown whether the Meggiolan segments are covered before or after combining, the claim is met by either order.
It would have been prima facie obvious to configure the D’Armancourt pattern into segments according to Meggiolan as an obvious improvement that would facilitate the extraction of the cores or pattern segments from the mold (4:20-25).
As to claim 6, D’Armancourt teaches two internal spaces (Fig. 11, area 194 and/or 188-189), and at least one of those internal spaces is formed by multiple patterns (see horizontal lines between 188 and 189). D’Armancourt is silent to three to five pattern segments assembled to form the pattern in the internal space prior to covering with layers of fiber material.
Meggiolan teaches a similar pattern formed by three (4:22) pattern segments (15) covered with layers of web material (12). Although Meggiolan does not appear to specifically teach any order of assembling and covering, at most this is an obvious difference in order to steps already taught by Meggiolan. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to assemble the pattern before covering with fiber material in order to provide the round shape already required by D’Armancourt.
It would have been prima facie obvious to configure the D’Armancourt pattern into segments according to Meggiolan as an obvious improvement that would facilitate the extraction of the cores or pattern segments from the mold (4:20-25).
As to claims 7, 8, and 9, D’Armancourt teaches two internal spaces (Fig. 2, above and below region 28), the first internal spaces being covered by one or more layers of webs of fiber material (29), and the second internal space is formed by multiple patterns (see horizontal lines between 188 and 189 in Fig. 11), with the combined first and second pattern being covered with further layers of webs of fiber material (Fig. 2, item 22). D’Armancourt is silent to both internal spaces formed by respective patterns containing three to five pattern segments assembled to form the pattern in the internal space prior to covering with layers of fiber material.
Meggiolan teaches a similar pattern formed by three (4:22) pattern segments (15) covered with layers of web material (12). In the combination with D’Armancourt, one would have recognized that Meggiolan’s teaching to provide patterns in three segments could be applied to all portions of the D’Armancourt pattern, including the pattern in the first and second spaces. Although Meggiolan does not appear to specifically teach any order of assembling and covering, at most this is an obvious difference in order to steps already taught by Meggiolan. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to assemble the pattern before covering with fiber material in order to provide the round shape already required by D’Armancourt.
It would have been prima facie obvious to configure the D’Armancourt pattern into segments according to Meggiolan as an obvious improvement that would facilitate the extraction of the cores or pattern segments from the mold (4:20-25).
As to claims 35 and 42, D’Armancourt already teaches removable pattern material that would inherently remain stable below its melting point (i.e. wax), but is silent to two patterns formed from removable material multiple pattern segments.
Meggiolan teaches patterns formed by three (4:22) pattern segments (15) covered with layers of web material (12). In the combination, one would have found it obvious to provide all of the D’Armancourt removable patterns from multiple segments as taught by Meggiolan.
It would have been prima facie obvious to configure the D’Armancourt pattern into segments according to Meggiolan as an obvious improvement that would facilitate the extraction of the cores or pattern segments from the mold (4:20-25).
Claims 4, 5, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Armancourt (WO 2019113701A1). D’Armancourt teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above.
As to claims 4 and 5, D’Armancourt teaches a core system which may have an insert (62) “connected thereto” ([000136]) that is capable of interacting a support apparatus for assembling the rim. While it is unclear whether an insert “connected” to the core meets the “integrally formed” insert claimed, making separate parts integral is generally prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)). In this case, it would have been prima facie obvious to make the D’Armancourt core and insert integral in order to automatically position the insert while positioning the core.
As to claim 28, D’Armancourt teaches a wax pattern ([000131]), and it would inherently remain stable below its melting point.
As to claims 29-31, D’Armancourt teaches a core system which may have an insert (62) “connected thereto” ([000136]) which would become fixedly attached to the rim at positions for spokes or valves. While it is unclear whether an insert “connected” to the core meets the claimed “present therein” or “integrally formed”, making separate parts integral (and therefore present therein) is generally prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)). In this case, it would have been prima facie obvious to make the D’Armancourt core and insert integral in order to automatically position the insert while positioning the core. The multiple “reinforcing layers” ([000136]) constitute first and second inserts attached.
Claims 17, 24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Armancourt (US 2019113701A1) in view of Lenherr (US 20020038923). D’Armancourt teaches the subject matter of claim 1 and 16 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above.
As to claim 17, D’Armancourt teaches curing the resin in the mold with heat ([000186]). The Examiner has difficulty understanding exactly what is/is not required because of the phrases “at least one of”, “and/or”, and “and further comprising at least of the following steps”. Assuming that heat and epoxy are sufficient to meet the claim, D’Armancourt is silent to epoxy.
Lenherr teaches providing a composite material containing epoxy resin ([0047]) injected into a mold ([0083]), which appears to be sufficient to meet the claimed “a resin on an epoxy basis…suitable for injection”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Lenherr wax core material and casting process into D’Armancourt (a) as an obvious interchangeable substitute or replacement for the unknown resin of D’Armancourt, or alternatively, (b) D’Armancourt teaches/suggests a resin with a core and Lenherr provides a core surrounded by an epoxy resin within the scope of the D’Armancourt teaching/suggestion even if D'Armancourt does not teach a specific resin.
As to claims 24, 26, and 27, D’Armancourt teaches wax ([000131]), but is silent to the features of claims 24, 26, and 27.
Lenherr teaches a supporting core of wax ([0031] that can be melted out to produce molten core material that is cast to provide a new preform (Abstract, last sentence). The melting temperature of the core material is 100-110 C ([0085]-[0086]) and would inherently remain stable at 70-90 C (the shaped fibre composite mass is cured at 65-85 C, [0085]). These characteristics meet all of claims 24, 26, and 27.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Lenherr wax core material and casting process into D’Armancourt (a) as an obvious interchangeable substitute or replacement for the unknown fabrication process and wax material of D’Armancourt, or alternatively, (b) D’Armancourt teaches/suggests a wax core and Lenherr provides a core within the scope of the D’Armancourt teaching/suggestion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: all prior art fails to teach the specifics of claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742