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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 7/3/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-14, 16-18, 21-23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Kilpatrick (AU 701996) and Mercat (US 20060108858).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 16-18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilpatrick (AU 701996) in view of Mercat (US 20060108858).
Regarding claim 1, Kilpatrick teaches an injection moulded cantilevered wheel for a bicycle (Claims 1-2), comprising:
a rim 42 (Figs. 8-9);
a central hub 41 (Fig. 9);
a plurality of hollow spokes 43 connecting the rim 42 to the central hub 41 (Figs. 8-9); and
a central spar (Fig. 8) running throughout and symmetrically within each hollow spoke 43 and perpendicular in plane to a plane defined by a centreline of the rim 42 (Figs. 8-9).
Kilpatrick does not teach the bike wheel being single side mountable.
However, Mercat teaches a bicycle wheel which is mounted on a single side of the bike ([0042], Fig. 5 of Mercat).
Mercat also teaches a central hub that is offset from centerline of the rim (Fig. 4 of Mercat; the hub 64 is shown as offset from the rim 63; Fig. 5 of Mercat; the rim centerline 50 is offset to the right of the endpoint of the hub).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle wheel of Kilpatrick to be mountable on one side of a bicycle in order to advantageously avoid having to remove the transmission element when mounting or demounting new wheels (Abstract of Mercat).
Regarding claim 2, Kilpatrick as modified by Mercat includes all of the limitations, including the offset between the hub and the centerline of the rim (see details in the rejection of claim 1 above, including the motivation to modify).
Regarding claim 3, Kilpatrick as modified teaches wherein the rim 42 comprises a hollow cross section (Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 16, Kilpatrick as modified teaches wherein the wheel comprises a hub interface surface (Fig. 5 of Mercat; the point where the teeth of the wheel 70 and the teeth of the bike 56 touch is the interface surface) arranged to abut against a bicycle when the wheel is mounted to the bicycle, and wherein the abutment surface is offset from the plane defined by the centreline of the rim ([0022], Fig. 5 of Mercat; the centerline of the rim is shown and is slightly to the right of the abutment point).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the abutment surface of the wheel of Kilpatrick on one side of the bike, slightly offset from the centerline of the rim as it is in Mercat in order to advantageously avoid having to remove the transmission element when mounting or demounting new wheels (Abstract of Mercat).
Regarding claim 17, Kilpatrick does not teach a curved spoke axis.
However, Mercat teaches a bike wherein an axis of each spoke extending along the length of each spoke 65 is curved (Fig. 5 of Mercat).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hollow spokes of Kilpatrick to have a curved central axis as they do in Mercat since the curved spokes of Mercat allow the median plane of the wheel rims to be aligned with the median plane of the bike frame for balancing purposes while advantageously allowing the wheel to be mounted on one side to avoid having to remove the transmission element when mounting or demounting new wheels (Abstract of Mercat).
Regarding claim 18, Kilpatrick as modified teaches wherein a cross sectional area of each hollow spoke 43 decreases smoothly in a direction radially outwardly from the centre of the wheel (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 25, Kilpatrick as modified teaches a bicycle comprising the wheel (Pg. 7, lines 7-8).
Claims 5-11, 13-14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilpatrick in view of Mercat and further in view of Olson (US 5184874).
Regarding claim 5, Kilpatrick as modified does not teach inner drain holes.
However, Olson teaches wherein an inner wheel hub surface 12 of the wheel comprises a plurality of inner drain holes 17 (Fig. 7; Col. 4, lines 49-58 of Olson; the drainage apertures 17 extending from the central axle mount to the hollow spokes is clearly shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of drain holes on the inner wheel hub surface of Kilpatrick in order to advantageously manufacture the wheel of injection moulded plastic in a method which provides the strength and stiffness properties of a metal spoke wheel (Col. 2, lines 14-18 and Col. 4, lines 52-58 of Olson).
Regarding claim 6, Kilpatrick as modified does not teach wherein each inner drain hole is aligned with one of the plurality of hollow spokes.
However, Olson teaches wherein each inner drain hole 17 of the plurality of inner drain holes is aligned with an innermost end of a respective one of the plurality of hollow spokes (Fig. 7 of Olson; the cross section of the wheel hub area shows drainage holes 17 extending into the innermost end of the spokes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to align a plurality of drain holes on the inner wheel hub surface with the spokes of Kilpatrick in order to advantageously manufacture the wheel of injection moulded plastic in a method which provides the strength and stiffness properties of a metal spoke wheel (Col. 2, lines 14-18 and Col. 4, lines 52-58 of Olson).
Regarding claim 7, Kilpatrick as modified does not teach outer drain holes.
However, Olson teaches wherein an outer surface of the rim 20 comprises a plurality of outer drain holes 42 (Fig. 10; Col. 4, lines 49-58 of Olson; an edge view of the rim with drainage apertures 42 is shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of drain holes on the outer end of the wheel of Kilpatrick in order to advantageously manufacture the wheel of injection moulded plastic in a method which provides the strength and stiffness properties of a metal spoke wheel (Col. 2, lines 14-18 and Col. 4, lines 52-58 of Olson).
Regarding claim 8, Kilpatrick as modified does not teach wherein each outer drain hole is aligned with one of the plurality of spokes.
However, Olson teaches wherein each outer drain hole 42 of the plurality of outer drain holes 42 is aligned with an outermost end of a respective one of the plurality of hollow spokes 16 (See annotated Figs 1 and 10 of Olson below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to align a plurality of drain holes on the outer wheel surface with the spokes of Kilpatrick in order to advantageously manufacture the wheel of injection moulded plastic in a method which provides the strength and stiffness properties of a metal spoke wheel (Col. 2, lines 14-18 and Col. 4, lines 52-58 of Olson).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have drainage holes located at the outermost end of a respective one of the plurality of outer hollows spokes, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, Kilpatrick as modified does not teach a reinforcement region surrounding the outer drain holes.
However, Olson teaches wherein each outer drain hole 42 of the plurality of outer drain holes 42 comprises a surrounding reinforcement region 26 (see annotated Fig. 10 of Olson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified wheel of Kilpatrick/et.al. to have a reinforcement region surrounding the outer drain holes in order to advantageously provide drainage means to the injection moulded wheel without compromising the rigidity and strength (Col. 4, lines 3-12 of Olson).
Regarding claim 10, Kilpatrick as modified teaches outer drain holes (see claim 7 rejection above), but does not teach wherein a linear size of the reinforcement region is between 2.0 and 4.0 times larger than a linear size of the respective outer drain hole.
However, Olson teaches a linear reinforcement region for the inner drain holes being multiple times the size of the linear size of the inner drain hole (Fig. 7 of Olson; the hole reinforcement area of the central sleeve 12 around inner drain holes 17 is multiple times – of about 2.5 times to 4.0 times – the cross-sectional length of the holes 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply/duplicate Olson’s reinforcement features located around the inner drain holes, to similarly reinforce the outer drain holes in order to advantageously provide extra support.
Olson as modified does not specifically teach that the reinforcement region for the outer drain holes being precisely between 2.0 and 4.0 times larger than a linear size of a drain hole, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the dimensions of the reinforcement area, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Kilpatrick as modified teaches wherein the outer drain holes are substantially elliptic (Fig. 10 of Olson, the holes 42 are shown with a curved edge and a larger length than width);
Kilpatrick as modified discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein a width of each outer drain hole is between 6 mm and 10 and wherein a length of each outer drain hole is between 16 mm and 24 mm”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the dimensions of the apertures, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Kilpatrick as modified teaches a tyre valve stem 50 (Pg. 7, lines 15-17; Fig. 8) further comprising a tyre valve stem hole 51 in the outer surface of the rim 42 configured to receive a tyre valve stem, wherein the tyre valve stem hole 51 comprises a surrounding reinforcement region (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, Kilpatrick as modified teaches a reinforcement region (see claim 9 rejection above), but does not teach wherein each reinforcement region is between 1.5 and 3.0 times thicker than a nominal thickness of the outer surface,
and wherein the nominal thickness of the outer surface is between 1.5 mm and 3.5 mm.
However, Olson teaches the inner drain hole reinforcement region is between 1.5 and 3.0 times thicker than a nominal thickness of the outer surface (Fig. 7 of Olson; the surrounding region of holes 17 is shown multiple times thicker than the nominal thickness of the wheel at 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply/duplicate Olson’s reinforcement features located around the inner drain holes, to similarly reinforce the outer drain holes in order to advantageously provide extra support.
Additionally, regarding the limitation of “wherein the nominal thickness of the outer surface is between 1.5 mm and 3.5”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the dimensions of the reinforcement area, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 23, Kilpatrick as modified teaches wherein the wheels are made of glass-filled thermoplastic (Abstract of Kilpatrick), but does not expressly teach nylon being the thermoplastic used.
However, Olson teaches wherein the wheel is made of glass filled nylon (Col. 2, lines 57-63; the wheels are made of Nylon and reinforced with fiberglass).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose nylon as the thermoplastic for manufacturing the modified wheel of Kilpatrick/et.al. in order to advantageously provide the necessary stiffness, strength, and flexibility equal to that of a steel-spoked bicycle (Col. 3, lines 5-13 of Olson).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilpatrick in view of Mercat, and further in view of Vrielink (US 20070222275).
Regarding claim 21, Kilpatrick teaches using lock nuts for mounting the wheel on the bicycle axle (Pg. 4, lines 14-18).
Kilpatrick as modified does not teach wherein a hub of the wheel comprises a plurality of through holes for a plurality of bolts. However, Vrielink teaches a bicycle wheel 1 with a hub that has a plurality of through holes 12 parallel to a central rotation axis 5 of the wheel 1 arranged to receive a respective plurality of bolts 11 ([0026], Fig. 1 of Vrielink).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified bicycle wheel and hub of Kilpatrick/Mercat to be mounted with the bolts and holes of Vrielink in order to advantageously use fewer individual parts and make the components of the bicycle mutually detachable and exchangeable ([0029] of Vrielink).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilpatrick in view of Mercat, and further in view of Mueller (WO 9929484).
Regarding claim 22, Kilpatrick as modified teaches the wheel being injection molded (Claims 1-2).
Kilpatrick as modified does not teach the wheel being a lost core injection molded single side mountable wheel or a soluble core injection molded single side mounted wheel.
However, Mueller teaches the lost-core process for injection molding hollow frames in transportation for two-wheelers (Paragraph 4 of Mueller). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lost-core process of Mueller when injection molding the modified wheel of Kilpatrick/Mercat in order to advantageously manufacture the wheel simpler and cheaper (Paragraph 9 of Mueller).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
285
979
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 1822956 teaches a bike wheel with a central supporting rod in the hollow spokes.
US 0536528 teaches hollow spokes with inner supporting rods.
US 5246275 teaches a hollow molded bicycle wheel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617