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 filed December 11, 2025, regarding the claim objections (page 8) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive/, therefore the related objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 claim rejections (pages 8-20) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 12, para. 4: “Note that…”) that it would not be obvious to modify Schlanger to include a keyhole shape on both the left and the right sides because the holding and facts from In re Fulton are not analogous to the teachings of Schlanger, the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that contrary to the applicant’s assertion (para. 5, line 1: “In the present…”) that Schlanger does not disclose various alternatives, Schlanger discloses at least the alternative arrangements as seen in Fig. 2a, where there the left support 32a comprises a slot 36a and Fig. 2j, where the left dropout 136 instead comprises a threaded hole 140. Moreover, the examiner’s argument as presented in the Non-Final Office Action dated October 28, 2025, was in response to the applicant’s argument presented in Remarks dated September 5, 2025, that Schlanger’s use of a keyhole shape specifically on only one side and not the other would render it non-obvious to modify it such that the keyhole shape was on both sides. The examiner understood this argument to be that Schlanger teaches away from a keyhole on both sides, a position the examiner disagrees with because of a lack of any criticism of such an arrangement in Schlanger, the same deficiency which the court found when determining that In re Fulton did not teach away from the claimed solution. It is further noted that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Note also Benedict (“SpeedRelease puts…”), cited as prior art made of record and not relied upon below, which teaches a keyhole shaped dropout on both sides of an axle.
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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlanger (US20160089930A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schlanger teaches a bicycle (Para. [0006]) comprising:
a front wheel (Para. [0054]; but also inherent to the definition of a bicycle as a person with reasonable skill in the art would readily recognize that it comprises two wheels defining a front-to-rear direction/axis);
a rear wheel (Para. [0054]; as stated therein, the invention of Schlanger could be applied to a front or rear wheel assembly) including a rear axle (Axle Assembly 24, Fig. 2A) defining a wheel axis (Axial Axis 28, Fig. 2A); and
a frame (Para. [0006]) supported on both the front wheel and the rear wheel (Para. [0006]; but also inherent to the definition of a bicycle as a person with reasonable skill in the art would readily recognize), the frame including a left wheel support (Left Dropout 32A, Fig. 2A) and a right wheel support (Right Dropout 32B, Fig. 2A) that are each adapted to receive and be supported by the rear axle (24), wherein the left wheel support (32A) includes:
a left hole (the round end of the opening formed by Open Slot 36A, Fig. 2A; hereafter: “LH”) extending through the left wheel support (32A) in a direction parallel to the wheel axis (28), the left hole (LH) having a first width (shown equal to Slot Width 37A in Fig. 2A; hereafter: “W1”) perpendicular to the wheel axis (28); and
a left slot (Open Slot 36A, Fig. 2A) extending through the left wheel support (32A) and in communication with the left hole (LH), the left slot (36A) having a second width (Slot Width 37A, Fig. 2A) {equal to} the first width (W1) such that the left hole (LH) and left slot (36A) cooperatively form a left {open slot} (36A) through the left wheel support (32A), wherein the right wheel support (32B) includes:
a right hole (Circular Pilot Region 127, Fig. 2A) extending through the right wheel support (32B) in a direction parallel to the wheel axis (28), the right hole (127) having a third width (Radial Width 128, Fig. 2K) perpendicular to the wheel axis (28); and
a right slot (Necked Entrance Region 126, Fig. 2K) extending through the right wheel support (32B) and in communication with the right hole (127), the right slot (126) having a fourth width (Slot Width 37B, Fig. 2K) smaller than the third width (128) such that the right hole (127) and right slot (126) cooperatively form a right keyhole (Open Keyhole Slot 36B, Fig. 2K) through the right wheel support (32B).
Schlanger further teaches the function of the keyhole (36B) as allowing a first portion of a shaft having at that portion a first diameter (Cross-Sectional Diameter 135) to pass through the slot (126) while not allowing a second portion of the shaft having a second diameter (Diameter 131) to pass through the slot (126) (Figs. 2K-2M; Para. [0087]).
Schlanger does not teach that the left wheel support hole has a keyhole shape.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger before them at the time of the invention, to modify Schlanger’s bicycle to include a keyhole shaped dropout on the left wheel support as suggested by the inclusion of a keyhole shaped dropout on the right wheel support. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the advantage taught by Schlanger as discussed above could be applied to either side of the bicycle frame and would beneficially allow for quick and secure installation of an axle shaft.
Regarding Claim 13, Schlanger, teaches a bicycle frame (Para. [0006]) comprising:
a left wheel support (32A) including:
a left hole (LH) extending through the left wheel support (32A) in a direction parallel to the wheel axis (28), the left hole (LH) having a first width (W1) perpendicular to the wheel axis (28); and
a left slot (36A) extending through the left wheel support (32A) and in communication with the left hole (LH), the left slot (36A) having a second width (37A) {equal to} the first width (W1) such that the left hole (LH) and left slot (36A) cooperatively form a left {open slot} (36A) through the left wheel support (32A), a right wheel support (32B) including:
a right hole (127) extending through the right wheel support (32B) in a direction parallel to the wheel axis (28), the right hole (127) having a third width (128) perpendicular to the wheel axis (28); and
a right slot (126) extending through the right wheel support (32B) and in communication with the right hole (127), the right slot (126) having a fourth width (37B) smaller than the third width (128) such that the right hole (127) and right slot (126) cooperatively form a right keyhole (36B) through the right wheel support (32B).
Schlanger does not teach that the left wheel support hole has a keyhole shape.
See the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for motivation to include a keyhole shaped dropout on the left wheel support.
Claims 2-3, 11, 14-15, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlanger in view of McDonald (US20150145231A1) (note: the underlined portions below relate to the latest amendment or where the rejections deviate from the previous office action, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 2, Schlanger further teaches a first width (W1) and a third width (128).
Schlanger does not teach that the first width is smaller than the third width.
McDonald teaches, in another bicycle configured to accommodate different axle configurations (Abstract), a first hole (Right Axle Opening 60, Fig. 5) that is in communication with a first slot (Right Axle Slot 62, Fig. 5), where the first hole (60) has first width (Para. [0022] specifies the width of Right Axle Opening 60 as 12mm; hereafter “W1M”) and a second hole (made by the combination of Recess 44, Conical Wall 46, and Left Axle Opening 48, Fig. 4) that is in communication with a second slot (Left Axle Slot 52, Fig. 4), where the second hole (48) has a third width (Para. [0021] specifies the width of Left Axle Opening 48 as 12mm and Fig. 5 shows Recess 44 as larger than the Left Axle Opening 48; hereafter “W3M”) and where the first width (W1M) is smaller than the third width(W3M) (as described above Left Axle Opening 48 is the same width as Right Axle Opening 60, both being 12mm, and Recess 44 being described above as larger than Left Axle Opening 48, therefore it can be said that the first width W1M is smaller than the third width W3M).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger and McDonald before them at the time of the invention, to modify Schlanger’s bicycle such that the first width is smaller than the third width as suggested by McDonald. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(a). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a larger recess hole on one side of a frame that would beneficially allow for the insertion of an adapter sleeve.
Regarding Claim 3, Schlanger teaches a second (37A) and fourth (37B) width.
Schlanger does not teach that the second and fourth width are the same.
McDonald teaches a first slot (62) having a second width (Para. [0022] specifies the width of Right Axle Slot 62 as 10mm) and a second slot (52) having a fourth width (Para. [0021] specifies the width of Left Axle Slot 52 as 10mm) where the second width is substantially the same as the fourth width (as seen by both Right Axle Slot 62 and Left Axle Slot 52 being specified as 10mm wide as discussed above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger and McDonald before them at the time of the invention, to modify Schlanger’s bicycle such that the second width is substantially the same as the fourth width as suggested by McDonald. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(a). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing slots of the same size on either side of a frame as that would beneficially allow for those slots to pass a shank of similar size on each end.
Regarding Claim 11, Schlanger teaches a method of {installing and uninstalling a wheel of} (Para. [0016]) a bicycle (Para. [0006]) having a {first wheel} (Para. [0054]; but also inherent to the definition of a bicycle as a person with reasonable skill in the art would readily recognize; hereafter: “WH1”) {and a second wheel} (Para. [0009] discloses one purpose of the invention as enabling quickly swapping out wheels, which implies a second wheel being installed; hereafter: “WH2”) the method comprising:
providing the bicycle having a frame (Para. [0006]) supported on an {axle} (24) of the {first wheel} (WH1), the {axle} (24) defining a wheel axis (28), the frame including a left wheel support (32A) and a right wheel support (32B) that are each adapted to receive and be supported by the {axle} (24), wherein the left wheel support (32A) includes:
a left hole (LH) extending through the left wheel support (32A) in a direction parallel to the wheel axis (28), the left hole (LH) having a first width (W1) perpendicular to the wheel axis (28); and
a left slot (36A) extending through the left wheel support (32A) and in communication with the left hole (LH), the left slot (36A) having a second width (37A) {equal to} the first width (W1) such that the left hole (LH) and left slot (36A) cooperatively form a left {open slot} (36A) through the left wheel support (32A), and wherein the right wheel support (32B) includes:
a right hole (127) extending through the right wheel support (32B) in a direction parallel to the wheel axis (28), the right hole (127) having a third width (128) perpendicular to the wheel axis (28); and
a right slot (126) extending through the right wheel support (32B) and in communication with the right hole (127), the right slot (126) having a fourth width (37B) smaller than the third width (128) such that the right hole (127) and right slot (126) cooperatively form a right keyhole (36B) through the right wheel support (32B).
removing the {axle} (24) from the frame and from the {first wheel} (WH1) (Para. [0079] teaches uninstalling a Hub Assembly 30 from Dropouts 32A & B);
inserting the {axle} (24) of {a second wheel} (WH2) in the left {open slot} (36A) (Para. [0069] and Figs. 2A-I teach the Hub Assembly 30, which comprises the Axle 24, being assembled with the Dropout 32A, which comprises Open Slot 36A);
{installing} a left spacer (100) onto the {axle} (24) and into the left {open slot} (36A) (Para. [0060] and Fig. 2A), the left spacer including a base portion (102) positioned in the left hole (LH) and a left torque arm (105) positioned in the left slot (36A); and
tightening the {axle} (24) to the frame (Para. [0076] teaches the Hub Assembly 30, which comprises the Axle 24, being tightened such that it is clamped relative to Dropouts 32A & B).
Schlanger further teaches a first hub type (Hub Assembly 30) and a second hub type (Hub Assembly 230).
Schlanger does not teach first and second wheel types.
McDonald teaches a method of replacing a first wheel with a second wheel (Para. [0006]- [0007] teaches removing an original wheel and installing a replacement wheel), first and second wheel types (Para. [0019] teaches First 24 and Second 30 Hubs 24 having first and second configurations, respectively, where a configuration can reasonably be understood as a type; and a person with reasonable skill in the art would recognize that, since the hub is an important part of the wheel of a bicycle, a wheel having a hub of a first or second type would reasonably be called a wheel of a first or second type, respectively), and a method for uninstalling a first wheel type in order to install a second wheel type (Paras. [0025]- [0026] where First 24 and Second 30 Hubs 24 correspond to first and second wheel types, as discussed above).
The first and second wheels of McDonald are configured such that they have different axles (Para. [0004] teaches that the bicycle is specifically designed to accommodate wheels with different axle configurations; see also a first Main Axle 34, Fig. 6 and Para [0020] and a second Small Axle 110, Fig. 9 and Para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger and McDonald in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schlanger’s method of installing a bicycle wheel such that it comprised first and second wheel, and first and second axle types as suggested by McDonald. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of being able to change the wheel and axle type of a bicycle that would beneficially allow a user to select an appropriate wheel and axle type based on riding conditions.
Schlanger does not teach inserting the axle in the keyhole before sliding the spacer onto the second axle and into the left keyhole.
McDonald teaches a method of assembling an axle (Skewer Rod 114, Fig. 7) to a dropout (Right Wheel Support 28, Fig. 7) using a spacer (Converter Nut 106, Fig. 7) where the axle (114) can be inserted into the dropout hole (Right Axle Opening 60, labeled in Fig. 5 and present in Fig. 7) before installing the spacer (106) in the dropout hole (60) (Paras. [0026]- [0028] teaches the Converter Nut 106 being inserted into Right Axle Opening 60 followed by the Skewer Rod 114 being inserted and threaded into Converter Nut 106; however a person with reasonable skill in the art would recognize when viewing Fig. 7 that it would be possible to insert Skewer Rod 114 into Right Axle Opening 60 before inserting the Converter Nut 106).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger and McDonald before them at the time of the invention, to modify Schlanger’s method of installing a bicycle wheel as modified above such that the axle could be inserted in the keyhole before sliding the spacer onto the axle and into the keyhole as suggested by McDonald. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing multiple methods of assembly that would beneficially make the bicycle easier to assemble.
Regarding Claim 14, Schlanger further teaches that the first width (W1) is {substantially the same as} the third width (128).
Schlanger does not teach that the first width is smaller than the third width.
McDonald teaches a first width that is smaller than a third width (See the 103 rejection of claim 2 above for the teachings of McDonald and the motivation to combine it with the bicycle frame of Schlanger).
Regarding Claim 15, Schlanger teaches a second (37A) and fourth (37B) width.
Schlanger does not teach that the second and fourth width are the same.
McDonald teaches a second width that is substantially the same as a fourth width (See the 103 rejection of claim 3 above for the teachings of McDonald and the motivation to combine it with the bicycle frame of Schlanger).
Regarding Claim 21, Schlanger, as modified above to include a left keyhole, further teaches a first inside face (Inboard Face 38a, Fig. 2a), a first outside surface (Outboard Face 40a, Fig. 2a) of the left wheel support (32a), wherein the left keyhole (LH) extends into the first inside face (Left Hole LH, characterized by Open Slot 36a, extending into Inboard Face 38a as illustrated in Fig. 2a), and wherein a first wall (Sidewall 111, Fig. 2a) is defined between the first inside face (38a) and the first outside surface (Sidewall 111 being defined between Inboard Face 38a and Outboard Face 40a as illustrated in Fig. 2a).
Schlanger, as modified above, does not teach that the first inside face is recessed from the first outside surface.
McDonald teaches a left wheel support (Left Wheel Support 26, Fig. 5) including a first inside face (Conical Wall 46, Fig. 5) that is recessed from a first outside surface (Conical Wall 46 being recessed into a First Outside Surface “OS1”of Left Wheel Support 26 as illustrated in Fig. 5 Annotated) of the left wheel support (26), wherein a left hole (Left Axle Opening 48, Fig. 5) extends into the first inside face (Left Axle Opening 48 extending into Conical Wall 46 as illustrated in Fig. 5), and wherein a first wall (the wall feature of Recess 44, Fig. 5) is defined between the first inside face (46) and the first outside surface (the wall of Recess 44 being defined between Conical Wall 46 and the First Outside Surface OS1 of Left Wheel Support 26 as illustrated in Fig. 5 Annotated), and wherein the first inside face (46) and the first outside surface (OS1) each face in a same direction (Conical Wall 46 and First Outside Surface OS1 both facing in a direction substantially toward the viewer as seen in Fig. 5 Annotated).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McDonald further teaches that the Recess 44 is dimensioned so that both a Split Plug 78 (Fig. 3) and a Converter Plug 88 (Fig. 7) can be installed so that a user advantageously can choose to install either of a First 24 or Second 30 Hub Assembly (Figs. 3 & 7 and Paras. [0019] & [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger and McDonald before them at the time of the invention, to modify Schlanger’s bicycle frame as modified above such that t the first inside face is recessed from the first outside surface as suggested by McDonald. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of accommodating multiple hub assemblies, as taught by McDonald and discussed above, that would beneficially allow a user to select an appropriate wheel type based on riding conditions.
Regarding Claim 22, Schlanger further teaches that the left wheel support (32a) includes a second inside face (End Face 103, Fig. 2a) and a guiding groove (Alignment Surface 106, Fig. 2a) to guide a hub axle (Hub Assembly 30 including Axle Assembly 24, Fig. 2a) into the left keyhole (Para. [0068] teaches Alignment Surface 43a of Hub Assembly 30 nesting with Alignment Surface 106 such that it would guide the Hub Assembly 30 into the Left Hole LH).
Schlanger does not teach that the second inside face and the guiding groove are located on a same structure as the first inside face and the first outside surface.
McDonald teaches a second inside face (Left Hub Slot 42, Fig. 4) and a guiding groove (Left Axle Slot 52, Fig. 4) to guide a hub axle (Left End 112 of Second Hub 30, Figs. 7-9 and Para. [0028]) into the left hole (48), where the second inside face (42) and the guiding groove (52) are located on a same structure (Left Wheel Support 26, Figs. 4 & 5) as the first inside face (46) and the first outside surface (OS1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange Schlanger’s bicycle frame such that the second inside face and the guiding groove are located on a same structure as the first inside face and the first outside surface as suggested by McDonald, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claims 4-5, 7-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlanger in view of Rodriguez (US20220144381A1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 4, Schlanger further teaches a left spacer (Adapter 100, Fig. 2A) removably positioned in the left keyhole (36A; see 103 rejection of claim 1 above), the left spacer (100) including a base portion (Collar 102, Fig. 2A) positioned in the left hole (LH) and a left torque arm (Flats 105, Fig. 2A) positioned in the left slot (36A).
Schlanger does not teach the left spacer being inserted axially toward the right keyhole.
Rodriguez teaches, in another conversion kit for internal gear hubs (IGH 32, Fig. 1) of bicycles (Abstract), a left spacer (Cone Bushing 54, Fig. 1) that is configured to be inserted into a left hole (the hole in the left Dropout 36 as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 2) axially along a direction toward a right wheel support (Fig. 1 illustrates Cone Bushing 54 being inserted axially into the hole in the left Dropout 36 from the left such that it is inserted toward a right Dropout 38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger and Rodriguez in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schlanger’s bicycle such that the left spacer was inserted axially toward the right keyhole as suggested by Rodriguez. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of arranging a spacer such that it is assembled from the outside of the frame as that would beneficially make the spacer easier to assemble.
Regarding Claim 5, Schlanger further teaches that the base portion (102) includes an axle hole (Hole 104, Fig. 2A).
Schlanger does not teach the axle hole having two opposing drive flats.
Rodriguez teaches a left spacer (left hand instance of Anti-Rotation Key 46 in Fig. 1) having an axle hole (Slot 66, Fig. 1) which has two opposing drive flats (as pictured in Fig. 1 and described in Para. [0033] as being rectangular in shape, a rectangle by definition having at least two opposing flat faces).
Rodriguez further teaches that the anti-rotation keys (46) mate with flat surfaces (68, Fig. 1) of the hub (32) and thus restrain an axle (34, Fig. 1) of the hub (32) rotationally.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger and Rodriguez before them at the time of the invention, to modify Schlanger’s bicycle to include a spacer including two opposing drive flats as suggested by Rodriguez. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of restraining an axle rotationally as taught by Rodriguez above as that would beneficially allow the axle to transmit a torque through the spacer.
Regarding Claim 7, Schlanger teaches a right slot (126).
Schlanger does not teach a right spacer positioned in the right slot.
Rodriguez teaches a right spacer (right hand instance of Anti-Rotation Key 46 in Fig. 1) including a right torque arm (formed by the two flat outer surfaces that mate with Alignment Guides 64 as shown in Fig. 1 and described in Para. [0033]) removably positioned in the right slot (Alignment Guide 64, which, though not pictured in the drawings, is described as being included in the Right-Hand-Side Dropout 38).
Rodriguez further teaches that the spacer functionality is desired in embodiments in which the longitudinal dimension of the hub (32) is smaller than the frame spacing of the dropouts (Para. [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger and Rodriguez before them at the time of the invention, to modify Schlanger’s bicycle to include a right-side spacer as suggested by Rodriguez. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the advantage of adapting a bicycle frame to fit a smaller hub with spacers, as taught by Rodriguez above, is enhanced by the second spacer taught by Rodriguez that advantageously allows the hub to be positioned along its axis depending on the thickness of each spacer which would beneficially allow the hub to be positioned in a centered configuration between the dropouts or some other advantageous position along its axis as desired.
Regarding Claim 8, Schlanger as modified above teaches a right spacer (See the 103 rejection of claim 7 above).
Schlanger as modified above does not teach the right spacer having a right axle hole and a drive flat.
Rodriguez teaches a right spacer (right hand instance of Anti-Rotation Key 46 in Fig. 1) that includes a right axle hole (66) having a drive flat (as pictured in Fig. 1 and described in Para. [0033] as being rectangular in shape).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger and Rodriguez before them at the time of the invention, to modify Schlanger’s bicycle to include a second, right-side, spacer including a drive flat as suggested by Rodriguez. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the advantage of restraining an axle rotationally, as taught by Rodriguez above in the 103 rejection of claim 5, could be enhanced with a second spacer that also included a drive flat. They would recognize that doing so advantageously adds surface area for torque transmittal as well as spreading that torque transmittal across both left and right dropouts, which would beneficially allow the axle to transmit a higher amount of torque.
Regarding Claim 16, Schlanger, as modified above, further teaches a left spacer (100) removably positioned in the left keyhole (36A; see 103 rejection of claim 1 above), the left spacer (100) including a base portion (102) positioned in the left hole (LH) and a left torque arm (105) positioned in the left slot (36A).
Schlanger does not teach the left spacer being inserted axially toward the right keyhole, but Rodriguez does (see the 103 rejection of claim 4 above for the teachings of Rodriguez and motivation to combine them with the bicycle and/ or bicycle frame of Schlanger.)
Regarding Claim 17, Schlanger further teaches that the base portion (102) includes an axle hole (104).
Schlanger does not teach the axle hole having a drive flat.
Rodriguez teaches an axle hole with a drive flat (See the 103 rejection of claim 5 above for the teachings of Rodriguez and the motivation to combine it with the bicycle frame of Schlanger).
Regarding Claim 18, Schlanger teaches a right slot (126).
Schlanger does not teach a right spacer positioned in the right slot.
Rodriguez teaches a right spacer positioned in the right slot (See the 103 rejection of claim 7 above for the teachings of Rodriguez and the motivation to combine it with the bicycle frame of Schlanger).
Regarding Claim 19, Schlanger as modified above teaches a right spacer (See the 103 rejection of claims 7 and 18 above).
Schlanger as modified above does not teach the right spacer having a right axle hole and a drive flat.
Rodriguez teaches a right spacer that includes a right axle hole having a drive flat (See the 103 rejection of claim 8 above for the teachings of Rodriguez and the motivation to combine it with the bicycle frame of Schlanger).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlanger in view of Mikesell (US-20160039494-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Schlanger does not teach a derailleur hanger.
Mikesell teaches, in another bicycle (Abstract), a derailleur hanger (Derailleur Hanger 158, Fig. 6) positioned between a left wheel support (Bracket 156, Fig. 8) and a right wheel support (Derailleur Hanger 158 being positioned at least partially between Bracket 156 and Bracket 154 as illustrated in Fig. 8), wherein the derailleur hanger (158) includes a cylindrical portion (Protrusion 204, Fig. 6) that projects into the right wheel support (Protrusion 204 projecting into Slot 180 of Bracket 154 as taught in Para. [0033] and Figs. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger and Mikesell in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schlanger’s bicycle to include a derailleur hanger as suggested by Mikesell. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a mounting point for a derailleur that would beneficially make a more versatile wheel support.
Claims 9-10, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlanger, Rodriguez, and McDonald.
Regarding Claim 9, Schlanger, as modified above, teaches a right axle hole (102) that has two opposing drive flats (see the 103 rejection of 5 above) and a right spacer (See the 103 rejection of claim 7 above).
Schlanger, as modified above, does not teach that the right spacer comprises inner and outer spacers.
Rodriguez teaches a right spacer (right hand instance of Anti-Rotation Key 46 in Fig. 1) which includes an inner spacer (46) including the right torque arm (the two flat outer surfaces) and the right axle hole (66) with two drive flats (Slot 66 having at least two flat faces as illustrated in Fig. 1), an outer spacer (Derailleur Hanger 48 is shown in Fig. 2 as being arranged to further add material thickness in the direction of Axle 34 on the outboard side of Anti-Rotation Key 46, therefore Derailleur Hanger 48 can reasonable be considered an outer spacer) non-rotatably positioned (a person with reasonable skill in the art would recognize that in order to fulfill its function of holding a derailleur, it could not rotate once installed) between the inner spacer (46) and the right wheel support (38) (as shown in Fig. 2); wherein the inner spacer (46) includes a main body (the body of Anti-Rotation Key 46) having the right axle hole (66) and the two opposing drive flats (Slot 66 being formed in the body of Anti-Rotation Key 46), wherein the right torque arm (the two flat outer surfaces) is a projection that extends axially away from the main body (46) of the inner spacer (46) and into the right slot (Alignment Guide 64) of the right wheel support (the two flat outer surfaces of Anti-Rotation Key 46 projecting axially away from Slot 66 and into Alignment Guide 64 of the Right-Hand-Side Dropout 38 as illustrated in Fig. 1 and taught in Para. [0033]).
The inner spacer (46) of Rodriguez includes an outer perimeter (Outer Profile 62, Fig. Fig. 1), wherein the outer spacer (48) includes a recess (Alignment Guide 64, Fig. 1), wherein the outer perimeter (62) is dimensioned to mate with the recess (64) to limit rotation of the inner spacer (46) relative to the outer spacer (Para. [0033] teaches that the Outer Profile 62 of Anti-Rotation Key 46 mates with an instance of Alignment Guide 64 in Derailleur Hanger 48 to prevent Anti-Rotation Key 46 from rotating) (note: these teachings relate to claim 10, as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger and Rodriguez before them at the time of the invention, to modify Schlanger’s bicycle to include an inner and an outer spacer as suggested by Rodriguez. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of multiple spacers with different sizes and functions that would beneficially allow for the spacers to be mixed and matched to suit different hub assemblies and purposes.
Schlanger as modified above does not teach that the outer spacer has an axle slot aligned with the right slot in the right wheel support.
McDonald teaches a spacer (Open Hanger 90) non-rotatably positioned (secured to Right Wheel Support 28 with both Hanger Attachment Bolt 66 and Converter Nut 106 as taught by Fig. 7, a person with reasonable skill in the art would recognize it would not rotate once installed) the spacer including an axle slot (Hanger Slot 102) aligned with the right slot (62) in the right wheel support (28) (Para. [0028] teaches that the Hanger Slot 102 is aligned with the Right Axle Slot 62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger, Rodriguez, and McDonald before them at the time of the invention, to modify Schlanger’s bicycle as modified above such that an axle slot in the outer spacer aligned with the right slot in the right wheel support as suggested by McDonald. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage being able to simultaneously pass an axle shaft through both slots that would beneficially allow for easier assembly.
Regarding Claim 10, Schlanger as modified above teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 9 above for the teachings of Rodriguez and motivation to combine them with the bicycle of Schlanger, as modified).
Regarding Claim 12, Schlanger as modified above teaches a method of installing a wheel (Para. [0016]) of a bicycle (Para. [0006]) (See the 103 rejection of claim 11 above).
Schlanger does not teach installing a right spacer.
Rodriguez teaches a method of sliding a right spacer (right hand instance of Anti-Rotation Key 46 in Fig. 1) onto an axle (Axle 34, Fig. 1) and into right dropout hole (shown in Right Dropout 38 in Fig. 1) the right spacer (46) including a including a right torque arm (formed by the two flat outer surfaces that mate with Alignment Guides 64 as shown in Fig. 1 and described in Para. [0033]) positioned in the right slot (Alignment Guide 64, which, though not pictured in the drawings, is described as being included in the Right-Hand-Side Dropout 38) (Para. [0037] teaches installing Anti-Rotation Keys 46 on both Axles 34 and then installing the Axles 34 into the Dropouts 36 & 38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Schlanger and Rodriguez before them at the time of the invention, to modify Schlanger’s method of installing a bicycle wheel as modified above to include installing a right-side spacer as suggested by Rodriguez. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the advantage of adapting a bicycle frame to fit a smaller hub with spacers, as taught by Rodriguez above (see the 103 rejection of claim 7 above), is enhanced by the second spacer taught by Rodriguez that advantageously allows the hub to be positioned along its axis depending on the thickness of each spacer which would beneficially allow the hub to be positioned in a centered configuration between the dropouts or some other advantageous position along its axis as desired.
Regarding Claim 20, Schlanger as modified above teaches that the right spacer includes:
an inner spacer including the right torque arm and the right axle hole (See the 103 rejection of claim 9 above).
Schlanger as modified above does not teach an outer spacer or that the outer spacer has an axle slot aligned with the right slot in the right wheel support.
Rodriguez teaches an outer spacer and McDonald teaches a spacer with an axle slot aligned with the right slot in the right wheel support (See the 103 rejection of claim 10 above for the teachings of Rodriguez and McDonald and the motivation to combine them with the bicycle frame of Schlanger).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Benedict (“SpeedRelease puts…”) teaches claimed and unclaimed elements of the described invention drawn to a keyhole shaped dropout on both sides of an axle.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611