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 .
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 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reuteler US 20080265658 A1 in view of D’armancourt et al. US 20200369081 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Reuteler teaches a rim 1 for a bicycle wheel, the rim 1 comprising: a radially inner portion 3 disposed along an inner circumference of the rim 1; a first sidewall 5 (rim flank); a
second sidewall (also labeled as 5 in Fig. 1 as the rim in the reference is symmetrical) spaced apart from
the first sidewall 5, wherein the first sidewall 5 and the second sidewall extend radially outward from the radially inner portion 3; and a radially outer tire engaging portion 4 disposed along an outer circumference of the rim 1, the radially outer tire engaging portion 4 extending from the first sidewall 5
and the second sidewall, respectively, wherein the first sidewall 5, the second sidewall, the radially
outer tire engaging portion 4, the radially inner portion 3, or any combination thereof includes a
composite laminate, the composite laminate including one or more compressed layers 6 (squashed fiber layer) of a composite material having a compressed thickness. (Fig. 1) While Reuteler does not explicitly disclose the squashed layer being 75% or less of the original thickness, Fig. 1 shows a significant compression to create the inner bulge to better hold a tire, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05) to squash the layers such that the compressed thickness after curing is 75 percent or less of an original thickness before curing of the one or more compressed layers of the composite material of the composite laminate. (The thickness prior to shaping is an original thickness before curing)
Reuteler does not teach the composite material including a matrix of a polymer-based material
and natural fibers for a reinforcing material (para. 171). D’armancourt teaches a rim that comprises a
composite material which can include natural fibers.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to use natural fibers to make a more sustainable product and to meet the
performance requirements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the specific modulus, specific strength, cellulose content, and hemicellulose content are inherent properties of the materials. As the applicant does not disclose any
specific method for creating the reinforcing fibers, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a natural fiber that has
the claimed properties for the desired rim characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Reuteler and D’armancourt teach the rim of claim 4. Reuteler further teaches
wherein the one or more compressed layers 6 of the composite material include strips 11 of the composite material. (para. 22; fig. 1)
Regarding claim 6, Reuteler and D’armancourt teach the rim of claim 5. D’armancourt further
teaches wherein fiber orientation of the natural fibers of the respective strip is unidirectional in a
direction along a length of the respective strip. (para. 66) It would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the fibers
unidirectionally to improve the strength in the direction of the fibers with a reasonable expectation of
success.
Regarding claim 7, Reuteler and D’armancourt teach the rim of claim 1. Reuteler further teaches
wherein the composite material is a first composite material, the polymer-based material is a first
polymer-based material, and the reinforcing material is a first reinforcing material, and wherein the
composite laminate includes one or more compressed layers of a second composite material, the
second composite material including a matrix of a second polymer-based material and natural fibers of a
second reinforcing material. (para. 14)
Regarding claim 8, Reuteler and D’armancourt teach the rim of claim 7. Reuteler further teaches
wherein the one or more compressed layers of the first composite material are closer to a surface of the
composite laminate than the one or more compressed layers of the second composite material are
relative to the surface of the composite laminate. (Fig. 2) Reuteler teaches the possibility of using 2
separate materials and layers so the first composite material layers could be closer to a surface than the
second composite material layers.
Regarding claim 9, Reuteler and D’armancourt teach the rim of claim 7. D’armancourt further
teaches wherein the composite laminate includes one or more layers of a third composite material 203
(inner annular layer), the third composite material including a matrix of a third polymer-based material and fibers of a third reinforcing material. (Fig. 18; para. 157) It would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more
layers of a third composite material to meet the desired performance characteristics with a reasonable
expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Reuteler and D’armancourt teach the rim of claim 9. D’armancourt further
teaches wherein the third polymer-based material is a plastic, an acrylic, a resin, an epoxy, or any
combination thereof, (para. 11) and wherein the fibers of the third reinforcing material are carbon
fibers. (para. 131, lines 5-6) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use carbon fibers and a resin to improve the strength of
the rim and meet desired performance characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Reuteler and D’armancourt teach the rim of claim 10. D’armancourt further
teaches wherein the one or more compressed layers of the second composite material 202 are closer to
the surface of the composite laminate than the one or more layers of the third composite material 203
are relative to the surface of the composite laminate. (Fig. 18) It would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a reinforcing
layer 207 positioned between an inner layer 203 and an outer layer 202 to improve the strength and
resilience of the rim and get the desired performance characteristics with a reasonable expectation of
success.
Regarding claim 12, Reuteler and D’armancourt teach the rim of claim 7. Reuteler further
teaches wherein the second reinforcing material is woven within the second polymer-based material. (para. 14)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 October, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that Reuteler and D’armancourt do not teach the limitations of claim 1 has been addressed above. It is further noted that the applicant’s invention does not require a specific curing method or process to create the compressed layer; rather the specification states “the composite laminate may be cured in any number of ways including, for example, by press curing, autoclave curing, or oven curing… other types of curing may be used” (para. 155) all of which are well known composite curing methods. The compression of the natural fiber layer is, therefore, due to an inherent trait of the natural fibers and not due to the curing method or any other element of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 ALEX R PALMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm MST.
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, Samuel (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.
/AP/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615