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 § 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 10 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.
The term “any combination thereof” in claim 10 renders the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be certain of the scope of the invention.
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, 4-12, and 21-23 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 and further in view of Chapter 11 of “Functional Fillers for Plastics: Second, updated and enlarged edition” written by Craig Clemons (referred to hereinafter as Clemons).
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)
Reuteler does not teach the composite material including a matrix of a polymer-based material
and natural fibers for a reinforcing material wherein the reinforcing material has a specific modulus between 24 and 60 GPa/(g/cm--3) and a specific strength below 600 MPa/(g/cm3). D’armancourt teaches a rim that comprises a composite material which can include natural fibers (para. 171). The specific modulus and specific strength are known inherent properties for various fibers. Clemons discloses the mechanical properties of various natural fibers and shows that Hemp has a specific modulus in the range of 20 to 40 GPa and a specific strength below 540 MPa (Table 11.3 gives the stiffness (modulus), strength, and density and the specific modulus and specific strength are found by dividing the strength and modulus by the density). Clemons also shows glass fibers have a specific stiffness of 28 GPa. Given the similar stiffness between various natural and glass 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 desired performance requirements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Reuteler, D’armancourt, and Clemens teach the rim of claim 1. Clemens discloses 6 different natural fibers with a cellulose content over 40% (Table 11.1). Reuteler, D’armancourt, and Clemens do not specifically disclose a hemicellulose content over 4% however, the hemicellulose content of natural fibers is a known property. 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 cellulose and hemicellulose content to achieve the desired strength, stiffness and structural stability (pg. 215, para. 2) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Reuteler, D’armancourt, and Clemens 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, D’armancourt, and Clemens 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, D’armancourt, and Clemens 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, D’armancourt, and Clemens 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, D’armancourt, and Clemens 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, D’armancourt, and Clemens 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, D’armancourt, and Clemens 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, D’armancourt, and Clemens teach the rim of claim 7. Reuteler further teaches wherein the second reinforcing material is woven within the second polymer-based material. (para. 14)
Regarding claim 21, Reuteler, D’armancourt, and Clemens teach the rim of claim 1. While Reuteler does not explicitly disclose 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, 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)
Regarding claim 22, Reuteler, D’armancourt, and Clemens teach the rim of claim 5. Reuteler does not expressly disclose wherein at least a portion of the natural fibers of the respective strip have a fiber orientation that does not extend in a direction along a length of the respective strip in a primary strength direction. D’armancourt teaches that various woven and braided fabrics may be used (para. 66) and it is well known in the art to orient fibers in different directions to alter the strength and stiffness characteristics of the reinforcing fabric/layer. Official notice is hereby given. 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 at least a portion of the natural fibers in a direction that does not extend along a length of the respective strip in a primary strength direction (e.g. a random fiber orientation or 0,45,-45 orientation) in order to achieve the desired stiffness and strength with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 23, Reuteler, D’armancourt, and Clemens teach the rim of claim 22, wherein 10 percent of the natural fibers of the respective strip have a fiber orientation that does not extend in a direction along a length of the respective strip in a primary strength direction. D’armancourt teaches that various woven and braided fabrics may be used (para. 66) and it is well known in the art to orient fibers in different directions to alter the strength and stiffness characteristics of the reinforcing fabric/layer. Official notice is hereby given. 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 10% of the natural fibers in a direction that does not extend along a length of the respective strip in a primary strength direction (e.g. 1 layer in a 10 layer strip oriented off axis or else a 9:1 weave) in order to achieve the desired stiffness and strength with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 April, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s argument on pg. 7, line 2 that “the reference to natural fibers by D’armancourt is merely an afterthought” is spurious and not supported by evidence. It is well known to use natural fibers in fiber reinforced plastics.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights