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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-12, 18-22 are pending.
Claims 1 and 8 are amended.
Claims 13-15 were previously withdrawn.
Claim 16 is cancelled, and claims 17 was previously cancelled.
Claims 22 is new.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Figures 1a, 2a, 2b, 3, and 4 do not identify “hub holes” consistent with specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are detailed in the table in paragraph following.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: references to hub holes, ferules and axle are not consistent in specification and figures, as detailed below:
Reference Character
Figure
Paragraph
Part name
Claims
124, 126, 128, 130,
(Do not point to a hub hole)
1a, 2a, 2b, 3 (to ferule not hub hole)
30, 31, 35, 38, 39, 53, 54, 56, 66, 69
hub hole
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 18, 20 21
253
2b (hole in ferule), 3 , 4 ( hub hole and to hole in ferule or rim hole)
53, 55, 56, 66
hub hole
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 18, 20 21
252
2b, 3, 4
(252 as axle)
54 (252 as axle), 55 (252 as hub hole)
axle and hub holes
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 18, 20 21
251
4 (to ferule)
55 ( 251 as ferule and hub hole)
Ferule, hub hole
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 18, 20 21
264
4
radial extension [“protrusion”]
1, 8
It is suggested by the Examiner to correct figures, specification to consistently identify structure with a single reference character a callout pointing thereto.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-12, 18-22 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart protrusions”, “the protrusions”, “a first protrusion of the plurality of protrusions”, are indefinite, as they are not described by this term in the specification, although Figures 1a-2a, 2b, 3, and 4 show a protrusion like structure on the hub flange, it is referred to as a “radial extension” that is associated with reference character 264 in paragraph 55. It is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitations to “a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart radial extensions”, “the radial extensions”, “a first radial extension of the plurality of radial extensions” for clarity. Reference to protrusions will be lined through in the rejection and appear as radial extensions in claim 1 rejection following.
Regarding Claim 8 the recitations of “a first protrusion”, a second protrusion, a first protrusion” and regarding Claim 22 the recitation of “a first protrusion”, are indefinite, as they are not described by this term in the specification. Although Figures 1a-2a, 2b, 3, and 4 show a protrusion like structure on the hub flange, paragraph 55 of the specification refers to this structure to as a “radial extension” which is associated with reference character 264. It is suggested by the Examiner to change the recitations to protrusions should be “radial extensions”, for clarity. Reference to protrusions will be shown in strikeout font in the rejection and appear as radial extensions in claims 8 and 22 rejection following.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US-20070145813-A1 to D’Aluisio (“D’Aluisio”).
Regarding Claim 1, D’Aluisio discloses a wheel assembly (100) comprising: a rim (110) comprising a first rim hole (Annotated Figure 2 “AF2”, Fig ) extending through an inner surface (radially inner edge of rim, AF2) and an outer surface (radially outer edge of rim, AF2) of the rim at a first angle (left half of convergence angle α [i.e.
α
2
] Para 63 lines 8-16, Fig 8) the first angle being defined with respect to a center line (centerline bisecting rim. Fig 8) through the wheel in a direction of travel at a location of the first rim hole and with respect to an axis (a tangent line to rim at each hole, AF2) radially normal to the rim, the first angle having a non-zero first component (α being non zero, has a first component, Para 63, Fig 8) relative to the center line (to vertical Para 67) and a non-zero second component (being non zero, has a first component, Para 63, AF2) relative to the axis (rotational axis of wheel) radially normal to the rim; a hub (120 having two flanges, 130 first and 140 second) comprising a 130 hub flange, AF2) including a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart radial extensions (radially extending 132 “extensions” [i.e. radial extensions], Para 44, 47, AF2) each of the protrusions extending radially (Fig AF2) from the hub; a first hub hole (hole receiving 156 “threaded end of spoke” in 134a “threaded region” extending from 132a, Annotated Fig 4 “AF4”), disposed in a first 132a “extension of hub flange 130, Para 44, upper left AF4) of the plurality of first hub hole are co-axial (AF2); and a first spoke (152a) extending between the first rim hole and the first hub hole (AF2), the first spoke being co-axial with (AF2) the first rim hole and the first hub hole (for strikeout font see paragraph 9 of this document).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
655
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, D’Aluisio discloses the wheel assembly of claim 1, further comprising: a second rim hole (AF2) extending through the rim at a second angle (AF2), the second angle is defined with respect to a center line through the wheel (centerline rim/ wheel bisecting
w
,
Fig 8, being a tangent line to rim at 2nd rim hole, AF2) in a direction of travel at a location of the second rim hole and with respect to an axis (AF2 radial line from axial center of hub to rim hole, dashed line AF2) normal to the rim at the location of the second rim hole, the second angle having a non-zero first component (AF2) relative to the center line and a non-zero second component (AF2) relative to the axis normal to the rim at the location of the second rim hole; a second hub hole (hole receiving 156 “threaded end of spoke” in 134c “threaded region” extending from 132a of 140 second hub flange AF4) at the second angle such that the second rim hole and the second hub hole are aligned (AF2); and a second spoke (152b, AF4) extending between (Af2) the second rim hole and the second hub hole.
Regarding Claim 3, D’Aluisio discloses the wheel assembly of claim 2, further comprising: a third rim hole (hole receiving 156 “threaded end of spoke” in 134c “threaded region” extending from 132a of hub 140, AF2, AF4) extending through the rim at a third angle
(right half of convergence angle α [i.e.
α
2
] Para 63 lines 8-16, Fig 8) the first angle being defined with respect to a center line (centerline bisecting rim. Fig 8) having a first component equal to the first component of the first angle (Para 63 lines 8-16, Fig 8), and having a second component (being non zero, has a second component, AF2) relative to the axis (rotational axis of wheel) equal in magnitude but opposite in direction (Fig 8) to the second component of the first angle at a location of the third rim hole; a third hub hole (hole receiving 156 “threaded end of spoke” in 134c “threaded region” extending from 132a of 140 second hub flange AF4) at the third angle having a first component equal to (Fig 8) the first component of the first angle, and a third spoke (154a, AF2) extending between the third rim hole and the third hub hole
Regarding Claim 4, D’Aluisio discloses the wheel assembly of claim 3, further comprising: a fourth rim hole extending through the rim at a fourth angle (AF2) having a first component (AF2) equal to the first component of the second angle (AF2), and having a second component equal in magnitude but opposite in direction (AF2), to the second component of the second angle at a location of the fourth rim hole; a fourth hub hole (hole receiving 156 “threaded end of spoke” in 134d “threaded region” extending from 132a of 140 second hub flange AF4) at the fourth angle having a first component (AF2) equal to the first component of the second angle, and having a second component (AF2) equal in magnitude but opposite in direction (AF2) of the second component of the second angle and the inverse (AF2) of the first angle in the direction of the second component such that the fourth rim hole and the fourth hub hole are aligned (AF2); and a fourth spoke (154B) extending between the fourth rim hole and the fourth hub hole.
Regarding Claim 6, D’Aluisio discloses the wheel assembly of claim 4, wherein the spokes are threaded at both ends and are connectable at the rim holes (“ends of spokes extending to rim are threaded mating with threaded recesses spoke nipples”, Para 40) and the hub holes (156 “threaded ends” connect to 132 extensions of hub, Para 47, Fig 4) .
Regarding Claim 7, D’Aluisio discloses the wheel assembly of claim 4, wherein the first rim hole is offset from the axis normal to the rim at the location of the first rim hole.
Regarding Claim 8, D’Aluisio discloses a wheel assembly comprising: a rim comprising a first rim hole extending through the rim at a first angle, the first angle is defined with respect to a center line through the wheel in a direction of travel at a location of the first rim hole and with respect to an axis radially normal to the rim, the first angle having a first component associated with the center line and a second component associated with the axis radially normal to the rim; a hub comprising a first flange including a first extension. extending radially from the hub and a second radial extension extending radially from the hub, the second ; a first hub hole disposed in the first
Regarding Claim 20, D’Aluisio discloses the wheel assembly of claim 1, wherein the first spoke is attached to the first hub hole via a straight-pull configuration (spokes 152, 154 attaching to hub flanges and rim well, are in a straight-pull configuration, Para 40, 47 , Fig 4) .
Regarding Claim 21, D’Aluisio discloses wheel assembly of claim 20, wherein the first spoke includes a threaded ferule (“ends of spokes extending to rim are threaded mating with threaded recesses spoke nipples”, Para 40), configured to attach the first spoke to the first rim hole.
Regarding Claim 22, D’Aluisio discloses the wheel assembly of claim 1, wherein the first hub hole (hole receiving 156 “threaded end of spoke” in 134a “threaded region” extending from 132a, Annotated Fig 4 “AF4”) is disposed in a side surface (AF2, AF4) of the first radial extension, the side surface being disposed transverse (BRI: “lying across, perpendicular or slanted”) to a circumferential direction of the hub (hole receiving 156 “threaded end of spoke” in 134a “threaded region” extending from 132a, is transverse to circumferential direction, as shown in Fig 2, 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Aluisio as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 5, D’Aluisio discloses the wheel assembly of claim 4, wherein: the first component of the first angle is between 3.5° and 7° (“left half of convergence angle α [i.e.
α
2
] is between 3.5° and 4.5°, being half of range between 7° to 9°, Para 63 , line 16, Fig 8; [i.e. is included in range between 3.5° and 7°]); the first component of the second angle is between 1.5° and 5.5° (“right half of convergence angle α [i.e.
α
2
] is between 3.5° and 4.5°, being half of range between 7° to 9°, Para 63 , line 16, Fig 8; [i.e. is included in range between 1.5° and 5°]).
D’Aluisio discloses in Fig 2, the angles of the hub flange extensions such that angular first and second components [in radial circumferential plane] of the spokes are at relatively small angles to radial lines from the wheel central axis to the spoke holes in the rim, but does not disclose specific angular ranges or values for the second component of the first angle and the second angle is between 3.80° and 4.7°.
The specific angular dimension(s) of the second component of the first angle and the second angle is/are not an inventive concept, but rather a design choice made from many possible dimensional choices, made as a part of routine design optimization giving proper consideration to use, design loads, material, fit and dimensions of adjacent parts [including wheel diameter, hub diameter, angle between hub flange extensions etc.] and manufacturing requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected specific dimensions for the second component of the first angle and the second angle of the wheel assembly of D’Aluisio such that each were in range of was between 3.80° and 4.7°, with the motivation to ensure the wheel assembly was sufficiently designed to meet the design parameters just described, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 9-12 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Aluisio as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of EP-1892120-A1 to Mercat (“Mercat”).
Regarding Claim 9, D’Aluisio discloses wheel assembly of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein the carbon containing composite material further comprises a synthetic fiber.
Mercat (Figs 1-10, English Translation “ET” pages 1-10) discloses the first spoke comprising a carbon containing composite material (“carbon fibers and Kevlar™”( a synthetic fiber), thus comingled “fibers may be oriented longitudinally and crossed obliquely oriented at 45 degrees” (i.e. comingled) “improving torsional strength and decreasing longitudinal rigidity” (carbon fiber and Kevlar” are known in the art to have different Tensile Moduli), ET, Page 4, Para 5, beginning “Figures 4 and 5 show in …” , lines 1-14).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel assembly and the spoke comprising a carbon containing composite material, of synthetic fiber, comingled, and oriented longitudinally and crossed, obliquely in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel assembly of D’Aluisio and the teaching of the spoke comprising a carbon containing composite material, of synthetic fiber, comingled, and oriented longitudinally and crossed, obliquely of Mercat, to modify the spoke material of the wheel of D’Aluisio such that it is a carbon containing composite material (carbon fiber of Kevlar™, synthetic fiber, comingled, and oriented longitudinally and crossed, obliquely) (like Mercat), with the motivation to increase the torsional strength of the spoke body while decreasing its longitudinal rigidity (Mercat, ET Page 4, Para 5 beginning “Figures 4 and 5 show…:, lines 6-14, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of D’Aluisio and Mercat discloses the wheel assembly of claim 8, wherein the carbon containing composite material further comprises a synthetic fiber (as described in Paragraph 24 of this document).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of D’Aluisio and Mercat the wheel assembly of claim 9, wherein the synthetic fiber comprises at least one of nylon 6, polyester, fiberglass, InnegraTM polyolefin, VactranTM, liquid crystal polymer, rayon, KevlarTM, and combinations thereof (as described in paragraph 24 of this document).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of D’Aluisio and Mercat discloses the wheel assembly of claim 8, wherein the spoke comprises co-mingled fiber materials (as described in paragraph 24 of this document).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of D’Aluisio and Mercat discloses the wheel assembly of claim 10, wherein the spoke comprises plural carbon fiber materials, the carbon fiber materials having differing tensile modulus (it is known in the art that the orientation of carbon fibers changes the tensile modulus, thus as described in paragraph 18 of this document the longitudinal fibers, and the crossed, oriented obliquely at 45 degree fibers would have differing tensile moduli within the spoke material).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of D’Aluisio and Mercat the wheel assembly of claim 12, wherein the spoke has a first threaded end (“ends of spokes extending to rim are threaded mating with threaded recesses spoke nipples”, Para 40) and a second threaded end (156 “threaded ends” connect to 132 extensions of hub, Para 47, 56 Fig 4), the first threaded end is secured to a fastener (spoke nipple, Para 40) at the rim, and the second threaded end is secured to the hub (156 “threaded ends” connect to 132 extensions of hub, Para 47, 56 Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of D’Aluisio and Mercat wheel assembly of claim 18, wherein the first threaded end and the second threaded end are oppositely threaded ferrules( “threaded spoke nipples”, “such that tension in the spokes can be individually adjusted by rotation”, implicitly disclosing the threads to be opposite eachother, otherwise tensioning would not be possible, Para 40, 47), and the ferrules are bonded (BRI: connected securely; by pressure from the tensioned mating threaded connections forming a bond between spoke and rim or hub, Para 40, 47) to the spoke.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Jager (US-20070090684-A1), Tanabe (JP-2001213106-A) , Okajima (US-20060267399-A1, EP-1016553-A2), Yasuhiro (JP 3069284 B2), Huang (US 20110215636 A1)
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections of claim(s) 1-12 and 18-21 have been considered but are moot in light of amendments having new ground of rejection, for which a new rejection is contained herein..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615