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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: The phrase “the threaded ring is made of a stronger material than hub shell” should be replaced with a phrase, such as -- the threaded ring is made of a stronger material than the hub shell -- for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 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.
3. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahr et al. (US 2014/0060992 A1; hereinafter “Spahr”) in view of Fastenal Technical Reference Guide (cited NPL; hereinafter “Fastenal”), Machinery’s Handbook 30th Edition (cited NPL; hereinafter “Machinery”), Harvey Tool (cited NPL, hereinafter “Harvey”), and Jager et al. (US 6,588,564 B1; hereinafter “Jager”).
Regarding claim 1, Spahr discloses a hub 1 for wheeled vehicles (paragraph [0004]) having a hub axle 2, a hub shell 3, a rotor 4 and a freewheel 5, the freewheel comprising a pair of interacting freewheel components namely, a hub-side freewheel component 6 and a rotor-side freewheel component 7, wherein the freewheel components each comprises axial engagement components 8, 9 for intermeshing with one another and are biased to an engagement position through at least one biasing device 12, 22; wherein the hub-side freewheel component is axially displaceably received in a threaded ring 34 and non-rotatably coupled with the hub shell (Figs. 2-4; paragraph [0050]), wherein the rotor-side freewheel component is non-rotatably provided at the rotor for transmitting rotational movement from the rotor to the hub shell in the engagement position of the two freewheel components (evident from Figs. 2-4), wherein the axial width of the threaded ring is at least the same size as the axial width of the hub-side freewheel component (clearly shown in Fig. 2; paragraphs [0029] and [0050] further describe the hub-side freewheel component being received in the threaded ring), and wherein the threaded ring is made of a stronger material than the hub shell (paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, although Spahr further discloses the threaded ring being provided with at least one thread with at least one thread groove, wherein the at least one thread groove extends along a helical line extending in the axial direction around an outer circumference of the threaded ring, and wherein the thread is screw-connected with a thread of the hub shell (evident from Figs. 2-4 and paragraph [0050]), Spahr fails to expressly disclose the helical line comprises between two and four full revolutions of the at least one thread groove around the circumference of the threaded ring.
However, as evident from Fastenal and Machinery, the number of revolutions (i.e., the length of engagement of the threaded connection divided by the pitch (i.e., pitch for a single-start thread or lead/gradient for a multi-start thread)) of a thread groove for a threaded connection is a result-effective variable dependent upon a number of factors. Specifically, Fastenal, on pages 11-12, teaches various considerations for selecting a thread pitch size to use in a threaded connection for a particular application. Some benefits of a course thread (i.e., a larger thread pitch) as opposed to a fine thread (i.e., a smaller thread pitch) include having greater stripping strength, better fatigue resistance behavior, less tendency to cross thread, allows for a quicker and easier assembly and disassembly, and allows for thicker coating and platings (pages 11 and 12). On page 12, Fastenal further teaches when designing a threaded connection, one of the fundamentals that must be considered is to “Design bolts to break in tension prior to the female and/or male threads stripping” by ensuring the length of engagement of the threaded connection is adequate. Machinery, on page 1586, provides a formula for determining this optimal length of engagement Le for a given threaded connection which is dependent upon a number of factors, such as the thread materials, tensile-stress area of thread, maximum minor diameter of internal thread, minimum pitch diameter of external thread, and the number of threads per inch.
From these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the threaded ring of Spahr so that the helical line comprises between two and four full revolutions of the thread groove based upon a number of factors, including the materials used to form the threads, the tensile-stress area of the thread, the maximum minor diameter of internal thread, the minimum pitch diameter of external thread, and the number of threads per inch to ensure that the threaded connection is sufficient to carry the full load necessary during use of the hub without using excess material to thus minimize weight while also providing better fatigue resistance behavior, less tendency to cross thread, the ability to assemble and disassemble more quickly and easily, and to allow for thicker coating and platings, if needed and/or desired.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 12, although Spahr further discloses the at least one thread of the threaded ring being screw-connected with a thread of the hub shell when mounted to improve the stability of the hub (Figs. 2-4; paragraph [0050]), Spahr fails to disclose the threaded connection comprising multiple threads, wherein a thread groove shows a gradient of 2 mm.
Harvey, however, teaches a threaded connection (See page 1, e.g., “a cap on a plastic water bottle”) which utilizes multi-start threads (right-side of Fig. 1) and includes a thread groove gradient that can be 2 mm (“Lead” of various “Double Start” threads included in the Metric Thread Chart on page 6). Harvey teaches that some of the benefits of a multi-start thread is to increase the lead distance of a thread without changing its pitch and to allow more contact surface to be engaged in a single thread rotation (See page 1) which would implicitly promote self-retention of the threaded connection.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hub of Spahr by forming the threaded connection with a threaded connection that comprises multiple threads, wherein a thread groove shows a gradient of 2 mm, such as taught by Harvey, with a reasonable expectation of success in facilitating assembly and disassembly by reducing the number of revolutions of the threaded ring needed to install and uninstall the threaded ring within the hub shell while also allowing load imposed thereon to be simultaneously borne by the multiple threads.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Spahr, as modified by Fastenal, Machinery and Harvey, fails to expressly disclose the thread extends over the entire axial width of the threaded ring.
Jager, however, teaches a hub wherein a threaded ring 20 has at least one thread 42 that extends over the entire axial width of the threaded ring (Fig. 4b; lines 23-25 of col. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hub of Spahr, as modified by Fastenal, Machinery and Harvey, so that the thread of the threaded ring extends over the entire axial width of the threaded ring, such as taught by Jager as a well-known alternative threaded ring and hub shell arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the threaded connection is sufficient to carry the full load necessary during use of the hub.
Regarding claim 4, Spahr further discloses the thread groove extends continuously along the circumference of the threaded ring (implicit from Figs. 2-4 and paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 14, Spahr further discloses the engagement components form one axial toothing 8, 9 each and wherein at least one of the two freewheel components is configured as a toothed disk 20, 21.
Regarding claim 15, Spahr further discloses a cross-section of the freewheel component is configured as U-shaped or L-shaped, and wherein a radial leg is provided with the engagement components (Fig. 2; paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 16, Spahr further discloses the freewheel component has a non-round outer contour 43 (Figs. 4 and 5) and is received in a corresponding non-round inner contour of the threaded ring or of the rotor to be non-rotatable and axially displaceable (Figs. 2-4; paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 17, Spahr further discloses the biasing device 12 is at least partially disposed in the interior of the freewheel component (Fig. 2 shows components 14, 15 and 20 of biasing device 12 at least partially disposed in the interior of the freewheel component 6), and wherein the biasing device presses against a radial leg of the freewheel component in the axial direction (Fig. 2; paragraphs [0009] and [0068-0069]), and wherein the engagement components of the rotor-side freewheel component is configured as an end toothing 9 at the rotor (Figs. 2 and 4)
Regarding claim 18, Spahr further discloses at least one freewheel component (note the embodiment in which the toothed disk is formed integrally with the carrier unit as described in paragraphs [0019] and [0023]) and the threaded ring (note paragraph [0050]) consists of steel and the hub shell consists of at least in part of a metal or a fibrous composite material (note paragraph [0050]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s opinion that Spahr fails to disclose “the axial width of the threaded ring is at least the same size as the axial width of the hub-side freewheel component”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that it is reasonably clear from Fig. 2 of Spahr that the axial width of the threaded ring 34 is greater than the axial width of the hub-side freewheel component 6. This is further evidenced by paragraphs [0029] and [0050] of Spahr which describe the hub-side freewheel component being received in the threaded ring. The Examiner further notes that Fig. 2 of Spahr is not being relied upon for “precise portions” or “particular sizes” (e.g., the axial width of the threaded ring is 20mm greater than the axial width of hub-side freewheel component) as appears to be alleged by Applicant. Instead, Fig. 2 of Spahr is being relied upon for what is clearly shown to be the relative relationship of the threaded ring and the hub-side freewheel component. Moreover, it is further noted that the relative relationship of these parts shown in Fig. 2 of Spahr is substantially identical to that shown in the cross-section of Fig. 4 of the instant application. Reproduced and annotated Fig. 2 of Spahr is provided below which clearly shows the axial width of the threaded ring 34 being greater than any axial width of the hub-side freewheel component 6 (Note the claimed axial width of the hub-side freewheel component can be considered to be either the maximum or minimum width of this component inasmuch as such axial width is not specified in the claim):
PNG
media_image1.png
375
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to Applicant’s argument that Fig. 2 of Spahr does not disclose the thread that extends over 50% of the threaded ring because the cross-hatching on the threaded ring 34 of Spahr “is not the thread but instead, is used to show that Fig. 2 is a cross-section of this portion of the hub”, the Examiner notes that both Spahr (note Fig. 2) and the instant application (note Fig. 4) appear to utilize overlapping cross-hatching, albeit improper according to known drawing standards, of the threaded ring and the hub shell to indicate the extent of the threaded connection therebetween. Nonetheless, as noted above, this argument is considered to be moot inasmuch as Jager was relied upon to teach the thread that extends over more than 50% of the axial width of the threaded ring (i.e., Jager teaches at least one thread 42 of a threaded ring 20 that extends over the entire axial width of the threaded ring (Fig. 4b; lines 23-25 of col. 9).
In response to applicant's arguments that “the screws/bolts in Fastenel and Machinery are not used to connect any parts of the hub of a bicycle” and “the threads or threaded connection on a plastic bottle cap do not encounter the forces applied to a bicycle hub”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It is evident from Fastenal and Machinery that the number of revolutions of a threaded connection is recognized as a result-effective variable in the art. To have modified the threaded ring of Spahr, as modified by Harvey, so that the helical line comprises between two and four full revolutions of the thread groove would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of routine optimization, based upon a number of factors, including the materials used to form the threads, the tensile-stress area of the thread, the maximum minor diameter of internal thread, the minimum pitch diameter of external thread, and the number of threads per inch to ensure that the threaded connection is sufficient to carry the full load necessary during use of the hub without using excess material to thus minimize weight while also providing better fatigue resistance behavior, less tendency to cross thread, the ability to assemble and disassemble more quickly and easily, and to allow for thicker coating and platings, if needed and/or desired. Further, Harvey expressly discloses some of the known benefits (i.e., motivation or reason) of utilizing a multi-start thread on page 1. For example, Harvey discusses a multi-start thread will have a larger lead distance as opposed to a single start thread (See the first paragraph on page 1 of Harvey) which would implicitly facilitate assembly and disassembly by reducing the number of revolutions of the threaded connection, and “Another design advantage of a multi-start thread is that more contact surface is engaged in a single thread rotation” (See the second paragraph on page 1 of Harvey) which would implicitly promote the self retention of the threaded connection.
In response to applicant's arguments against the Jager reference individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights