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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because each distinct part, including modified parts, should be labeled with a distinct reference character to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4). It appears that the parts represented by reference characters 20, 22, 24, 25, 26 and S in the embodiment shown in Fig. 8 are distinct from the parts represented by these same reference characters in the embodiment shown in Figs. 4-7.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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. No new matter should be entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not describe the outer raised portion protruding “in an arc shape” from one side of the inner annular portion away from the hollow area as newly set forth in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, there is no support in the original disclosure for an embodiment of Applicant’s bicycle rim structure having an inner annular portion with a thickness between 2.0 mm and 2.5 mm in combination with the bicycle rim structure having an outer raised portion as required by claim 1.
6. 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.
Claims 1-3 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, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the spoke holes”.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the spoke hole at an angle of 45° relative to left and right sides of the central axis” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the spoke hole can be both at an angle of 45° relative to left side of the central axis and at an angle of 45° relative to right side of the central axis.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feucht et al. (US 2019/0217660 A1; hereinafter “Feucht) in view of Kleinhoff (DE 4143380 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Feucht discloses a bicycle rim structure, comprising a rim 148, the rim having two side portions (unlabeled rim sidewalls shown in Fig. 3), an inner annular portion 188 and an outer annular portion 192; left and right sides of the inner annular portion being connected to bottom edges of the two side portions respectively (Fig. 3), left and right sides of the outer annular portion being connected to top edges of the two side portions respectively (Fig. 3), a predetermined distance being defined between the inner annular portion and the outer annular portion (Fig. 3), the two side portions, the inner annular portion and the outer annular portion surrounding a hollow area (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 3); the inner annular portion having a thickness greater than that of the side portions to form an inner raised portion extending toward the hollow area (Fig. 3), an arc-shaped abutting groove (unlabeled, but clearly shown in Fig. 3) being formed on the inner raised portion (Fig. 3), the arc-shaped abutting groove being formed with a spoke hole 152 configured to (i.e., capable of) receive a spoke nipple 335 (Fig. 3; note paragraph [0067] and Fig. 15), the spoke nipple having a head portion (unlabeled radially outer portion of 335 that abuts the arc-shaped abutting groove as shown in Fig. 15) and a neck portion (unlabeled radially inner portion of 335 that extends through the spoke hole as shown in Fig. 15), one end of a spoke (paragraph [0067]) being connected to the neck portion (evident from paragraph [0067] and Fig. 15); a cross-section of the arc-shaped abutting groove having a curved segment (Fig. 3), the curved segment having a center (evident from Fig. 3), the spoke hole having a central axis (evident from Figs. 1 and 3), the center serving as a reference point for the central axis to radially pass through the inner annular portion in a fan shape (evident from at least Fig. 1), the neck portion being assembled in a corresponding one of the spoke holes (evident from at least Fig. 15), a surface of the curved abutting groove supporting two sides of the head portion (evident from at least Fig. 15).
Feucht fails to expressly disclose an outer raised portion protrudes in an arc shape from one side of the inner annular portion away from the hollow area.
Kleinhoff, however, teaches a bicycle rim structure which includes both an inner raised portion at 12 extending toward a hollow area (Fig.) and an outer raised portion (unlabeled, but clearly shown in the Fig.) protruding in an arc shape (i.e., the Fig. clearly shows the outer raised portion having a curved shaped as it protrudes) from one side of the inner annular portion away from the hollow area (Fig.).
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 bicycle rim structure of Feucht so that it includes an outer raised portion protruding in an arc shape from one side of the inner annular portion away from the hollow area, such as taught by Kleinhoff, as a well-known inner annular portion configuration that would have a reasonable expectation of success in improving the strength and rigidity of the rim at the spoke attachment zones where the tensions are greater.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feucht in view of Kleinhoff, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schiers (US 2010/0090518 A1) and Henderson et al. (US 6,068,349; hereinafter “Henderson”).
Although Feucht further discloses the spoke holes 152 being arranged to extend through the thickened inner raised portion with the central axis at a right angle is set as 0 degrees (evident from Fig. 3), Feucht, as modified by Kleinhoff, fails to expressly disclose a length of the curved segment is greater than a range of the spoke hole at an angle of 45° relative to left and right sides of the central axis.
Schiers, however, teaches a rim 105 with an inner annular portion 140 having a thickness greater than that of the side portions to form an inner raised portion extending toward the hollow area (Figs. 2 and 3), an arc-shaped abutting groove 150 being formed on the inner raised portion (Fig. 3), the arc-shaped abutting groove being formed with a plurality of equally spaced spoke holes 145 each configured to receive a spoke nipple 120 (paragraph [0059]; Figs. 1-3), wherein when the central axis at a right angle is set as 0 degrees, a length of the curved segment is greater than an included 90° range so as to be capable of accommodating spoke holes in the thickened inner raised portion that are arranged at an angle of 45° relative to left and right sides of the central axis (evident from Fig. 3).
Henderson further teaches the included spoke hole angles are dependent upon the specific arrangement and configuration of the hub (note at least lines 24-30 of col. 2 and lines 24-37 of col. 3) with larger included spoke hole angles increasing wheel strength (note at least lines 21-31 of col. 9) to ensure that the spoking arrangement has sufficient strength and rigidity to reduce lateral flex and resist deformation of the rim under stress during the intended use of the wheel. Henderson further teaches that arranging alternating adjacent spoke holes to the left and right sides of the central axis with equal angles relative to the central axis allows for an even and uniform spoke tension to improve the strength and rigidity of the wheel (note at least line 65 of col. 2 through line 7 of col. 3, and lines 11-31 of col. 9).
From these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of routine optimization, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bicycle rim structure of Feucht, as modified by Kleinhoff, so that a length of the curved segment is greater than a range of the spoke holes at an angle of 45° relative to left and right sides of the central axis dependent upon the specific configuration and arrangement of the hub and the intended use of the wheel to ensure, with a reasonable expectation of success, that the spoking arrangement provides a uniform and even tensioning so that it has sufficient strength and rigidity to reduce lateral flex and resist deformation of the rim under stress during the intended use of the wheel
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feucht in view of Kleinhoff, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Passarotto (US 2007/0063577 A1).
Feucht, as modified by Kleinhoff, fails to expressly disclose the thickness of the inner annular portion, in a position where the central axis perpendicularly passes through the inner annular portion, is between 2.0 mm and 2.5 mm.
Passarotto, however, teaches a bicycle rim structure in which the thickness S6 of the inner annular portion at 9 (Fig. 1C), in a position where the central axis (central axis of spoke hole 6 shown in Fig. 1) perpendicularly passes through the inner annular portion, can be between 2.0 mm and 2.5 mm (“2.3 mm” per paragraph [0044]).
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 thickness of the inner annular portion of Feucht, as modified by Kleinhoff, in a position where the central axis perpendicularly passes through the inner annular portion, to be between 2.0 mm and 2.5 mm, such as taught by Passarotto, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring that the rim has sufficient strength and rigidity at the spoke attachment zones where the tensions are greater.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s opinion that the parts represented reference characters 20, 22, 24, 25, 26 and S are the same in both Figs. 5 and 8, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the rim 20 in Fig. 8 is a different embodiment with different structure from the embodiment of the rim shown in Fig. 5 as evident from paragraphs [0016] and [0020] of Applicant’s specification and what is clearly shown in Figs. 5 and 8 (e.g., a rim with an inner annular portion having an outer raised portion 28 in the embodiment shown in Fig. 8 is not the same as a rim with an inner annular portion that does not have an outer raised portion in the embodiment shown in Fig. 5). As mentioned above, each distinct part, including modified parts (note MPEP 608.01(g) and MPEP 608.02(e)), are required to be labeled with a distinct reference character to be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4).
In response to Applicant’s opinion that Kleinhoff does not have an outer raised portion that protrudes in an arc shape, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and again notes that the Figure of Kleinhoff clearly shows an outer raised portion (unlabeled, but clearly shown in the Fig.) protruding in an arc shape (i.e., the Fig. clearly shows the outer raised portion having a curved shaped as it protrudes) from one side of the inner annular portion away from the hollow area (Fig.).
In response to applicant's argument that “the thickening 12 of Kleinhoff cannot achieve the intended effect of supporting the spoke nipple 30 with a larger inclination angle as described in the present invention”, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The Examiner further notes that such features are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's opinions that “if the feature of increasing the thickness of the nipple hole is applied to the features of Feucht and Schiers, it will create a structural conflict” and “it cannot fully achieve the effect of supporting the spoke cap 30 with a larger inclination angle”, 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). Nonetheless, it is noted that Applicant has not provided any evidence to support these opinions.
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 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