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, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are amended. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-6 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. Claim 1, in line 9, recites the limit “ a spoke arrangement within the spoke star mimic s that of conventional wheels with steel spokes ”, is indefinite, because it is not clear what is meant by the limit. Specifically: “mimic” is indefinite because it is unclear what the “metes and bounds of this term”, as the specification provides no further disclosure of it. Furthermore, the term “mimic”, commonly defined as “resembles closely”, would be considered relative terminology, because it is unclear to what degree it resembles that of a conventional wheel, [ see MPEP 2173.05(b)]). “ conventional wheels with steel spokes ” is indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes a convention wheel with steel spokes, as there are many possible steel spokes designs and shapes. Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of " the spoke arrangement" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests the recitation be changed to “ a spoke arrangement ” for greater clarity. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DE102018113797-A1 to Bucker (“Bucker”) . The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. Regarding Claim 1 , Bucker ( “FOR N “Espace.net Translation “ET”, and also “FOR P” PE2E Upload, Figs 1-12) discloses a spoke star ( 5 ) made of a fiber-reinforced plastic ( ET Para 8,10, 49 ) and formed as a star-shaped closed ring (ET Para 49) , wherein the spoke star comprises at least two spokes ( “integer number of spokes, Para 11, 53 ) between a hub-side inner circumference (at 2 “rim side deflection device” of 13 hub, Annotated Fig 10 “AF10) of the spoke star and a rim-side outer circumference and (at 4 “hub side deflection device” of 14 rim, Annotated Fig 10 “AF10) of the spoke star, wherein a single fiber bundle ( Para 58 ) runs repeatedly in the spoke star between the inner circumference and the outer circumference along spokes (AF10) of the spoke star, wherein the spokes (two adjacent radial sections of spoke star, Figure 10) are formed as (italicized limits: method limit in product claim, [i.e. product by process], not limiting: "The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production", (MPEP 2113) double spokes ( “each section comprising two spokes”, Para 11 lines 3-4, “the simplest case a rim-side and hub-side deflection devices alternate, without longer sections along the hub side or along the rim side, Para 13 lines 3-8, , as shown “AF10” , “ spokes formed in parallel” Para 9 ), wherein the two spokes of the double spokes are connected by a plastic (“fiber plastic composite”, Para 49 ” impregnate the spoke star after winding”, Par 32 ; “ spokes formed in parallel” Para 9 , Para 32 beginning “The finished spoke start..” preimpregnated material…hardened through a chemical reaction…” [i.e. the double spokes with parallel roving being joined to eachother with plastic of the plastic composite therein between] ); the a spoke arrangement within the spoke star (Bucker AF10, annotated to show simplest case:; described in Bucker Para 13, lines 3-8, where spoke loops extend between hub at 4 to rim at 2 and back to next 4, without extending along rim, forming double spokes] mimics (BRI: “has a shape comparable to” ) that of conventional wheels with steel spokes (e.g. FR - 962372 -A to Ernst, FOR “O”: Fig 1), wherein the spokes on the rim-side outer circumference of the spoke star have a loop (around 4 AF10) and the spokes on the hub-side inner circumference of the spoke star have a loop ( around 2 AF10). Regarding Claim 2 , Bucker discloses the spoke star according to claim 1 wherein at least one spoke comprises a fastening means ( 4 “rim side deflection device”, Para 61, 77, e.g. AF10 ) on the loop ( shown at rim, AF10 ) thereof. Regarding Claim 3 , Bucker discloses the spoke star according to claim 2, wherein the fastening means (2, 4 located inside loops at hub and rim respectively, e.g. AF10, Para 61 ) is interlockingly (BRI: “fit together securely” Wiktionary.com; ) connectable to the loop. Regarding Claim 4 , Bucker discloses the spoke star according to claim 2, wherein the fastening means ( to rim via 4 “rim side deflection devices” ) is fixable to ( Para 77 ) a wheel rim (6) by way of a screw ( “FOR P” Para 62 “screwed”, “FOR N”, Page 8, Para 3 beginning “A hub-side deflection device…”, “hub side deflection devices…screwed to a wheel carrier” line 3 ). Regarding Claim 5 , Bucker discloses the spoke star ( 5 ) according to claim 4, the screw ( Para 62 “screwed”, Para 77 “material connection” ) aligns with (4 “rim side deflection device of the spoke” and also the spoke) the spoke. Regarding Claim 6 , Bucker discloses a spoked wheel (11 “spoked wheel”, Para 58, 77 Fig 10) having a hub ( 13, Par 77 ), a wheel rim ( 14, Para 77 ) and a plurality of (Para 8) spokes ( 12 Par 76 ) between the hub and the wheel rim (Para 58) wherein the spoked wheel comprises at least one spoke star ( 5, AF10 ) according to claim 1. Response to Argument Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to Drawing objections (Remarks Page 7); objection to “mimic” in claim 1 (Remarks Page 7, non-final rejection paragraph 3) ; and rejections to claim s 1-6 under 35 USC § 112(b) regarding claim 1 line 8 limit of “ the spoke arrangement” ( Remarks Page 8, non-final rejection paragraph 8 lines 1-4 ), have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to claims , Drawings 2, 5 and 6 and specification paragraphs 10 and 11 thereto , and ha ve been withdrawn . Applicant's arguments with respect to rejections to claim 1-6 under 35 USC § 112(b) to claim 1 line 9 of “a spoke arrangement within the spoke star mimics that of conventional wheels with steel spokes ” ( Remarks Page 8 lines 5-20, Page 9 all, non-final Para 7) , have been fully considered but they are not persuasive . While the specification in page 7 lines 1-2 support s the recitation of claim 1 , neither specification in page 7 lines 1-2 or specifica tion page 7 lines 2-5, describe or define what is meant by “mimics” or “conventional wheels with steel spokes”. Because it is unclear what the “metes and bounds of these terms” as described in non-final rejection paragraph 7. Furthermore, Applicants argument Page 8 lines 9-20 and all of Page 9, argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the effects of the feature (“ mimics that of conventional wheels with steel spokes ”) to be the load transmission principles known from steel spokes , applicable to the spoke arrangement. Applicant then references a 138 page document, calling attention to pages 28-29, Fig 22 part of a section relating to spokes spanning pages 21-42, in which various types of spokes, dimensions, types of and arrangements of, placement, connections to, nipples, hub and rim, and torque and push pull action, etc. This reference is not included in the specification, and does not clarify what one skilled in the art would understand about the “metes and bounds of the words “mimics” and “ conventional wheels with steel spokes ”, or the suggested effects thereof , because the document shows the variety of spoke arrangements and wheels. Applicant cannot rely on this reference to clarify meaning of claim 1 limits or the specification. Applicant's arguments in” Remarks Page 10-11 with respect to rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 USC § 102(a)(2) relying on Bucker DE-102018113797-A1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive . A pplicant claims Bucker does not show “double spokes… connected by a plastic matrix”. Applicant claims spokes are not double spokes, citing para 53 of Bucker “rotationally symmetrical” Remarks Page 11 lines 1-8. Applicant claims Bucker does not disclose: a spoke arrangement which “ mimics that of convention wheels with steel spokes” so as to provide the advantages associate with conventi onal ste e l spokes discussed above. Applicant states neither Bucker nor Ernst disclose an arrangement having “double spokes”, adding a definition of double spokes not supported by the specification “in the sense that two separate strands are shaped in such a way that, through their connection at the contact surface, they structurally for a single spoke”. Examiner responds to Applicants arguments of previous paragraph 1 9 a-d below: Argument a states Bucker does disclose double spokes, in non-final paragraph 11, citing para 9 which discloses “Alternatively, spokes can be formed in parallel.” This disclosure “double spokes” of Bucker is consistent with the definition of a double spoke in instant application specification Page 6, Para 4 (see below). A rgument b states Buckner does not disclose double spokes but the non-final cites Bucker Para 9 “ spokes formed in parallel.. ”, which is consistent with the instant applications definition of a double spoke (spec Page 5 Para 4) . Arguments c i . and c ii applicant argues Bucker does not disclose the indefinite limit of claim 1 : “ mimics that of conventional wheels with steel spokes ” ( addressed in paragraph 10 of this document ). Examiner disagrees, because the limit interpreted using BRI and knowledge of examples of “conventional wheels” is disclosed by Bucker in the last 5 lines of Para 11 on page 6 of non-final). A rgument d relies on a definition for a double spoke not in specification that contradicts the definition in the specification. The specification definition of a double spoke, from which Claim 1 limit of double spokes has support: a double spoke “ formed by two spokes running in parallel...” (spec Page 5 Para 4). Relies on an unsupported definition of a double spoke, that conflicts with and is not supported by the definition in Page 5 Para 4 of specification. In summary arguments a-d relating to the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 USC § 102(a)(2) relying on Bucker DE-102018113797-A1 are not persuasive , and the rejection stands and is repeated herein. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Watanabe (JP- S 559192601 -A ) and Krampella ( JP-3111074-B2) disclose bent spokes. 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5839 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Joe Morano can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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