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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “rechargeable battery” set forth in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality: The phrase “a wheel according to claim 1” should be replaced with -- the wheel according to claim 1 -- for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 6, 7, 9, 10 and 14-20 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 6, the limitation “an open recess” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an open recess” refers to “a recess” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “one or more LED lights” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “one or more LED lights” refers to “one or more LED lights” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a LED light” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a LED light” refers to “one or more LED lights” previously set forth in both independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a transparent or translucid cover” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a transparent or translucid cover” refers to “a transparent or translucid cover” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the stator”.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “an open recess” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an open recess” refers to “a recess” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “one or more LED lights” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “one or more LED lights” refers to “one or more LED lights” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “an open recess” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an open recess” refers to “a recess” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “one or more LED lights” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “one or more LED lights” refers to “one or more LED lights” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “an open recess” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an open recess” refers to “a recess” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “one or more LED lights” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “one or more LED lights” refers to “one or more LED lights” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “an open recess” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an open recess” refers to “a recess” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “one or more LED lights” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “one or more LED lights” refers to “one or more LED lights” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “an open recess” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an open recess” refers to “a recess” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “one or more LED lights” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “one or more LED lights” refers to “one or more LED lights” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “an open recess” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an open recess” refers to “a recess” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “one or more LED lights” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “one or more LED lights” refers to “one or more LED lights” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “an open recess” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “an open recess” refers to “a recess” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “one or more LED lights” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “one or more LED lights” refers to “one or more LED lights” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 7 fails to further limit the subject matter of independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8 and 11-13 are allowed.
Claims 6, 9, 10 and 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, the closest prior art reference (DE 202018000319U1) discloses all of the limitations of the independent claim with the exception of “a mounting ring which along its outer contour is provided with one or more protrusions with which the mounting ring is configured to be axially slid and secured in the one or more aforementioned grooves”.
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