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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 is objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
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 1-19 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.
The term “i.e.” in claims 1, 9, 12, 14 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “i.e.” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. it is unclear if the "i.e." is in reference to more than just the parts mentioned in the claims.
The term “merely” in claims 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “merely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. the term "merely" is too broad in reference to the force needed.
Claim 1 and 12 recites “a clearance B” which is a double inclusion and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, “a clearance B” is previously claimed and it is unclear how many laser tools are required by the claims. Subsequent recitations of “the clearance B” are unclear, as which laser tool being referenced cannot be determined.
Claim 1 and 12 recites “and/or by means of which a drifting of the side surfaces towards each other under the application of force is merely possible until the minimum clearance is reached”. It is unclear how would this with coexist “and” with the embodiment mentioned earlier where “by means of which a drifting apart of the side surfaces”
Claim 1 and 12 recites “said first thick-walled segment having a side surface facing a side surface of said second thick-walled segment”. The recitation “a side surface” for both the first and second segments makes it unclear if the surfaces are distinct, opposite, or contiguous. The applicant should define the surfaces as separate elements (e.g., “a first side surface” and “a second side surface”) to properly differentiate the components.
Claim 2 recites “the side surface” in a similar manner to claim 1 and should be made clearer
Claim 3, recites “at least one movement limiter” which is a double inclusion and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, “at least one movement limiter” is previously claimed and it is unclear how many laser tools are required by the claims. Subsequent recitations of “the at least one movement limiter” are unclear, as which laser tool being referenced cannot be determined.
Claim 4, recites “at least one thick-walled segment has at least one contact surface for at least one movement limiter” which is a double inclusion and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, “at least one movement limiter”, “at least one thick-walled segment” and “at least one contact surface” is previously claimed and it is unclear how many laser tools are required by the claims. Subsequent recitations of “the at least one movement limiter”, “the at least one thick-walled segment” and “the at least one contact surface” are unclear, as which laser tool being referenced cannot be determined.
Claim 5, recites “at least one contact surface” in a similar manner as above and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 7 recites “a tongue-and-groove connection is formed between one movement limiter and another movement limiter”. The recitation “movement limiter” for both makes it unclear if the surfaces are distinct, opposite, or contiguous. The applicant should define the movement limiters as separate elements to properly differentiate the components.
Claim 7, recites “having at least one groove arranged thereon and the other movement limiter having at least one corresponding tongue arranged thereon, and/or by the one movement limiter having at least one tongue arranged thereon and the other movement limiter having at least one corresponding groove arranged thereon” which is a double inclusion and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, “at least one groove”, “at least one corresponding tongue”, “at least one tongue” and “at least one corresponding groove” is previously claimed and it is unclear how many laser tools are required by the claims. Subsequent recitations of “the at least one groove”, “the at least one corresponding tongue”, “the at least one tongue” and “the at least one corresponding groove” are unclear, as which laser tool being referenced cannot be determined.
Claim 8, recites “a first thin-walled segment and a second thin-walled segment”. It is unclear if this is in reference to “at least one thin-walled segment” introduced earlier or if it’s a different new thin walled segment.
Claim 9, recites “a thick-walled segment” which is a double inclusion and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, “a thick-walled segment” is previously claimed and it is unclear how many laser tools are required by the claims. Subsequent recitations of “the thick-walled segment” are unclear, as which laser tool being referenced cannot be determined.
Claim 11, recites “at least one thin-walled segment” which is a double inclusion and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, “at least one thin-walled segment” is previously claimed and it is unclear how many laser tools are required by the claims. Subsequent recitations of “the at least one thin-walled segment” are unclear, as which laser tool being referenced cannot be determined.
Claim 12 recites “said first thick-walled segment having a side surface facing a side surface of said second thick-walled segment”. The recitation “a side surface” for both the first and second segments makes it unclear if the surfaces are distinct, opposite, or contiguous. The applicant should define the surfaces as separate to properly differentiate the components.
Claim 13, recites “at least one contact surface” which is a double inclusion and renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, “at least one contact surface” is previously claimed and it is unclear how many laser tools are required by the claims. Subsequent recitations of “the at least one contact surface” are unclear, as which laser tool being referenced cannot be determined.
Claim 14, recites “at least one contact surface” in a similar manner as above and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15, recites “at least one contact surface” in a similar manner as above and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16, recites “at least one contact surface” in a similar manner as above and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13-16 recites “that a drifting apart of the side surfaces under the application of force and/or their drifting towards each other”. It is unclear how would this with coexist “and” with the embodiment mentioned earlier where “drifting apart of the side surfaces”
Claims 10 and 17-19 are rejected for being dependent on independent claims 1 and 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1721820 A2 ("Bauer").
Claim 1: Bauer teaches a centring ring (38) for two-wheeled and three-wheeled vehicles, having at least two thick-walled segments, i.e. at least one first thick-walled segment (39) and one second thick-walled segment (41) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14), said first thick-walled segment (39) having a side surface (wall of bore 45) facing a side surface (wall of threaded bore 46) of said second thick-walled segment (41), having at least one thin-walled segment (57) which adjoins the first thick-walled segment (39) and/or the second thick-walled segment (41), characterized in that said side surfaces have a gap (gap between 39 and 41) arranged therebetween which has a given clearance B (Figs. 4, 13 and 14; para. 49, lines 1-4), wherein said clearance B is variable between a minimum clearance and a maximum clearance (clearance is affected by the tightening of the screw 44 between thick wall segments 39 and 41) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14; para. 49, lines 1-4), wherein the side surfaces touch each other at least partially or are spaced apart from each other by the gap having a clearance B (Figs. 4, 13 and 14) and the centring ring has at least one movement limiter (screw 44) which has at least one contact surface (45, 46) and/or at least one end face and by means of which a drifting apart of the side surfaces under the application of force is merely possible until the maximum clearance is reached and/or by means of which a drifting of the side surfaces towards each other under the application of force is merely possible until the minimum clearance is reached (when screw 45 is fully tightened) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14; para. 49, lines 1-4).
Claim 2: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the centring ring (38) characterized in that the side surface (wall of bore 45) is arranged on the end face of the first thick-walled segment (39) and/or the side surface (wall of threaded bore 46) is arranged on the end face of the second thick- walled segment (41) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14).
Claim 3: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the centring ring (38) characterized in that at least one movement limiter (44) is arranged on the side surface of the first thick-walled segment (39) and/or at least one movement limiter is arranged on the side surface of the second thick-walled segment (41) and/or at least one movement limiter (44 being a screw) constitutes a separate component (Figs. 4, 13 and 14; para. 49, lines 1-4).
Claim 4: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the centring ring (38) characterized in that at least one thick-walled segment has at least one contact surface (45, 46) for at least one movement limiter (44) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14).
Claim 5: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 4 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the centring ring (38) characterized in that at least one contact surface (45, 46) is arranged in a cavity (threaded bore) formed within a thick- walled segment (Figs. 4, 13 and 14; para. 49, lines 1-4).
Claim 8: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the centring ring (38) characterized in that the centring ring has a first thin-walled segment (57 connected to 39) and a second thin-walled segment (57 connect to 41), said first thin-walled segment being arranged adjacent to the first thick-walled segment (39) and said second thin-walled segment being arranged adjacent to the second thick-walled segment (41) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14).
Claim 9: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the centring ring (38) characterized in that a thick-walled segment, i.e. a third thick-walled segment (40) is arranged between the first thin-walled segment and the second thin-walled segment (40 arranged between both 57s) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14).
Claim 10: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the centring ring (38) characterized in that one of the thick-walled segments has a connection bore (42, 43) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14; para. 48, lines 1-4).
Claim 12: Bauer teaches a method for reducing the risk of breakage of at least one thin-walled segment (57) of a centring ring (38) for two-wheeled and three-wheeled vehicles, said centring ring (38) having at least two thick-walled segments, i.e. at least one first thick-walled segment (39) and one second thick-walled segment (41), said first thick-walled segment (39) having a side surface (wall of bore 45) which faces a side surface (wall of threaded bore 46) of the second thick-walled segment (41), characterized in that said side surfaces have a gap (gap between 39 and 41) arranged therebetween which has a given clearance B (Figs. 4, 13 and 14; para. para. 49, lines 1-4), wherein said clearance B (38) is variable between a minimum clearance and a maximum clearance (clearance is affected by the tightening of the screw 44 between thick wall segments 39 and 41) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14; para. para. 49, lines 1-4), wherein the side surfaces touch each other at least partially or are spaced apart from each other by the gap having a clearance B (Figs. 4, 13 and 14) and the centring ring has at least one movement limiter (screw 44) which has at least one contact surface (45, 46) and/or at least one end face (40) and by means of which a drifting apart of the side surfaces under the application of force is merely enabled until the maximum clearance is reached and/or by means of which a drifting of the side surfaces towards each other under the application of force is merely enabled until the minimum clearance is reached (when screw 45 is fully tightened) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14; para. para. 49, lines 1-4).
Claim 13: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the method characterized in that a drifting apart of the side surfaces (walls of bore 45 and 46) under the application of force and/or their drifting towards each other under the application of force is decelerated or stopped as soon as at least one contact surface (45, 46) of the movement limiter (screw 44) comes into contact with at least one contact surface arranged on a thick-walled segment or as soon as the end face of the movement limiter (screw 44) comes into contact with at least one contact surface (45, 46) arranged within a cavity (threaded bore) formed in a thick-walled segment (Figs. 4, 13 and 14; para. para. 49, lines 1-4).
Claim 14: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the method characterized in that at least one of the movement limiters (44) has at least two contact surfaces (45, 46), i.e. a first contact surface (45) and a second contact surface (46), so that a drifting apart of the side surfaces under the application of force and/or their drifting towards each other under the application of force is decelerated or stopped (via screwing) as soon as the first contact surface (45) of the movement limiter (44) comes into contact with at least one contact surface arranged on a first thick- walled segment (39) and the second contact surface (46) of the movement limiter (44) comes into contact with at least one contact surface arranged on a second thick-walled segment (41) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14; para. para. 49, lines 1-4).
Claim 17: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the method characterized in that a transmission of forces between two thick-walled segments (39, 41) of the centring ring (38) is established at the latest when the given clearance B (para. 20, lines 1-6) as specified by the movement limiter(s) (44) is reached (para. para. 49, lines 1-4).
Claim 18: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the method characterized in that the centring ring (38 and fully assembled as 8 in Fig. 1) is used in a steering head bearing of a vehicle (Fig. 1).
Claim 19: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the method characterized in that the centring ring (38) employed is a centring ring as claimed in claim 1 (Figs. 4, 13 and 14).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1721820 A2 ("Bauer") in view of JP S5613086 U ("Prior Art 2").
Claim 6: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the centring ring (38) characterized in that a connection is formed between a movement limiter (44) and a thick-walled segment by the movement limiter and the thick-walled segment (39, 41) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14). But does not teach the centring ring characterized in that a tongue-and-groove connection is formed between a movement limiter and a thick-walled segment by the movement limiter having at least one groove arranged thereon and the thick-walled segment having at least one corresponding tongue arranged thereon, and/or by the movement limiter having at least one tongue arranged thereon and the thick-walled segment having at least one corresponding groove arranged thereon.
However, Prior Art 2 teaches the centring ring characterised in that a tongue-and-groove connection (11a) is formed between a movement limiter (11d) and a thick-walled segment (wall of 11c) by the movement limiter having at least one groove arranged thereon and the thick-walled segment having at least one corresponding tongue (11c) arranged thereon (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Bauer with the features of Prior Art 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as such a modification is merely the substitution of one known connection mechanism of a thread and bore for another connection mechanism of tongue-and-groove, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable, namely, the tongue-and-groove connecting the movement limiter and the thick-walled segment.
Claim 7: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the centring ring (38) characterised in that a connection is formed between one movement limiter and another movement limiter by the one movement limiter (39, 41) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14). But does not the teach centring ring characterized in that a tongue-and-groove connection is formed between one movement limiter and another movement limiter by the one movement limiter having at least one groove arranged thereon and the other movement limiter having at least one corresponding tongue arranged thereon, and/or by the one movement limiter having at least one tongue arranged thereon and the other movement limiter having at least one corresponding groove arranged thereon.
However, Prior Art 2 teaches the centring ring characterised in that a tongue-and-groove connection (11a) is formed between one movement limiter (11d) and another movement limiter (11c) by the one movement limiter having at least one groove arranged thereon and the other movement limiter having at least one corresponding tongue arranged thereon (Fig. 4), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Bauer with the features of Prior Art 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as such a modification is merely the substitution of one known connection mechanism of a thread and bore for another connection mechanism of tongue-and-groove, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable, namely, the tongue-and-groove connecting the movement limiter and the thick-walled segment.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1721820 A2 ("Bauer") in view of Aluminum Chicago Screw Post Extensions ("Amazon").
Claim 15: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the method characterized in that at least one of the movement limiters (44) has at least two contact surfaces (45, 46), i.e. a first contact surface (45) and a second contact surface (46), so that a drifting apart of the side surfaces under the application of force and/or their drifting towards each other under the application of force is decelerated or stopped (via screwing) as soon as the first contact surface (45) of the movement limiter (44) comes into contact with at least one contact surface arranged on a first thick- walled segment (39) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14; para. para. 49, lines 1-4). Bauer does not teach the second contact surface of the movement limiter comes into contact with a contact surface arranged on a second movement limiter.
However, Amazon teaches the second contact surface of the movement limiter (edge of a threaded screw) comes into contact with a contact surface arranged on a second movement limiter (second movement limiter being a screw post extension of Amazon; the screw post extension being added onto the original screw, in order to increase the length of the initial movement limiter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Bauer with the features of Amazon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as such a modification is merely the substitution of one known screw combination for another screw combination, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable, namely, a screw being used with a screw post extension to increase the length.
Claim 16: Bauer teaches the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Bauer further teaches the method characterized in that at least one of the movement limiters (44) has at least two contact surfaces (45, 46), so that a drifting apart of the side surfaces under the application of force and/or their drifting towards each other under the application of force is decelerated or stopped (via screwing) as soon as at least one of the contact surfaces (45, 46) of the movement limiter (44) (Figs. 4, 13 and 14; para. para. 49, lines 1-4). Bauer does not teach at least one of the contact surfaces of the movement limiter comes into contact with at least one contact surface arranged on a second movement limiter.
However, Amazon at least one of the contact surfaces of the movement limiter (edge of a threaded screw) comes into contact with at least one contact surface arranged on a second movement limiter (second movement limiter being a screw post extension of Amazon; the screw post extension being added onto the original screw, in order to increase the length of the initial movement limiter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Bauer with the features of Amazon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as such a modification is merely the substitution of one known screw combination for another screw combination, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable, namely, a screw being used with a screw post extension to increase the length.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the references, either alone or in combination, disclose all of the limitations of the claims. Specifically, with regard to dependent claim 11, none of the references disclose the centring ring characterised in that at least one thin-walled segment is in the form of a cable feed-through.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/Jake Cook/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights