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 angular range of the second angle being between 40o and 140o, as set forth in claim 2; and the outer surface of the washer contacts the protrusion and rotates only around the spindle, as set forth in claim 8, must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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.
Specification
The Abstract is objected to because the term “Highly Adaptive” is not descriptive and should be replaced with the term “modular” or “adaptable”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “A Modular Bicycle Through Axle”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “Highly Adaptive” is not descriptive and should be replaced with the term “modular” or “adaptable”. Also, in Paragraph 0018, line 9 cites FIG. 6 having, “two larger protrusions,” but there are no protrusions shown in FIG. 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 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 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. It does not enable someone skilled in the art on how the axle adapts to the conical interface from 40o to 140o. Namely, angles beyond 90o are counter intuitive to known bicycle fork and axle designs/configurations.
Claim 8 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, as it is unclear from the claim and the specifications, where the protrusions are supposed to contact the washer, and the purpose of the contact.
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 1-9 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 1-9 are indefinite due to the fact that the term “highly adaptive” is a relative term that renders the claims indefinite. The term “highly adaptive” 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. No qualitative or quantitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term.
Claim is 1 is indefinite as it is unclear how the “large head” is a cylinder toward the head end. The term “large” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term “large” 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.
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 1-2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2020/0290400 A1) herein after Lee.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee shows, A highly adaptive bicycle through axle, (Paragraph 0008, line 1, FIG.1) comprising: a spindle, (Paragraph 0017, line 2, 11.) with a tail end and a head end (Paragraph 0017, line 5, 12.) defined at two ends; the head end (Paragraph 0017, line 5, 12.) comprises a large head, and the large head is a cylinder toward the head end and defines a cylindrical surface; the large head is inwardly recessed toward the tail end to form a conical interface (Paragraph 0018, line 8, 132.) that forms a first angle with the axial direction of the spindle; and a washer, (Paragraph 0017, line 6, 20.) comprising an inner surface (Paragraph 0019, line 3, 211.) and an outer surface, where the inner surface corresponds to the conical interface, and the outer surface (Paragraph 0017, line 6, 20.) forms a second angle with the axial direction, and the first and second angles are different.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee shows, (pg. 6, fig 8) The highly adaptive bicycle through axle (Paragraph 0008, line 1, FIG.1) according to claim 1, wherein the angular range of the second angle is between 40° and 140°. (Paragraph 0017, line 6, 20.).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee shows, the highly adaptive bicycle through axle according to claim 3, (Paragraph 0008, line 1, FIG.1), wherein the washer completely covers the cylindrical surface and the conical interface of the large head. (Paragraph 0017, line 6, 20 & Paragraph 0006, line 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Lee (2020/0290400 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, and 9 above, and in further view of GRÄTZ (German Patent DE 102016003560 A) herein after Gratz.
Regarding claim 3, Lee shows a washer that is ring shaped (paragraph 0017, line 6, 20). Lee doesn’t show a circumferential surface having an opening. Gratz teaches the use of a through axle conical interface with an opening (longitudinal slot 14, Paragraph 0048, line 2). Therefore, from this teaching it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, and with reasonable expectation of success, to provide the washer of Lee with a slot for the purpose of expanding when a force is applied, making it easier to install or remove the washer onto or from the conical interface of the spindle.
Regarding claim 8, Lee as modified by Gratz, shows limitations of Claim 8 in as much as the applicant’s invention.
Claims 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2020/0290400 A1), as applied to claim 1-2, and 9 above, and further in view of Sebhatu (MY 172612 A) herein Sebhatu.
Regarding claim 4 & 5, Lee teaches an axle thru axle head with a recess in the head. (pg. 13, line 25). Lee fails to teach a recess for lubrication.
However, Sebhatu teaches a groove for a lubricating O-ring, (pg. 27, line 25).
Lee and Sebhatu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field as Lee, bicycles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Sebhatu, to use the recess for a lubricant, for the purpose of preventing galling between the washer and head of the through axle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 & 7 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. The prior art show thru-axle structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Howard Binns whose telephone number is (571)272-9456. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Joe 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.
/HOWARD PATRICK BINNS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615