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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Honea (US 2006/0181055 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Honea (Fig 1-4) teaches a bicycle spinner peg device (100) comprising:
a shaft (106);
a wheel (102) comprised of a bearing (302+306+102, Para [0039] and [0044] and Fig 3), the bearing comprised of an opening (302);
a fender (104) comprised of a body (115) and a support post (117); and
a peg thread (202).
Regarding claim 2, Honea teaches that the support post attaches to the shaft (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 3, Hones teaches that the support post attaches to the shaft in a non-rotational manner (Para [0042]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Honea teaches that the wheel/bearing can rotate 360 degrees around the shaft (Para [0040]).
Regarding claim 6, Honea (Fig 1-9) teaches that the wheel can rotate 360 degrees around the bearing (since the bearing 306 is seated in groove 302 and the wheel 102 rotates around the shaft 106, it rotates around the bearing).
Regarding claim 8, Honea teaches a bicycle spinner peg device (100) comprising:
a shaft (106);
a wheel (102) comprised of a bearing (102+302+306), the bearing comprised of an opening (302);
a fender (104) comprised of a body (115) and a support post (117) comprised of a first fastener (202);
a second fastener (801); and
a peg thread (210).
Regarding claim 9, Hones teaches that the second fastener is comprised of a nut (Para [0051] and Fig 8A).
Regarding claim 11, Honea teaches that the first fastener is comprised of a nut (Para [0040] and Fig 2).
Regarding claim 12, Honea teaches that the shaft is comprised of a threaded shaft (see threaded portion, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Honea teaches that the shaft is comprised of a head (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 14, Honea teaches that the bearing is positioned around the shaft (Fig 3-4).
Regarding claim 15, Honea teaches that the body of the fender is comprised of a knurling (Para [0046] and Fig 5).
Regarding claim 16, Honea teaches that the body of the fender is comprised of a convex body (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 17, Honea (Fig 8A) teaches that the peg thread is comprised of a threaded interior surface (801).
Regarding claim 18, Honea (Fig 8A) teaches that the peg thread is comprised of a threaded exterior surface (800).
Regarding claim 19, Hones teaches a method of using a bicycle spinner peg device (100), the method comprising the following steps:
providing a bicycle spinner peg device comprised of a shaft (106), a wheel (102) with a bearing (102+302+306), and a fender (104) attached to the shaft in a non-rotational manner (Para [0041]- [0042] and Fig 1-3);
attaching a peg thread (202 of the option of being bolt, Para [0040]) of the bicycle spinner peg device to a female peg receiving area (to match the external thread of the bolt 106) of a bicycle;
riding a bicycle while standing on the fender and rolling the wheel over to perform a trick (Para [0006]).
Regarding claim 20, Honea teaches that the surface is comprised of a wall, a ledge (curb, Para [0046]), or a rail.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honea (US 2006/0181055 A1) in view of Paasch et al. (US 6,863,292 B1) hereinafter, Paasch.
Honea teaches the device of claim 1. However, Honea does not teach that the wheel is comprised of a polyurethane material.
Paasch teaches that the wheel is comprised of a polyurethane material (claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Honea’s device, in view of Paasch, with a polyurethane wheel for higher load bearing capacity and noise reduction.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honea (US 2006/0181055 A1).
Honea teaches the device of claim 8. However, Honea does not teach that the second fastener is comprised of a spacer.
Honea (Fig 1) teaches a fastener (106) is comprised of a spacer (118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Honea’s device, in view of fastener 106, with a spacer for better load distribution and durability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO-892 form teach bicycle spinner devices of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAM SHABARA whose telephone number is (571)272-5495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm.
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, VALENTIN NEACSU can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611