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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The letters (i.e., “F” and “E”) within the parentheses should be deleted for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-19 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 claims 1-19, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. For example, note the repeated use of the term “namely” in independent claims 1 and 13.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “a biasing device” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a biasing device” refers to “a biasing device” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “a biasing device” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a biasing device” refers to “a biasing device” 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 hub-side end” and “the end face”.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “a hub-side rotor bearing” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a hub-side rotor bearing” refers to “a hub-side rotor bearing” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the radial tolerance”, “the length of the connecting portion” and “the length of the second rotor part”.
Regarding claim 11, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the ratio of the length of the guiding portion to the diameter of the guiding portion”, “the length of the guiding portion” and “the diameter of the guiding portion”.
Regarding claim 12, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the ratio of the length of the guiding portion to the length of the connecting portion”.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hub axle”.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “a biasing device” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a biasing device” refers to “a biasing device” previously set forth in independent claim 13 or if it is distinct therefrom as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 18, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the end face”.
Regarding claim 19, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the radial tolerance”, “the length of the connecting portion”, “the length of the second rotor part”, “the ratio of the length of the guiding portion to the diameter of the guiding portion”, “the length of the guiding portion”, “the diameter of the guiding portion”, and “the ratio of the length of the guiding portion to the length of the connecting portion”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smolik (DE 102004004961 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smolik discloses a hub (Fig. 1) for at least partially muscle-powered vehicles (note the first paragraph under the Description section on page 1 of the English-language machine translation), comprising: a hub axle 16; a hub shell 10; a rotor (comprised of freewheel body 26 and sleeve 30); and a freewheel device 36; wherein the hub shell is supported for rotation with two axially spaced apart hub bearings 18, 20 on the hub axle, namely a rotor-side hub bearing 20 and an opposite, outer hub bearing 18; and wherein the rotor comprises a rotor body (comprised of freewheel body 26 and sleeve 30) and is supported on the hub axle for rotation with two axially spaced apart rotor bearings 28, 28, namely a hub-side rotor bearing (“left” side bearing 28 in Fig. 1) and an opposite, outer rotor bearing (“right” side bearing 28 in Fig. 1), and wherein the freewheel device comprises a hub-side toothed disk device 38 and a rotor-side toothed disk device 40 interacting therewith, each comprising an end toothing 46 for engagement with one another (Figs. 1 and 3), and biased to an engagement position by means of a biasing device 44 (Fig. 1); the rotor body comprises at least two rotor parts 26, 30, namely a first rotor part 26 and a second rotor part 30 connected with the first rotor part in a rotationally fixed manner in the driving direction (evident from Fig. 1 and the first full paragraph on page 4 of the English-language machine translation that sleeve 30 is fixed to freewheel body 26 to allow the freewheel body to rotate as intended with respect to the hub axle 16), and that one 26 of the rotor parts accommodates one (“right” side bearing 28 in Fig. 1) of the rotor bearings and the other 30 of the rotor parts, accommodates the other (“left” side bearing 28 in Fig. 1) rotor bearing (evident from Fig. 1 that both 26 and 30 can be considered to “accommodate” either rotor bearing 28 inasmuch as both bearings 28 are positioned radially within both 26 and 30), and that the rotor-side toothed disk device is accommodated on the rotor body (Fig. 1 shows 40 being “accommodated” on an inner radial surface of the rotor body at 26).
Regarding claim 2, Smolik further discloses the outer rotor bearing (“right” side bearing 28 in Fig. 1) is accommodated on the first rotor part 26 (note “right” side bearing 28 is accommodated radially within 26), and the hub-side rotor bearing (“left” side bearing 28 in Fig. 1) is accommodated on the second rotor part 30 (note “left” side bearing 28 is accommodated radially within 30).
Regarding claim 6, Smolik further discloses the hub-side toothed disk device and the rotor-side toothed disk device each comprise an outer radial toothing (notch profile 42) and engage in inner radial toothings in the hub shell and in the rotor (Fig. 1; third full paragraph on page 4 of the English-language machine translation), and are accommodated in a rotationally fixed manner in the driving direction (evident from at least Fig. 1 and the third full paragraph on page 4 of the English-language machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Smolik further discloses the second rotor part is accommodated in the first rotor part (Fig. 1 shows sleeve 30 being positioned radially within freewheel body 26).
Regarding claim 13, Smolik discloses a rotor (comprised of freewheel body 26 and sleeve 30) for a hub (Fig. 1) for at least partially muscle-powered vehicles and in particular bicycles (note the first paragraph under the Description section on page 1 of the English-language machine translation), comprising a rotor body (comprised of freewheel body 26 and sleeve 30), which extends from an inner, hub-side end toward an outer end (Fig. 1); wherein the rotor body is supported on the hub axle 16 for rotation with two axially spaced apart rotor bearings 28, 28, namely a hub-side rotor bearing (“left” side bearing 28 in Fig. 1) and an opposite, outer rotor bearing (“right” side bearing 28 in Fig. 1); and comprising a rotor-side toothed disk device 40 coupled with the rotor body (Fig. 1), to couple the rotor body with a hub shell in a rotationally fixed manner in the driving direction (evident from Fig. 1 and the third full paragraph on page 4 of the English-language machine translation), and to decouple from the hub shell in a freewheeling position (evident from Fig. 1 and the third full paragraph on page 4 of the English-language machine translation), wherein the rotor-side toothed disk device comprises an end toothing 46 for engagement with an end toothing 46 coupled to a hub shell (evident from Fig. 1 and the third full paragraph on page 4 of the English-language machine translation), and wherein the rotor-side toothed disk device is biased to an engagement position by means of at least one biasing device 44; the rotor body comprises at least two rotor parts 26, 30, namely a first rotor part 26 and second rotor part 30 connected with the first rotor part in a rotationally fixed manner in the driving direction (evident from Fig. 1 and the first full paragraph on page 4 of the English-language machine translation that sleeve 30 is fixed to freewheel body 26 to allow the freewheel body to rotate as intended with respect to the hub axle 16); and one of the rotor bearings (“right” side bearing 28 in Fig. 1) is accommodated on one of the rotor parts 26 and the other of the rotor bearings (“left” side bearing 28 in Fig. 1) is accommodated on the other 30 of the rotor parts (evident from Fig. 1 that both 26 and 30 can be considered to “accommodate” either rotor bearing 28 inasmuch as both bearings 28 are positioned radially within both 26 and 30).
Regarding claim 14, Smolik further discloses the outer rotor bearing (“right” side bearing 28 in Fig. 1) is accommodated on the first rotor part 26 (note “right” side bearing 28 is accommodated radially within 26), and the hub-side rotor bearing (“left” side bearing 28 in Fig. 1) is accommodated on the second rotor part 30 (note “left” side bearing 28 is accommodated radially within 30).
Regarding claim 16, Smolik further discloses the rotor-side toothed disk device 40 comprises an outer radial toothing (notch profile 42) and engages in an inner radial toothing in the rotor (Fig. 1; third full paragraph on page 4 of the English-language machine translation), and is accommodated in a rotationally fixed manner in the driving direction (evident from at least Fig. 1 and the third full paragraph on page 4 of the English-language machine translation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smolik in view of Spahr et al. (US 2013/0088075 A1; hereinafter “Spahr”).
Smolik fails to disclose the hub-side toothed disk device is accommodated axially movable on the hub shell and is biased in the engagement position by way of a biasing device assigned to the hub-side toothed disk device.
Spahr, however, teaches a hub 1 in which the hub-side toothed disk device 19 is accommodated axially movable on the hub shell 6 and is biased in the engagement position by way of a biasing device 33 assigned to the hub-side toothed disk device (Fig. 4; paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hub of Smolik so that the hub-side toothed disk device is accommodated axially movable on the hub shell and is biased in the engagement position by way of a biasing device assigned to the hub-side toothed disk device, such as taught by Spahr, as a well-known alternative freewheel device arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing predictable results for ensuring the disk devices of the freewheel device are biased to an engagement position.
10. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smolik in view of Lai (US 2014/0238808 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, although Smolik discloses the second rotor part 30 being rotationally fixed to the first rotor part 26 (evident from Fig. 1 and the first full paragraph on page 4 of the English-language machine translation that sleeve 30 is fixed to freewheel body 26 to allow the freewheel body to rotate as intended with respect to the hub axle 16), Smolik fails to expressly disclose the second rotor part being screw-connected with the first rotor part.
Lai, however, teaches a hub 1 in which the second rotor part 3 is screw-connected with the first rotor part 2 (Fig. 3; paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hub of Smolik so that the second rotor part is screw-connected with the first rotor part, such as taught by Lai, as a well-known rotor arrangement that would have a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the second rotor part is rotationally fixed to the first rotor part.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 3, 4, 9-12, 15, 18 and 19 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
12. 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