DETAILED ACTION
This is on the merits of Application No. 18/503382, filed on 11/07/2023. Claims 1-19 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 11/07/2023 and 09/03/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The ”means of at least one biasing device” of claims 1 and 14 is interpreted as a mechanical spring, magnetic spring, pneumatic spring, or equivalents thereof, as stated in the last paragraph of page 16.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 9, and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 states “which support portion bears against” and should state --in which the support portion bears against--.
Claim 9 states “the radial height of the end toothing” and should state --a radial height of the end toothing--.
Claim 11 states “the outer periphery” and should state --an outer periphery--.
Claim 11 states “the mounted condition” and should state --a mounted condition--.
Claim 11 states “the axially outer end” and should state --an axially outer end--.
Claim 12 line 3 states “a further enlarged diameter area (63)” and should state --a further enlarged diameter area--.
Claim 15 states “at least one rotor bearing is configured” and should state --at least one rotor bearing of the at least two rotor bearings is configured--.
Claim 17 states “the outer periphery” and should state --an outer periphery--.
Claim 17 states “the mounted condition” and should state --a mounted condition--.
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 1-13 and 15 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, the phrase "namely" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 states “wherein the hub-side toothed disk device and the rotor-side toothed disk device are each radially outwardly coupled to the rotor”. It is unclear how the hub-side toothed disk device is coupled to the rotor. It appears that only the rotor-side toothed disk device is radially outwardly coupled to the rotor while the hub-side toothed disk device is radially outwardly coupled to the hub through threaded ring 40.
Claim 9 states “wherein at least one toothed disk device comprises an engagement body”. This is a double inclusion as “two toothed disk devices” have already been established in claim 1. It appears this is meant to sate --wherein at least one toothed disk device of the two toothed disk devices comprises an engagement body--.
Claim 9 states the phrase "in particular" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 states “an axial extension, which is larger than the radial height of the end toothing”. The term “an axial extension” is a double inclusion, as an axial extension has already been established earlier in the claim. Is this the same axial extension? Further, is this referring to a length of the axial extension or the radial height of the axial extension? It is also unclear which end toothing of the two toothed disk devices this is referring to.
Claim 10 states “two axially spaced apart rotor bearings on the hub axle, namely, a hub-side rotor bearing disposed closer to the hub shell, and an outer rotor bearing further distant from the hub shell”. The “hub-side rotor bearing” is a double inclusion, as one has already been established in claim 1. Is this referring to that bearing? Or are there now three bearings being established?
Claim 10, the phrase "namely" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 sates “an axially inner sealing gap… and axially further outwardly, an outer sealing gap”. It is unclear how to interpret what is considered “axially inner” and “axially further outwardly” without a given frame of reference. What is considered axially inner and axially outer?
Claim 11 states “the conical portion… the conical depression… the threaded ring” These all lack antecedent basis in the claim. Is claim 11 meant to depend on claim 6 which has all of these components established?
Claim 12 states “wherein a sealing gap is configured between the enlarged diameter area and a sealing wall”. This is a third sealing gap being established. However, looking at the drawings show only two established sealing gaps. Is this referring to the “outer sealing gap” of claim 11 on which claim 12 depends? If so, it should refer to it as such.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 states “wherein a radially largest inner diameter of the sealing groove is larger than what is the largest outer diameter of the elastic sealing lip in the normal state” It is unclear how this is possible, as the elastic sealing lip sits on top of the sealing groove 62. Is this meant to reference the circumferential sealing groove configured in the hub shell?
Claim 13 states “the largest inner diameter of the sealing groove is axially further outwardly than the largest outer diameter of the elastic sealing lip. Again, it is unclear what is considered “axially further outwardly” without any frame of reference. It is suggested applicant state that along the rotor, traveling towards the hub is considered axially inward and traveling away from the hub is considered axially outward in order to avoid any confusion.
Claim 15, the phrase "namely" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 4-8 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16-19 are allowed.
Claims 1-13 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose nor render obvious the limitations of claims 1 and 14. Particularly, a circumferential accommodation radially between the inner radial wall and an outer radial wall of the rotor in which the rotor-side toothed disk device is accommodated in a rotationally fixed manner in the driving direction and axially movable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miles (US 2021/0155038) discloses a bicycle hub structure.
Tho (US 2012/0285785) discloses a ratchet mechanism for bicycle hub.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY HANNON whose telephone number is (571)270-1943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/TIMOTHY HANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655