DETAILED ACTION
This is on the merits of Application No. 18/503387, filed on 11/07/2023. Claims 1-20 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 09/12/2024 is 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 claim 1 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 1, 5, 11, 13-14, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states “the driving direction” and should state --a driving direction--.
Claim 1 states “the direction to the rotor” and should state --a direction to the rotor--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “and/or.” Because each claim can only be drawn to one invention, alternative options must be listed as “at least one of X and Y.”
Claim 11 states “the biasing force” and should state --a biasing force--.
Claim 13 states “the axially inner surface” and should state --an axially inner surface--.
Claim 13 states “which support portion bears against” and should state --in which the support portion bears against--.
Claim 14 states “the axial direction” and should state --an axial direction--.
Claim 14 states “the radially outer surface” and should state --a radially outer surface--.
Claim 14 states “the radially inner surface” and should state --a radially inner surface--.
Claim 17 states “the radial toothing” and should state --a radial toothing--.
Claim 20 states “the hub shell” and should state --a hub shell--.
Claim 20 states “the interior of the threaded ring body” and should state --an interior of the threaded ring body--.
Claim 20 states “the driving direction” and should state --a driving direction--.
Claim 20 states “the direction to the rotor” and should state --a direction to the rotor--.
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 8, 11, and 17-20 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 8, 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 states “the biasing force of at least one biasing device”. It is unclear if this is a new biasing device or if this is meant to reference the “means of at least one biasing device” of claim 1 on which 11 ultimately depends on.
Claim 17 states “wherein at least one toothed disk device comprises an engagement body”. It is unclear what “at least one toothed disk device” is referencing. Is this a new toothed disk device? It appears this is referencing either the hub-side toothed disk device or the rotor-side toothed disk device, but the claim does not sufficiently make this clear.
Claim 18 states “at least one biasing device”. It is unclear if this is a new biasing device or if this is meant to reference the “means of at least one biasing device” of claim 1 on which 18 depends on.
Claim 20 states “a rotor-side end” but does not establish what this is in reference to, as no rotor is ever established. Later in the claim reference is made to “the rotor”, but this lacks antecedent basis. It is suggested applicant establish the rotor before referencing a rotor-side end in order to avoid any confusion.
Claim 19 is rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-16 are allowed.
Claims 8, 11, and 17-19 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.
Claim 20 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 20. Particularly, the threaded ring body has a central depression at the rotor- side end, so that the external thread on the threaded ring body extends axially further outwardly in the direction toward the rotor than does the inner coupling contour, so as to widen the external thread of the threaded ring in the direction toward the rotor.
Walthert et al (US 10442245 cited in applicant’s IDS) is the closest prior art of record. Walthert discloses a similar hub but does not disclose nor teach the above limitation. It would not have been obvious to modify Walthert without improper hindsight reasoning as none of the prior art of record disclose nor teach such a limitation.
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