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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 16 November 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 battery box having a placement groove “recessed toward a side of the wheel” as set forth in claim 6; a sealing cover “flush with an outer surface of the sealing disc” as set forth in claim 6; and the second connecting member being “an inserting aperture” as set forth in claim 10; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 51.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 52 and B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal terms (See below). 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).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprising”, “comprises”, “means”, and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “via” should be replaced with the term - -opening- -, - -hole- -, or - -aperture- - throughout the specification to more accurately define the invention.
Reference character 21 denotes a “hub” of a wheel and not a “bottom bracket”. Therefore, the phrase “bottom bracket” should be replaced with the term - -hub- - throughout the specification, to more accurately define the invention.
Reference character 22 denotes a “disc” or “spider” of a wheel and not a “hub”. Therefore, the term “hub” should be replaced with the term - -disc- - or - -spider- - throughout the specification, to more accurately define the invention.
The phrase “ lower side” should be replaced with the phrase - -radially outer edge- - throughout the specification, to more accurately define the invention.
The list of reference characters on page 4 of the specification is incorrect and incomplete. Therefore, this list should either be amended to properly list all reference characters used in the drawings, or deleted from the specification.
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 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 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what element of the invention is being referred to by the phrase “bottom bracket”. No bracket is shown in the drawings. This phrase should be replaced with the phrase - -wheel hub- - to more accurately define the invention using terms commonly known in the art.
Claim 2 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “a hub of the bicycle”, given the fact that a “hub” is an only element of a wheel.
Claim 5 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the limitation that the clamping platform is arranged on a “lower side” of the hole. Namely, the location of the clamping platform is dependent upon the orientation of the wheel. therefore, the phrase “lower side” should be replaced with the phrase - -radially outer edge- - to more accurately define the invention.
Claim 6 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the placement groove is “recessed toward” a side of the wheel. No directional indicators (i.e. radially, axially, etc.) have been provided to clearly define this limitation.
Claim 7 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear whether the phrase “the sealing disc” in line 3 is referring to the “first sealing disc”, the “second sealing disc”, or a completely different “sealing disc”.
Claim 8 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is being claimed by the phrase “that is of the battery box”. This phrase is one example of narrative and generally indefinite language in the claims (see section 11 below).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the spoke" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation has not been previously set forth in the claims.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “via” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “opening”, “hole”, or “aperture” while the accepted meaning is “by way of.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chien 5,683,164).
Chien shows a wheel cover arranged on a wheel 1. The wheel cover includes a sealing disc (2, 4) and a light-emitting component 3 arranged on an inner side of the sealing disc (2,4) and a power supply 6 mounted thereto. The sealing disc (2,4) covers the wheel 1, and includes an opening for a wheel hub to pass through (see Figure 1). The sealing disc (specifically portion 4) is formed of a transparent material. The power supply 6 is electrically connected to the light-emitting component 3, with the light-emitting component 3 fixed on the inner side of the sealing disc (2, 4). The wheel cover may be mounted on a bicycle wheel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 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 references show wheel covers having lighting thereon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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) 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615