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 .
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 cross-sectional shape of the spoke body being “flat” as set forth in claim 2; 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The title is not descriptive (see section 4 below).
The first page of the specification lacks a statement of priority and the 371 status of the application.
In line 1 of paragraph [005], the phrase “t,” should be removed and replaced with a comma - -,- - following the term “technologies”; for grammatical clarity.
The phrase “opening-prefabricated” should be removed from the specification, given the fact that it is unclear what physical features of the invention this phrase is attempting to describe.
In the table of paragraph [0048], the term “poke” should be replaced with the term - -spoke- -, for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Carbon Fiber Spoke and Method of Preparation Thereof.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term - -with- - should be inserted after the term “formed” in line 2, for grammatical clarity.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1-10 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “opening-prefabricated”. Namely, it is unclear what physical structure of the invention this phrase is attempting to describe.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “configured to cooperate”. This phrase lacks any actual physical structure of the invention, and is merely narrative language (see section 8 below).
Claim 4 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “that extends forward” in line 3.
Claim 8 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the limitations that the expanded part is “with an inclination”; or the second end of the spoke body “is that a forked part in a closed state”.
Claim 8 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the limitation “so that an expanded end that is of the carbon fiber spoke body” in line 7-8.
Claim 10 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrase “direct thermoforming”. Namely, it is unclear what the term “direct” is actually describing.
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.
A non-limiting example of generally narrative and indefinite language used in the claims is the phrase “under an action o0f a pulling force” in claim 3.
The term “flat” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flat” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No quantitative or qualitative limitations have been set forth in the claims to clearly define this term.
Furthermore, the term “flat” does not describe a geometric shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 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 does not teach or suggest a carbon fiber spoke having an end that is formed as a “forked part” that interacts with a wedge pin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show carbon fiber spoke structure.
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