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 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 1-11 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.
In claim 1, lines 10 and 11, “the orthogonal projections” lack clear antecedent basis in the claim.
In claim 2, it is not clear what applicant means by a “pitch” of the helical path being equal to the maximum axial width of the indenting elements in that “pitch” refers to an angle, not a length, so it is not clear how the pitch can be the same as a width dimension.
In claim 3, line 4, “the angles of the respective paths” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim.
In claim 4, line 3, “more or less 25%” is indefinite. This language has defined a range without clear limits.
In claim 7, line 3, “a rubber strip” should be -the rubber strip- to avoid double inclusion of that term because the rubber strip was recited earlier in the claim.
In claim 8, lines 1-2, “the rubber compound forming the contact strip” does not have clear antecedent basis in the claim.
In claim 9, line 1, “such as” renders the language that follows indefinite in that it is not clear if the claim is limited to the vehicle types that follow or if they are merely possible examples. In line 3, “a rubber-compound strip” should be -the rubber-compound strip- because that element was recited in claim 7, from which claim 9 depends.
In claim 10, line 1, “The light vehicle” should be -A light vehicle- and “such as” renders the language that follows indefinite, as discussed above. In lines 3, applicant recites a “tire”, however, that tire is not related back to the previously recited “rubber-compound strip” that also appears to be applicant’s tire. In lines 3-4, the terms “the sidewall”, “the angle”, “the generatrix” and “the truncated cone” lack clear antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Searle (EP0145431, cited by applicant) in view of Yates (GN2,448,738).
Regarding claim 1, Searle teaches a drive roller (5) comprising an axis of rotation, a frustoconical outer load-bearing surface (truncated cone shape (Figure 4) comprising one or more usable outer load-bearing surfaces (surface in contact with tire, in Figure 1) arranged between two circumferential planes, the one or more usable outer load-bearing surfaces comprising a plurality of indenting elements (ribs; page 6, lines 2-7), the indenting elements having a radial height, a mean circumferential length, a maximum axial width, and ending with a sharp point, the indenting elements covering at least 80% of each usable outer load- bearing surface (the entire outer surface is ribbed), wherein, for each usable outer load-bearing surface, the orthogonal projections of the sharp points of the indenting elements onto the axis of rotation of the roller are substantially equally distributed on the axis of rotation of the roller (Figures 1 and 4).
Searle is silent regarding the roller being metal and the indenting elements having a radial height of between 0.5 mm and 5 mm.
Yates teaches a metal drive roller (roller 10 made from stainless steel; page 5, lines 16-17) comprising: an axis of rotation (37, in Figure 1), an outer load-bearing surface (28) comprising one or more usable outer load-bearing surfaces (26) arranged between two circumferential planes, the one or more usable outer load-bearing surfaces comprising a plurality of indenting elements (26), the indenting elements (26) having a radial height of between 0.5 mm and 5 mm (2mm to 3.5mm; page 3, lines 8-9), a mean circumferential length, a maximum axial width, and ending with a sharp point (see Figures 4 and 5), the indenting elements covering a substantial majority of the outer surface (Figure 1), wherein for each usable outer load-bearing surface, the orthogonal projections of the sharp points of the indenting elements onto the axis of rotation of the roller are substantially equally distributed on the axis of rotation 37 of the roller 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the roller of Seale from metal, stainless steel, and form the indenting elements with a height of between .5mm and 5mm (2mm to 3.5mm is specifically taught by Yates), as taught by Yates, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to form the roller from an appropriate, inexpensive material and having appropriately sized wheel engaging indenting elements.
Regarding claim 2, Yates shows on each usable outer load-bearing surface, the indenting elements are distributed along a helical path (Figure 1 of Yates shows the protrusions, forming indenting surfaces, arranged in a helical pattern around the circumference of the roller 10). It Is not entirely clear what applicant means by the pitch of the helical path being equal to the maximum axial width of the indenting elements because “pitch” typically refers to an angle rather than a distance. However, it would have been obvious to dimension the helical path appropriately relative to the width of the indenting elements.
Regarding claim 4, the circumferential lengths of the indenting elements are variable around the circumference within a range of values of more or less 25% than the mean circumferential length (applicant claims a variation of less than 25%; the references teach generally circumferential length that would be well within a 25% variation).
Regarding claim 7, both references teach a device including a rubber-compound strip (rubber tire) and drive roller in which said roller drives a rotating object by contact, the indenting elements of said roller being in rotary contact with a rubber-compound strip.
Regarding claim 9, Searle teaches a light vehicle (including a bicycle or wheelchair; page 1, lines 2-3) in which the roller (5) drives at least one wheel 3 of the vehicle by rotary contact with a rubber-compound strip (tire).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Searle teaches the drive roller 5 drives at least one wheel 2 by rotary contact with at least one tire 3, the contact occurring on the sidewall of said tire. Yates is silent regarding the angle of the generatrix of the truncated cone with respect to the axis of rotation of the roller being between 0 and 3 degrees or between 1 and 2 degrees. Searle shows a substantial angle on the cone, but the angle in the drawings is likely to be exaggerated for illustration. Also, Yates appears to show little or no angling of the outer surface of the roller (angle of 0 degrees). It would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the roller of the combination with a small angle, including between one and two degrees, to provide some degree of pressure resulting from the cone shape, while also optimizing the contact area between the roller and the tire.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searle and Yates as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9-11 above, and further in view of Hirn (WO2012/056399).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches forming the roller from stainless steel (Yates; page 5, line 16-17)but lacks a teaching to make the indenting elements with a Vickers hardness of at least 560.
Hirn teaches a roller that contacts the circumference of a bicycle wheel 12 (Figure 1), where the roller is made from a steel alloy with an outer surface having a hardness of at least 1000, on the Vickers scale (see page 4, lines 8-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the roller of the combination from stainless steel having a Vickers hardness of at least 1000 (which is “at least 560”), in view of Hirn, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a material with hardness and durability that is appropriate for a roller that drives a bicycle wheel.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Searle and Yates as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9-11 above, and further in view of Labauze (PGPub 2005/0282950).
Regarding claim 8, the combination is silent regarding forming the rubber compound forming the contact strip with the indenting element has a Shore A hardness of between 55 and 75, and a glass transition temperature of between -15°C and 0°C.
Labauze teaches a vehicle tire formed from a synthetic rubber having a glass transition temperature of between -15°C and 10°C (para [0016]) and a Shore A hardness of between 55 and 75 (Shore A hardness of 66.5, 67.0 or 65.7; see Table 1, following para [0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the vehicle tire of the combination from a rubber material having a Shore A hardness in the between 55 and 75 (Labauze teaches Shore A hardness values in the 60’s which are well within the claimed range) and a glass transition temperature of between -15 and 0 degrees (Labauze teaches a range of glass transition temperatures that substantially overlaps the claimed range) in order to form a tire tread having improved wear resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 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.
Olsommer, Resele, Viglione, teach rollers for driving bicycle wheels.
Blok teaches a tire material having a glass transition temperature of -25 to 0 degrees.
Potin teaches a bicycle tire having the claimed properties (not prior art).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/