DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
The amendment filed July 7, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 were previously canceled. Claims 11-20 remain pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, the period after “wherein” should be replaced with a comma. 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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites that “the sensor ring is configured in one piece with the clamping nut,” while claim 11, from which claim 15 depends, requires that “the sensor ring is arranged to be directly fixed to the clamping nut via at least one fixing member which is oriented axially with respect to the sensor ring and to the clamping nut.” It is unclear how the sensor ring can be both “configured in one piece with the clamping nut” and simultaneously “directly fixed to the clamping nut via at least one fixing member”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US 20050139432 A1) in view of Neutsch (US 20170151833 A1) and further in view of Yang (US 20200057089A1).
Regarding claim 11, Takizawa discloses a wheel unit, the wheel unit comprising:
a hub (12) which is rotatable about a rotational axis (hub axle 31);
a rim (25) which is rotatable about the rotational axis, the hub (12) and the rim (25) being connected to one another via spokes (24);
a fastening device comprising:
a mounting element (rotor attachment boss 28, supported on brake rotor attachment unit 34) which is non-rotatably arranged on the hub (12), and
a clamping nut (29) which is fastenable to the hub (12) or to the mounting element (rotor attachment boss 28, supported on brake rotor attachment unit 34) via a screw connection (29e/34d);
a brake disc (23) which is non-rotatably connected to the hub (12) via the fastening device, wherein,
the brake disc (23) is interlockingly connected to the mounting element (connection openings 23d of disk brake rotor 23 receiving protruding portions 28e of rotor attachment boss 28) in a direction of rotation (see ¶¶ 0025-27 and Fig. 9), and
the brake disc (23) is clampingly attached via the clamping nut (29) in the direction of the rotational axis between the hub (12) or the mounting element (rotor attachment boss 28, supported on brake rotor attachment unit 34) and the clamping nut (29).
Takizawa does not explicitly disclose a wheel unit for a pedelec, comprising a sensor ring.
Neutsch teaches a pedelec (10, see ¶ 0009), comprising a sensor ring (612) which is connected to the hub (102) in a rotationally fixed manner; the sensor ring (612) comprising a scanning area (616) which is scannable by a speed sensor (614).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takizawa to include the pedelec wheel-speed sensing arrangement taught by Neutsch in order to provide wheel-speed detection for pedelec operation in a compact manner while preserving brake-disc mounting (see ¶¶ 0014-17).
However, Takizawa in view of Neutsch does not expressly disclose the sensor ring is arranged to be directly fixed to the clamping nut via at least one fixing member which is oriented axially with respect to the sensor ring and to the clamping nut, and the sensor ring is fastenable together with the clamping nut to the hub or to the mounting element via the screw connection.
Yang teaches the sensor ring is arranged to be directly fixed to the clamping nut via at least one fixing member which is oriented axially with respect to the sensor ring and to the clamping nut (magnet part 70, including ring-shaped magnet body 72, fixed to lock nut part 30 by engagement projections 74 extending axially from magnet body 72 into engagement grooves 36 of lock nut part 30) (see Fig. 5 and ¶¶ 0049-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Takizawa and Neutsch by mounting Yang’s sensor ring on the exposed axial face of Takizawa’s clamping nut (29) using axially extending engagement projections (74) received in mating engagement grooves (36) in order to increase the coupling force between the sensor ring and the clamping nut (see Yang ¶ 0053). In the resulting wheel unit, the sensor ring and clamping nut would be fastened together to the hub or mounting element by Takizawa's screw connection (29e/34d).
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches that the ring-shaped magnet body (72) faces the exposed upper surface of the lock nut part (30), with the speed sensor part (60) positioned to scan the magnet part from that side (see Fig. 5 and ¶¶ 0049 and 0053). When Yang’s sensor ring mounting is applied to Takizawa’s clamping nut (29), the sensor ring is on the side facing away from the brake disc (23), leaving the brake-disc clamping face unobstructed.
Regarding claim 14, Takizawa as modified discloses the wheel unit according to claim 11, and further discloses the at least one fixing member is provided as at least one press connection (Yang’s connection part 40 press-fitted to lock nut part 30), the sensor ring is directly fixed to the clamping nut via the at least one press connection (lower portion of connection part 40 press-fitted around the upper portion of lock nut 30) (see Yang, ¶¶ 0038-40, and Figs. 3-4).
Yang further teaches complementary engagement projections 74 and engagement grooves 36 that increase the coupling force between a sensor ring and clamping nut (see Yang, ¶ 0053 and Fig. 5).
However, Takizawa as modified does not expressly disclose the sensor ring further comprises at least one recess which forms the at least one press connection via corresponding protrusion(s) provided on the clamping nut.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yang's complementary engagement projections 74 and engagement grooves 36 into Yang’s press-fit embodiment and dimension the complementary features for an interference fit in order to increase the coupling force between the sensor ring and the clamping nut (see Yang ¶ 0053). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the locations of the complementary male and female features so that corresponding protrusions are provided on the clamping nut and received in recess of the sensor ring in order to preserve the same complementary engagement while permitting the sensor ring to be pressed axially onto the clamping nut. The resulting axially extending protrusions would provide the claimed axially oriented fixing member. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(A); In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, under the interpretation that “configured in one piece with” encompasses a sensor ring bonded directly to the clamping nut to form a unitary assembly, Yang as applied for claim 11, further discloses the wheel unit according to claim 11, wherein the sensor ring is configured in one piece with the clamping nut (magnet part 70 bonded directly to lock nut part 30 by magnet vulcanization) (see Fig. 5 and ¶¶ 0049-51). The engagement projections 74 and engagement grooves 36 of the same embodiment are retained and therefore continue to provide the axially oriented fixing member established for claim 11 (see ¶ 0052-53). Yang teaches that the direct vulcanized attachment simplifies production and packaging (see ¶ 0050).
Regarding claim 16, Takizawa further discloses an alternative embodiment of the wheel unit according to claim 11, wherein the brake disc (23”) comprises an internal toothing (female splines 23q on tubular rotor attachment boss 23p formed integrally as part of disk brake rotor 23”) (see ¶ 0037), and the mounting element comprises an external toothing which is complementary to the internal toothing of the brake disc (male splines 34c on brake rotor attachment unit 34 of hub 12) (see ¶ 0037 and Figs. 11-12). The alternative embodiment retains securing ring 29, threaded connection 29e/34d, and the nonrotatable attachment of the brake disc to hub 12 established for claim 11 (see ¶¶ 0028-29 and 0037).
Regarding claim 17, Takizawa teaches the clamping nut (29) comprises anti-loss toothing on a side facing the mounting element (fastener rotation inhibiting unit 29f), the brake disc (23) comprises anti-loss toothing on a side facing the clamping nut (rotation inhibiting structure 23h), and the anti-loss toothing of the clamping nut (29f) interacts with the anti-loss toothing of the brake disc (23h) (see Takizawa ¶¶ 0027-29 and Figs. 7-9).
Regarding claim 18, Takizawa teaches a tool coupling structure (29b), wherein, the clamping nut (29) comprises a bore (29a), and the tool coupling structure (29b) is arranged on a circumferential surface of the bore (29a) or on an outer circumferential surface of the clamping nut (29) (see Takizawa ¶ 0028 and Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 19, Neutsch as modified by Takizawa, teaches the sensor ring (612) has a center plane (622) (see Neutsch, ¶ 0186), the brake disc (206) has a center plane (252) (see Neutsch, ¶ 0167), and the center plane of the sensor ring and the center plane of the brake disc are arranged to be offset relative to one another (planar sensor ring 612 arranged adjacent to brake disc 206 in a different axial plane) (see Neutsch ¶¶ 0014, 0167, 0185-186, and Figs. 8-10).
Regarding claim 20, Neutsch as modified by Takizawa, teaches a pedelec (10, see ¶ 0009) comprising: the wheel unit as recited in claim 11;
and a speed sensor (614) which is configured to interact with the sensor ring (612) of the wheel unit (pedelec 10 having sensor 614 aligned with and detecting sensing region 616 of sensor ring 612) (see ¶ 0185 and Fig. 9).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa (US 20050139432 A1) in view of Neutsch (US 20170151833 A1) and further in view of Yang (US 20200057089A1) and Trent (US 3986750 A).
Regarding claim 13, Takizawa as modified by Neutsch and Yang discloses the wheel unit of claim 11 as set forth above.
However, Takizawa, Neutsch, and Yang do not expressly disclose the at least one fixing member is provided as at least one screw, and the sensor ring is directly fixed to the clamping nut by being screwed to the clamping nut via the at least one screw.
Trent teaches the at least one fixing member is provided as at least one screw (screws 67), and a wheel-sensor mounting ring is directly fixed to a nut by being screwed to the nut via the at least one screw (lock ring retainer and mounting ring 44 secured directly to nut 26 by screws 67 extending axially through openings 69 into threaded openings 68) (see col. 3, lines 49-65; col. 4, lines 1-7; and Figs. 1, 4, and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Trent’s axially oriented screws to secure Yang's sensor ring to the modified Takizawa clamping nut, because Trent teaches a known, removable, positive fastening arrangement for directly securing a wheel-sensor mounting ring to a nut while keeping the exposed mounting face unobstructed. This predictable use of a known fastener would provide the claimed at least one screw and would directly fix the sensor ring to the clamping nut by screwing the sensor ring to the clamping nut.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, first full paragraph filed July 7, 2026, regarding Scott Sports’ set screws 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior rejection of claims 11-13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yang (US 20200057089 A1), which is relied upon in place of Scott Sports for the amended axially oriented fixing member limitation.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Scott Sports’ set screws 13 are radially, rather than axially, oriented. The Examiner agrees with this argument. Yang instead teaches engagement projections 74 extending axially from the ring-shaped magnet body 72 into engagement grooves 36 of the lock nut part 30, thereby directly fixing the sensor ring to the clamping nut (see Fig. 5; ¶ 0053).
Applicant also argues that modifying Neutsch’s sensor-ring arrangement would render Neutsch inoperative and require impermissible bodily reconstruction. This argument is not persuasive. Neutsch is relied upon for the pedelec wheel-speed sensing arrangement, while Yang is relied upon for directly fixing the sensor ring to the clamping nut. The proposed rejection does not require relocating Neutsch's sensor ring (612) within Neutsch or bodily incorporating Neutsch's complete structure into Takizawa. See MPEP § 2145(III); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant’s remaining arguments directed to Scott Sports have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Scott Sports.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karem Akram Algarash whose telephone number is (571)272-5789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/K.A.A./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights