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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "218" (note at least Figs. 2B and 2B) and "216" (note at least Figs. 2D and 6) have both been used to designate the radially outer edge of the second surface 210B of the accessory.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "216" (note at least Figs. 2B and 2B) and "218" (note at least Figs. 2D and 6) have both been used to designate the radially inner edge of the second surface 210B of the accessory.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "102" (note at least Figs. 4D-4F) and "202" (note at least Figs. 2A-2C) have both been used to designate the same hub.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "104" (note at least Figs. 4D-5C) and "204" (note at least Figs. 2A-2C) have both been used to designate the same spokes.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “102” has been used to designate both a first prior art embodiment of the hub and a second distinct embodiment of the hub shown in at least Figs. 4D-4F.
The drawings are objected to because the freestanding arrow of the leader for reference character 205 in Fig. 4A is directed to the rim instead of the accessory as described.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
The “at least one fastener” as set forth in claim 5.
The adaptable circumferential membrane being of “variable thickness” as set forth in claim 8.
The first air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface and the second air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface being of “variable thickness” as set forth in claim 9.
The thickness of the first air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface being “different” than that of the second air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface as set forth in claim 10.
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. No new matter should be entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: A comma should be inserted between the phrase “configured to operatively couple to both the inner rim and the outer rim” and the phrase “the adaptable circumferential membrane being structurally configured” for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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 1-23 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.
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the external forces”.
Regarding claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the radial medial edge”.
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 18, the limitations “radially medial perimeter edge” and “radial medial edge” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear how a radial edge or radially perimeter edge of the surface can be “medial” (i.e., situated at the middle). Note Figs. 2B and 2C show the so-called “radially medial perimeter edge” or “radial medial edge” 216 being located at the radially inner perimeter edge or radial inner edge of the respective surface 210A, 210B.
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 19, each occurrence of the term “about” renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” 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. As such, it is unclear what would be encompassed by the various limitations in these claims that use the term “about”.
Regarding claim 14, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the tension”, “the first tension” and “the second tension”.
Regarding claim 16, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the airflow”.
Regarding claim 21, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the vehicle”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlanger (US 2010/0253132 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schlanger discloses an accessory (accessory attached to wheel as shown in Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d and 4f) for a vehicle wheel 30 comprising: an outer rim 32 configured to operatively couple with a tire 10; an inner rim (“coverplate” per paragraphs [0040] and [0041]; cover plate 188 in Fig. 4c; cover plate 198 in Fig. 4d; coupling cap 254 in Fig. 4f) configured to be located radially inward of the outer rim at a radial distance away from a hub of the wheel (Figs. 4c, 4d and 4f); an adaptable circumferential membrane (34a, 34b in Fig. 2d; 180a, 180b in Fig. 4c; 190a, 190b in Fig. 4d; 240a, 240b in Fig. 4f) configured to operatively couple to both the inner rim and the outer rim, the adaptable circumferential membrane being structurally configured to (i.e., capably of adapting) adapt to an external force and change shape when subject to the external forces (evident from paragraph [0051]); and an attachment assembly (shown in at least Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d and 4f; paragraphs [0040-0041], [0069-0070] and [0072-0073]), configured to operatively couple the adaptable circumferential membrane to the outer rim and the inner rim as an overlay to wheel structural elements coupling the hub to the tire (shown in at least Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d and 4f); wherein the wheel structural elements comprise at least one wheel spoke 2.
Regarding claim 2, Schlanger further discloses the adaptable circumferential membrane comprises: at least one air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface (outer surfaces of: 34a, 34b in Fig. 2d; 180a, 180b in Fig. 4c; 190a, 190b in Fig. 4d; 240a, 240b in Fig. 4f) overlaying the structural elements and coupled to the inner rim and the outer rim having a radially medial perimeter edge (i.e., radially inner perimeter edges at 40a, 40b in Fig. 2d; 182a, 182b in Fig. 4c; 192a, 192b in Fig. 4d; 244a, 244b in Fig. 4f) and a radially distal perimeter edge (at 38a, 38b; note Fig. 2d) wherein the radially medial perimeter edge is configured to be operatively connected proximate to the inner rim (Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d, 4f), and the radially distal perimeter edge is configured to be operatively connected proximate to the outer rim (Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d, 4f), forming at least one axial surface of the wheel (Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d, 4f); wherein the at least one air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface is configured to deform (i.e., capable of deforming) under the external force and return to a neutral position when the external force is no longer present or is at least at or below a predetermined threshold (evident from paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Schlanger further discloses the at least one air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface comprises: a first air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface (outer surfaces of: 34a in Fig. 2d; 180a in Fig. 4c; 190a in Fig. 4d; 240a in Fig. 4f) configured to be operatively connected to the inner rim and the outer rim (Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d, 4f), and the radial medial edge (i.e., radial inner edge) configured to being operatively connected to the inner rim and the radially distal perimeter edge configured to be operatively connected to the outer rim (Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d, 4f), forming a first axial surface of the wheel when coupled thereto (Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d, 4f); and a second air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface (outer surfaces of: 34b in Fig. 2d; 180b in Fig. 4c; 190b in Fig. 4d; 240b in Fig. 4f) configured to be operatively connected to the inner rim and the outer rim (Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d, 4f), and the radial medial edge (i.e., radial inner edge) configured to being operatively connected to the inner rim and the radially distal perimeter edge configured to be operatively connected to the outer rim (Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d, 4f), forming a second axial surface of the wheel when coupled thereto (Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d, 4f).
Regarding claim 4, Schlanger further discloses the adaptable circumferential membrane being structurally configured to (i.e., capable of adapting) adapt to an external force comprising wind and change shape when subject to the wind (evident from paragraph [0042] which teaches the membrane being formed from “relatively thin material” and paragraph [0008] which teaches the membrane being formed of “very lightweight material” and being “allowed to flex slightly…for greater rider comfort and stability than prior art rim designs” that the membrane of Schlanger would be capable of adapting to wind and change shape (i.e., “flex slightly”) when subject to the wind.
Regarding claim 5, Schlanger further discloses the attachment assembly comprises: at least one fastener (“mechanical fasteners” per paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 6, Schlanger further discloses the attachment assembly is configured to operatively couple the accessory to a tubular tire, a tubeless tire, or a clincher tire (paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Schlanger further discloses the adaptable circumferential membrane is of variable thickness (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 9, Schlanger further discloses the first air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface and the second air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface are of variable thickness (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 10, Schlanger further discloses a thickness of the first air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface is different than that of the second air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 16, Schlanger further discloses the first axial surface and the second axial surface are configured to (i.e., capable of providing) provide an attached boundary layer of the airflow over the first axial surface and the second axial surface (evident from the embodiments shown in Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d and 4f).
Regarding claim 17, Schlanger further discloses the attachment assembly comprises one or more of: mechanical fastening, spline channel, snap ring, thermal bonding, adhesive, double-sided tape, co-molding (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 18, Schlanger further discloses the attachment assembly is configured to operatively connect the radially distal perimeter edge of the at least one air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface to the outer rim and to operatively connect the radially medial perimeter edge the at least one air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface to the inner rim by an adhesive (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 19, Schlanger further discloses the radial distance is in a range of about 1% to about 99% of a total radial distance from the outer rim to the hub (evident from Figs. 2a and 2b).
Regarding claim 20, Schlanger further discloses a vehicle wheel 30 comprising the accessory.
Regarding claim 21, Schlanger further discloses the vehicle is a bicycle (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 22, Schlanger further discloses a kit (i.e., the parts of the accessory shown in Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d and 4f) for modifying the aerodynamic characteristics of a wheel 30 comprising: the accessory (Figs. 2d, 4c, 4d and 4f).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlanger in view of Nosler (US 4,978,174).
Regarding claim 7, although Schlanger further discloses the adaptable circumferential membrane being formed of “very lightweight material” (paragraph [0008]) and “a wide range of materials…may be utilized in their manufacture (paragraph [0047]), Schlanger fails to expressly disclose the adaptable circumferential membrane comprises rubber, silicone, latex, shrink wrap film, stretch film, heat shrink film, or a combination thereof.
Nosler, however, teaches an adaptable circumferential membrane 20 that can be formed of heat shrink film (heat shrink “Mylar” per lines 5-8 of col. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the accessory of Schlanger by forming the adaptable circumferential membrane out of heat shrink film, such as taught by Nosler, as a well-known very lightweight material that would have a reasonable expectation of success in minimizing weight and costs while providing good aerodynamic properties.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlanger in view of Huntzinger (US 4,660,893).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Schlanger fails to expressly disclose the at least one adaptable circumferential membrane being under tension when operatively coupled to the wheel and the adaptable circumferential membrane comprising the first air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface is under a first tension and the second air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface is under a second tension.
Huntzinger, however, teaches an adaptable circumferential membrane 20, 20’ being under tension when operatively coupled to the wheel and comprising a first air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface (at 20) under a first tension and a second air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface (at 20’) being under a second tension to provide a “smooth, low-drag configuration” (Fig. 4; lines 44-48 of col. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the accessory of Schlanger so that the at least one adaptable circumferential membrane is under tension when operatively coupled to the wheel with the first air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface being under a first tension and the second air engaging flexible and aerodynamic surface being under a second tension, such as taught by Huntzinger, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the accessory provides a smooth, low-drag configuration to improve aerodynamic properties.
Regarding claims 12-14, Schlanger, as modified by Huntzinger, further fails to expressly disclose the second tension being different from the first tension such that one or more of the first tension and the second tension is in a range to yield, in a radial direction, about 0.5% to about 20% elongation, or from about 15% to about 20% elongation, or from about 1% to about 600% elongation, or from about 1% to about 89% elongation, and one or more of the tension, the first tension and the second tension is about 40 psi or less, or about 0.4 ksi to about 740 ksi, or about 0.04 ksi to about 740 ksi.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the accessory of Schlanger, as modified by Huntzinger, so that the second tension is different from the first tension such that one or more the first tension and the second tension is in a range to yield, in a radial direction, the claimed elongation amount and have the claimed tension based upon the intended use of the wheel upon which the accessory is mounted and the desired performance characteristics of the accessory to ensure that the membrane is able to flex slightly as desired while also providing a low-drag configuration.
Regarding claim 15, although Schlanger further discloses the adaptable circumferential membrane being formed of “very lightweight material” (paragraph [0008]) and “a wide range of materials…may be utilized in their manufacture (paragraph [0047]), Schlanger fails to expressly disclose the adaptable circumferential membrane comprises one or more of: a polyester film, a polyolefin film and a rubber.
Huntzinger, however, teaches an adaptable circumferential membrane 20, 20’ that can be formed of a polyester film (“Mylar” per lines 58-61 of col. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the accessory of Schlanger by forming the adaptable circumferential membrane out of polyester film, such as taught by Huntzinger, as a well-known very lightweight material that would have a reasonable expectation of success in minimizing weight and costs while providing good aerodynamic properties.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlanger in view of Chester et al. (US 2011/0121635 A1; hereinafter “Chester”).
Schlanger fails to expressly disclose instructions for installing the accessory on said wheel.
Chester, however, teaches a kit comprising an accessory 30 for a wheel 10 in which the kit comprises instructions for installing the accessory on the wheel (paragraph [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the kit of Schlanger by including instructions for installing the accessory on the wheel, such as taught by Chester, with a reasonable expectation of success ensuring the accessory is correctly installed on the wheel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615