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:
Claims 1-3, 6-14 are pending.
Claims 4 and 5 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 13 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, and 6-14 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 claims 1, 6, 8, 13, the recitations of “substantially” are indefinite because it renders the limits following it to be indefinite, because it is not clear what the meets and bounds are with regard to the limits following the term substantially, are. For the purposes of examining, Examiner has ignored the term, and it is suggested by Examiner to delete the word substantially, and thus it will be shown in strikeout font.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DD-155602-A1 to Leistner (“Leistner”) and further in view of US-7658452B2 to Spahr (“Spahr”).
Regarding Claim 1, Leistner (FOR “Q” English Translation “ET1” pages 1-3, NPL “’U” with Google Patents English Translation “ET2”, pages 1-2, embodiments of Figs 1-2 ) discloses a spoke nipple (2 “automatically adjusting nipple”) for an at least partly muscle powered bicycle wheel (Claim 1 having a plurality of spokes and coordinating spoke nipples), the spoke nipple being configured to connect a spoke (3) to a rim (1) of said wheel, wherein the spoke nipple comprises- a spoke nipple body (12 “nipple shaft/shank” [i.e. end portion] having a “polygonal profile”, Fig 1) configured to receive (Fig 1) an end (Fig 1) of said spoke, and - a spoke nipple head (11) including an at least partly enlarged head portion (11 with partially enlarged lower spherical portion joining upper conical inclined portion, where the angle between the inclined portion and 12 is greater than 90 degrees, Fig 1) configured to retain (Fig 1) the spoke nipple in the rim.
Leistner discloses a largest diameter (Figs 2, 3 show the spoke nipple head having a conical inclined portion where angle between inclined portion and end portion to be greater than 90°, joined to the uppermost spherical portion of the head at a point with a radius at a largest diameter, and the height of the enlarged head [i.e. from the base of the spherical [convex circular] portion to the top of the conical portion is smaller than the radius of the largest diameter) of said spoke nipple head but does not disclose that the largest diameter of said spoke nipple head is larger than or approximating a curve defined by the rounded portion, wherein a center of the osculating circle is offset to a center line of the spoke nipple.
Spahr discloses a spoke nipple (31) wherein the at least partly enlarged head portion (43 “rounded/hemispherical nipple head” has radii of curvature much less than overall axial diameter, each radius having centers not aligned on the axial centerline of nipple, i.e. 43 has an osculating circular shape as shown in Fig 11, Annotated Fig 12 “AF12”, Col 8 lines 49-50, Col 9, lines 1-4, lines 16-26) comprises a rounded portion, wherein the radius of curvature is defined as a radius of an osculating circle approximating a curve defined by the rounded portion, wherein a center of the osculating circle is offset to a center line of the spoke nipple (as just described above), thus defining a largest diameter of said spoke nipple head defined from the widest point of each of the radii of curvature of the rounded portions (AF12).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the spoke nipple and the spoke nipple having an at least partly enlarged head portion comprises a rounded portion, wherein the radius of curvature is defined as a radius of an osculating circle approximating a curve defined by the rounded portion, wherein a center of the osculating circle is offset to a center line of the spoke nipple, and a largest diameter of said spoke nipple head is defined between extremes of the radii of curvature, of the in a single combined apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined disclose the spoke nipple of Leistner and the teaching of the spoke nipple having an at least partly enlarged head portion comprises a rounded portion, wherein the radius of curvature is defined as a radius of an osculating circle approximating a curve defined by the rounded portion, wherein a center of the osculating circle is offset to a center line of the spoke nipple, and a largest diameter of said spoke nipple head is defined between extremes of the radii of curvature of Spahr, to modify radii of the enlarged rounded portion of the spoke nipple (of Leistner), such that the radii were defined as a radii of an osculating circle approximating a curve defined by the rounded portion, wherein a center of the osculating circle is offset to a center line of the spoke nipple and a largest diameter of said spoke nipple head is defined between extremes of the radii of curvature, with the motivation ensure a distribution of the acting forces over a considerably larger surface of the spoke nipple, and allowing the transmission of large forces while at the same time allowing an optimal orientation of the spoke nipple and the spoke positioned therein, to avoid harmful transverse forces, bending and buckling stresses acting on the spoke, reducing the risk of spoke breakages (Spahr, Col 9 lines 16-24), having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
The specific dimensions for the radii of curvature and the largest diameter of the rounded portion of the spoke nipple is/are not an inventive concept, but rather a design choice made from many possible dimensional choices, made as a part of routine design optimization giving proper consideration of fit, coordination of connected part, use, design loads, material and manufacturing requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected specific dimensions for the radii of curvature of the rounded portion of the spoke nipple of the spoke nipple of the combination of Leistner and Spahr, such that radii were between 3mm to 6mm, and thus the largest diameter is larger between 6 mm and 12mm, thus inclusive a range of diameters larger than or equal to 7 mm, and thus the height of the enlarged head is smaller than the radius of the largest diameter, i.e. smaller than 3mm to 6 mm, inclusive of a range of values smaller than 5mm) with the motivation to spoke ensure the nipple was dimensions to enable proper seating in the rim hole, to meet the design parameters just described), having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Leistner and Spahr discloses the spoke nipple according to claim 1, wherein the at least partly enlarged head portion is configured to distribute load (Fig 1, Leistner) over the rim of the wheel.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Leistner and Spahr discloses the spoke nipple according to claim 1, wherein the at least partly enlarged head portion of the spoke nipple head is configured to be in direct contact (Leistner Fig 1, Claim 1) with the rim of the wheel.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Leistner and Spahr discloses the spoke nipple according to claim 1, wherein a height of said at least partly enlarged head portion is smaller than 5 mm (3mm to less than 5mm, as described paragraph 7 of this document).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Leistner and Spahr discloses the nipple according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the spoke nipple comprises an end portion (as described in paragraph 7 of this document) extending beyond the at least partly enlarged head portion of the spoke nipple head.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Leistner and Spahr discloses the spoke nipple according to claim 7, wherein an angle between the end portion and the at least partly enlarged head portion is larger than 90° (as described in paragraph 7 of this document).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Leistner and Spahr discloses a wheel (Leistner, Claim 1) for an at least partly muscle driven bicycle comprising a rim (1), a plurality of spokes and a plurality of corresponding spoke nipples (as described in Leistner Claim 1 and paragraph 7 of this document) configured to connect said plurality of spokes to said rim, wherein at least one of said plurality of spoke nipples, preferably all of said plurality of spoke nipples, is a spoke nipple according to claim 1 (as described in paragraph 7 of this document).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Leistner and Spahr discloses the spoke nipple according to claim 6, wherein a height of said at least partly enlarged head portion is smaller than
The dimension of the height of said at least partly enlarged head portion is/are not an inventive concept, but rather a design choice made from many possible dimensional choices, made as a part of routine design optimization giving proper consideration of fit with and dimensions of cooperating parts e.g. rim, spoke hole, spoke and spoke nipple shaft and head diameter and angle dimensions], as well as use, design loads, material and manufacturing requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a specific dimension for the height of said at least partly enlarged head portion of the spoke nipple of the of the combination of Leistner and Spahr, such that the height was less than 2mm with the motivation to ensure the spoke nipple was sufficiently designed to meet the design parameters just described, having a reasonable expectation of success and having equivalent function in the combination as in the separately configurations.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Leistner and Spahr discloses the spoke wheel as claimed in claim 11, wherein all of said plurality of said spoke nipples of the wheel are said spoke nipples.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leistner, further in view of Spahr according to claim 7 and or claim 11, and further in view of DE-102016005990-A1 to Gratz (“Gratz”)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Leistner and Spahr discloses the spoke nipple according to claim 7, but does not disclose wherein said end portion has a polygonal profile, but does not disclose wherein said end portion has a
Gratz (Fig 9, English Translation “ET” Pages 1-10 discloses a wheel (Abstract) with a rim (1 “of light metal alloy, [Aluminum is known in the art to be a light metal commonly used for wheel rims], ET Page 3 Para 4 beginning “The rim 1 to 1 is preferably…”) having spoke holes (7) receiving a spoke (8) and a spoke nipple (9, Fig 9) an end portion (11, Fig 1) which has a square cross-section (ET Page 4, Para 5 beginning “The spoke nipple 9…”, 11 first tool holder 12 another tool holder, shown in Fig 9 to have square cross section”).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the spoke nipple and the spoke with an end having a square cross section, of the in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the spoke nipple of the combination of Leistner and Spahr and teaching of the spoke with an end having a square cross section of Gratz, to modify spoke end such that it had a square cross section (like Gratz) with the motivation enable connection to a tool having a cooperating square surface for rotation of the spoke, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Leistner and Spahr discloses a wheel according to claim 11 but does not disclose wherein the rim is made of carbon.
Gratz (Fig 9, English Translation “ET” Pages 1-10) discloses a wheel (Abstract) with a rim (1), wherein the rim is made of carbon (Gratz, ET Page 3 Para 5 beginning “The rim 1 However …”, “can be made of carbon fiber composite material).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the spoke nipple and the spoke nipple made of carbon, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the spoke nipple of the combination of Leistner and Spahr and the teaching of the spoke nipple made of carbon material of Gratz, to modify the material of the spoke nipples such that it made of carbon (like Gratz), with the motivation ensure the spoke nipples are made from a light weight material, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leistner, and further in view of Spahr, and further in view of BE-1009937-A6 to Claes (“Claes”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Leistner and Spahr discloses the spoke nipple according to claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the spoke nipple is made of aluminum or brass (NPL V, last Page 5, Para 4 beginning “The nipples are preferably…” “brass or aluminum”).
Claes discloses wheel (2) with a spoke nipple (1), wherein the spoke nipple is made of aluminum (NPL V, last Page 5, Para 4 beginning “The nipples are preferably…” “brass or aluminum”).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the spoke nipple and the spoke nipple made of an aluminum material, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the spoke nipple of the combination of Leistner and Spahr and the teaching of the spoke nipple made of an aluminum material of Claes, to modify the material of the spoke nipples such that it is aluminum (like Claes), with the motivation ensure the spoke nipples are made from a light weight material, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, cited in PTO-892 is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, disclosing one or more of: a wheel, with a rim made of carbon, and spokes connected there to via a plurality of spoke nipples made of aluminum or brass, each having a body, a head having a square cross section, and an angle therein between, partially enlarged head and a rounded portion with radii of curvature defining an osculating circle.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/13/2026, with rejection of claim 13 of under 35 USC 112(b) has been fully considered, in light of amendments thereto and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 13 of under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to rejection of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot, in light of amendments to claims 1 and 15, because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights