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 1-21 are pending.
Claims 9, 14, 16 and 19 are cancelled.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15, 17-18, 21-22 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-8, 10-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US-20180361785-A1 to Child et al. (“Child”).
Regarding Claim 1, Child (embodiment of Annotated Fig 6 “AF6”, Para 39) discloses a bicycle (10, Fig 1) comprising: a wheel (14,16) supporting a frame (12, Fig 1) of the bicycle, the wheel comprising a rim (470) configured to support a tire (72, 89, Fig 1) on opposite sides of a longitudinal axis (perpendicular to 90 Fig 2 “rotational axis”, passing through 120 “radial axis” Fig 3), wherein the rim includes: a main body (470, Para 39 AF6) defining a bead seat (where 492 “tire bead” rests along inner surface of 408, 410 “first and second sidewall extensions terminating at outer radial edges” [i.e. flanges], Para 33, e.g. AF6) and a first flange (404 “side wall extension”) and a second flange (406 “side wall extension”), the first flange and the second flange extending substantially radially (AF6) from the main body to support the tire, wherein the first flange has a first flange width (H=2r, “r between 1.9-2.5 mm”, thus first flange width is H=3.8-5mm, Para 39, AF6) extending perpendicular to (AF6) the longitudinal axis and a first flange height (flange height is shown in AF6 to be approximately 3r, r is between 1.9-2.5 mm, thus flange height is between 5.7-7.5 mm) from the bead seat, wherein the second flange has a second flange width (H, where H=2r, where r is between 1.9-2.5 mm, thus second flange width is H=2xr=3.8-5mm, Para 39 line 3 ”symmetrical”, AF6) wherein a ratio of the first flange width to the first flange height is at least 0.75 ( ranges from .51 to .88, thus inclusive of a range of .75 to .85 [i.e. at least .75, at least .80, or at least .85] wherein the first flange and the second flange are spaced from each other by a flange spacing (W “width of 498 tire bed” in range of 20-100mm, or 20-30mm, [i.e. inclusive of values of 30mm Para 39), and wherein a ratio of the first flange width to the flange spacing is at least 0.14 (ratio ranges between .038 to .19, [i.e. is at least 0.14, at least 0.15, at least 0.16).
PNG
media_image1.png
387
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Child discloses the bicycle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first flange is one of a left flange (404 left side AF6) or a right flange and the second flange is another of the left flange (406 right side AF6) or the right flange.
Regarding Claim 3, Child discloses the bicycle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first flange is substantially solid (as shown AF6).
Regarding Claim 4, Child discloses the bicycle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ratio of the first flange width to the flange spacing is at least 0.15 (as described in paragraph 5 of this document).
Regarding Claim 5, Child discloses the bicycle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ratio of the first flange width to the flange spacing is at least 0.16 (as described in paragraph 5 of this document).
Regarding Claim 6, Child discloses the bicycle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first flange width is about 5mm (as described in paragraph 5 of this document) and the flange spacing is about 30mm (as described in paragraph 5 of this document).
Regarding Claim 7, Child discloses the bicycle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first flange includes an inner side surface (115a, a radial edge surface (115a), and a radiused inner corner (between flange extension and 498 “tire bed”, the radius thereof shown in AF6 to be approximately the r “radius” of 408, 410, thus 1.9-2.5 mm) having an inner corner radius (just described) and connecting the inner side surface to the radial edge surface, wherein a ratio of the inner corner radius to the first flange width is at most 0.5 (ratio is in a range of .38 to .5, inclusive of values less than 0.55).
Regarding Claim 8, Child discloses the bicycle as claimed in claim 7, wherein the ratio of the inner corner radius to the first flange width is at most 0.4 (the ratio as described in paragraph 11 of this document is between .38 and 2, thus a portion of this range is at most .4 mm).
Regarding Claim 10, Child discloses the bicycle as claimed in claim 9, wherein the ratio of the first flange width to the first flange height is at least 0.80 (as described in paragraph 5 of this document).
Regarding Claim 11, Child discloses the bicycle as claimed in claim 9, wherein the ratio of the first flange width to the first flange height is at least 0.85 (as described in paragraph 5 of this document).
Regarding Claim 12, Child discloses the bicycle as claimed in claim 9, wherein the ratio of the first flange width to the first flange height is about 0.91 (as described in paragraph 5 of this document).
Regarding Claim 13, Child discloses the bicycle as claimed in claim 9, wherein the first flange width is about 5mm (first flange width as described in paragraph 7 of this document to be H=2xr=3.8-5mm] and the first flange height is about 5.5mm (first flange height is shown in Fig 6 to be approximately equal to the first flange width, i.e. about 5mm, which is about 5.5mm).
Regarding Claim 15, Child discloses a bicycle (10) comprising: a wheel (14, 16) supporting a frame( 12, Fig 1) of the bicycle, the wheel comprising a rim (470) configured to support a tire (72, 89, Fig 1) on opposite sides of a longitudinal axis (perpendicular to 90 Fig 2 “rotational axis”, passing through 120 “radial axis” Fig 3), wherein the rim includes: a main body (470, Para 39 Fig 6) defining a radial cavity projection (left and right radial projections at outer edges of cavity, shown AF6); and a first flange (404 “side wall extension”) having a first flange width (H=2r, r between 1.9-2.5 mm, thus first flange width is H=3.8-5mm, Para 39, AF6) and a second flange (406 “side wall extension”) having a second flange width (H, where H=2r, where r is between 1.9-2.5 mm, thus second flange width is H=2xr=3.8-5mm, Para 39 line 3 ”symmetrical”, AF6), the first flange and the second flange extending substantially radially (AF6) from the main body to support the tire, wherein the first flange defines a first inner flange plane (dashed line at innermost edge of first flange, AF6) and the second flange defines a second inner flange plane (dashed line at innermost edge of second flange, AF6), wherein the radial cavity projection does not intersect the first inner flange plane and the second inner flange plane, wherein the first inner flange plane is spaced from the radial cavity projection by a first gap (as shown left AF6, gap is approximately 10% of the first flange width) and the second inner flange plane is spaced from the radial cavity projection by a second gap (as shown right AF6, gap is approximately 10% of the second flange width), wherein the first gap includes a width that is at least 10% of the first flange width (just described) and the second gap includes a width that is at least 10% of the second flange width (just described).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child as applied to claim 15 above.
Regarding Claim 17, Child discloses
The specific dimension of the gap 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 between coordinating parts, 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 dimensions for the gap of the wheel, such that the gap is at least 20% of the first flange width, with the motivation to ensure for wheels with wider flange spacings [in upper range of 20-100m, as described in paragraph 17 of this document ] the gap increased at least 20% of the flange width to maintain aerodynamics of the sidewalls (Para 39), and the wheel was sufficiently designed to meet the design parameters just described. This combination/modification being done with a reasonable expectation of success and having equivalent function in the combination as in the separately configurations.
Regarding Claim 18, Child discloses the bicycle (10) as claimed in claim 16, where in the gap is at least 10% of the first flange width, and the flange spacing is between but does not disclose wherein the gap is at least 30% of the first flange width.
The specific dimension of the gap 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 between coordinating parts, 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 dimensions for the gap of the wheel, such that the gap is at least 30% of the first flange width, with the motivation to ensure for wheels with wider flange spacings [in upper range of 20-100m, as described in paragraph 17 of this document ] the gap increased at least 30% of the flange width to maintain aerodynamics of the sidewalls (Para 39), and the wheel was sufficiently designed to meet the design parameters just described. This combination/modification being done with a reasonable expectation of success and having equivalent function in the combination as in the separately configurations.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Child as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of US-20160250890-A1 to Smart (“Smart”).
Regarding Claim 20, Child discloses the bicycle (10) as claimed in claim 15, wherein the main body includes a nose section (496 “spoke face”, Para 39, AF6), a first sidewall (404, Para 39, AF6) connecting the nose section to the first flange, and a second sidewall (406, Para 39, AF6) connecting the nose section to the second flange, but does not disclose wherein the first sidewall includes a first concave outer surface that does not intersect the first inner flange projection.
Smart discloses a bicycle (Fig 1) having a wheel (112) and a rim (600) having a first concave outer surface (208 “concave reflexed blend portion”, Para 68, that does not intersect the first inner flange plane, Claims 21-24; para 65, 68, 76, 78, 103; table 4 ; Figs 4 ,5, Fig 7 (best), having radii of curvature of the nose region of at most 20mm (Claim 24).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the bicycle wheel with a rim and the bicycle wheel having a rim with a first concave outer surface, 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 bicycle wheel with a rim of Child and teaching of the bicycle wheel having a rim with a first concave outer surface of Smart, to modify the outer surface of the rim (of Child) such that it included first concave outer surface (having a radius like Smart), with the motivation to lower pressure drag, enhances aerodynamics, improve stability, enhances steering stability of the rim (Smart Para 65), having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Child and Smart discloses the bicycle (10) as claimed in claim 20, wherein the first concave outer surface has a radius of at most 20mm (as described in paragraph 22 of this document).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed on PTO-892 is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and describe at least one of: a bicycle wheel with main body, bead seat, a nose having two outer sidewalls, convex and concave outer surfaces thereon, radial cavities and projections therein, flrst and second flanges, each widths, heights and spacings in between, and ratios thereof, and corner radii thereon, the flanges having inner flange planes having gaps between the radial cavity projections.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to objections to Fig 3 of the Drawings, and rejection of claims 2-13, and 15-21 under 25 USC 112(b) have been fully considered, in light of amendments to claims 1-8, 10-13, 15, 17-18, 21-22 and cancellation of claims 9, 14, 16 and 19, as such are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 102 to Child, and rejection of claim 21 under 35 USC 103 to Yang have been considered but are moot (in part) because the new ground of rejection resulting from amendments to claims 1 and 15. However, a new set of rejections relying on Child (reinterpreted) and Smart are included herein, and the following comments are relevant thereto, in light of applicants arguments:
Regarding Childs teaching of the flange height, flange with and resulting ratios thereof, are shown in Annotated Figure 6 “AF6” cited in the non-final rejection was not included, and Examiner apologizes for the oversight, and the Annotated Figure “AF6” is included in this office action.
Examiner wishes to point out that values for the flange width taught by Childs, span a range of values (as described in paragraph 7 of the non-final), now reinterpreted based on flange height apparent from Fig 6).
The reference Yang regarding claim 21, was in error, the citations were not for Yang as cited on PTO-892, but for US-20160250890-A1 to Smart also listed on PTO-892 of non-final.
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