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 because, in Figure 12, reference numeral 110 is used to refer to different structures. It appears that numeral “110” at the right side of the figure should be -104-. Also, the drawings include two different “Fig. 15”, one on drawing sheet 7 and another on drawings sheet 8. It appears that the second Fig. 15 should be Fig. 16 or the figures should be 15A and 15B, in which case applicant’s specification should also be amended to refer to the drawing change. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 4, line 4, it appears that “compensation device (240)” should be -compensation device (40)- because reference numeral 240 does not appear in the drawings.
On page 12, line 1, “crankiest” should be -crankset-.
On page 13, line 24, it appears that “elements 102 and 102” should be -102 and 104-.
On page 14, line 22, it appears that “seat 11” should be -seat 118-. In line 23, “screwed to one of the pin” is unclear.
On page 15, lines 21-22, “pushed by a relative bring” is unclear.
On page 16, line 23, it appears that “trust” should be -thrust-.
On page 19, line 11, “shoes” should be -shows-.
On page 20, lines 11 and 16, and page 21, line 20, “compensation device 240” should be -compensation device 40- for consistency and because numeral 240 does not appear in the drawings.
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.
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 1-10 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, line 17, “angel” should be -angle. In line 19, after “the shaft” it appears that -respectively- should be inserted because each main body is connected to one of the chainring and the shaft, not both of them. In line 25, “(240)” should be deleted. In line 30, “as an alternative to the shockabsorbing element (39)” is unclear. The recitation sounds like the shock absorbing element is being removed and replaced but that does not appear to be applicant’s intent.
In claim 2, line 3, “the brake element” is recited, however, it is unclear whether this brake element refers to one or all of the brake elements recited in claim 1 (lines 26 and 31 of claim 1 refer to multiple brakes).
Claim 7 appears to be a hybrid of applicant’s distinct embodiments (claim 1 recites the embodiment of Figures 13-15, whereas the adjustment system that changes the position of the brake element, rest end element 104 or compensating end element is only taught with respect to the embodiment of Figures 5-12).
In claim 8, lines 4-5, “the non-firing condition” and “the means of recall” lack antecedent basis and do not make sense in the claim as written. In line 6, “equates to them” is unclear and it is not clear to what “them” refers.
In claim 9, line 3, ”compared to the other main body” is unclear. Applicant could be comparing frictional coefficients or referring to surfaces being in contact but as written it is not clear what applicant means.
Claim 10 improperly claims only a part of claim 1, from which it depends. In claim 1, applicant claims a bicycle having a number of elements including a compensation device. In claim 10, applicant claims a “kit” including just the compensating device of claim 1.
In claim 10, lines 4 and 6, “in a different direction of stroke from each other” is unclear.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In claim 10, applicant claims a kit including a compensation device of the type described in claim 1. However, claim 1 recites a bicycle having a number of elements including a compensation device. Therefore, the dependent claim does not in Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/194177 to Dragoni.
Regarding claim 1, Dragoni teaches a bicycle 1 comprising a frame 5, a rear wheel 10, a suspension system 12 of the rear wheel with respect to the frame allowing a predetermined relative shift between them, a motion transmission system from a crankset to the rear wheel, wherein the transmission system comprises a crankset 20 which is fixed to the frame, a hub and sprocket 22 fixed to the rear wheel and a transmission chain 24 directly connecting them to each other, wherein the crankset 20 and the hub and sprocket 22 are subject to reciprocal displacement due to the action of the suspension, wherein the crankset and the hub and sprocket each contain at least one chainring 26, 28, engaged by said chain (page 12, lines 2-29)and a rotation shaft 44, wherein a compensation device 40 is operatively interposed between the chainring and the shaft of at least one said crank and said hub and sprocket and is set to allow an angular compensation stroke between them from a rest position which corresponds to the absence of the chain pull, to a compensation position, corresponding to a chain pull action generated by said reciprocal displacement, and vice versa (page 13, lines 1-20), wherein said compensation stroke is limited to a predetermined angle A1, said compensation device comprises two main bodies 46, 48, relatively rotatable to each other and integrally rotatable to the chainring and the shaft, the compensation device also compromises at least one brake element 66 integral with one of the two main bodies interposed between a rest end element 282 and a compensation end element 62 integral with the other main body, wherein the brake element stops alternately against the end elements defining the compensation stroke; wherein said compensation device compromises a plurality of pairs of brake elements 66 and respective compensation end elements 62, where at least one shock-absorbing element 280 is operationally interposed between at least one pair able to deform in correspondence with a final section of the compensation stroke alone and at least one limiting element (alternate elements 280) is interposed between at least another pair as an alternative to the shock absorbing element which provides a stop to the respective brake element to limit the maximum deformation of the shock- absorbing element (Figure 13).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragoni (WO 2020/194177).
Regarding claim 2, Dragoni teaches all of the claimed elements except for the shock-absorbing element and the limiting element having respective G1 and G2 extensions in the direction of stroke of the brake element where G1 is greater than G2. However, Dragoni does not clearly indicate that alternate elements 280 are identical. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the elements 280 having different dimensions, as a matter of routine engineering choice, in order to fit the space available or allow for a cascading damping effect.
Regarding claims 5-7 and 10, Dragoni does not specifically discuss limiting elements and shock absorbing elements that are interchangeable with elements having different dimensions in the direction of stroke. However, the elements 280 do not fill the entire space between the brakes and ends, so the system is capable of accommodating elements having differing dimension in the direction of stroke and, typically, elements of a transmission system are removable for servicing and replacement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to accommodate limiting elements and damping elements of different dimensions, as a matter of routine engineering choice, in order to allow adjustment of the damping effect.
It is not clear what claim 8 is reciting. Dragoni teaches a means of return in the form of helical spring 72 that returns the bodies to the rest position. Other recitations in the claim are unclear so it is not clear if Dragoni teaches those features.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragoni (WO 2020/194177) in view of Chabiland (FR 2682350).
Regarding claim 2, Dragoni teaches all of the claimed elements except for the shock-absorbing element and the limiting element having respective G1 and G2 extensions in the direction of stroke of the brake element where G1 is greater than G2.
Chabiland teaches a compensation device that allows resiliency between movement of crank 1 and sprocket 4. The compensation device includes at least one brake 2 resilient shock absorbing elements 3 and stops 21 that are less deformable than the shock absorbing elements and provide an even distribution of pressure on the elastic members 3 (Figures 1 and 3; page 8, lines 1-7 of the translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide relatively incompressible stop elements in the compensation device of Dragoni, in view of Chabiland, in order to effectively distribute pressure to the elastic members.
Regarding claim 3, the limiting element of Chabiland has less deformation capacity than the shock absorbing elements (Chabiland teaches that element 21 supports and distributes pressure applied to the shock absorbing elements).
Regarding claim 4, Chabiland is silent regarding the limiting element being a metal body. However, the limiting element 21 of Chabiland is relatively hard and forms a support element and bicycle transmission are typically formed from metal elements. 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 limiting elements from metal, as is old and well known, in order to construct the limiting elements from an appropriate material at low cost.
Regarding claim 9, Dragoni lacks at least one of the two main bodies being a Teflon treated sliding surface compared to the other main body. Chabiland teaches providing a Teflon surface between the bodies (page 8, last 10 lines) to reduce friction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a Teflon (PTFE) surface on one of the main bodies, in view of Chabiland and as is well known in the art, in order to reduce friction between the relatively moving parts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoban, Hamamoto, Hilber, and JP’688 teach compensating devices for belt or chain transmissions.
Tone teaches a pully having resilient compensating elements within the rotating structure.
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/
Prosecution Insights