DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
1. The disclosure is objected to because paragraph [0001] should be updated to include the numbers of the U.S. Patents granted from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/462,312 and U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 18/172,334.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
4. Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-20 and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Molodtsov et al. (RU 2096188 C1; hereinafter “Molodtsov”) in view of Hed et al. (US 5,061,013; hereinafter “Hed”).
Regarding claim 1, Molodtsov discloses an aerodynamic bicycle rim 3 comprising: a circumferential outer portion comprising a circumferential outer surface at 17 and forming a radially outermost edge (unlabeled, but shown in Figs. 1 and 2); a nose (the edge 46 of the fairing 5 having a radius RK as shown in Fig. 2); and a set of sidewalls (unlabeled in Fig. 2, but defined by layer 28 as shown in Figs. 3 and 4), each sidewall extending radially from the nose of the aerodynamic bicycle rim to a corresponding transition (transition between 28 and 17 shown in Fig. 3) to the circumferential outer surface to form a rim body having a maximum rim body width C0 at a widest part (at B01) of the rim body, a second width at a centerline of the rim body (unlabeled width at a centerline of the rim body shown in Fig. 2), and a rim body depth (R0-RK), each sidewall and corresponding transition forming a continuous outer surface around the rim body from the radially outermost edge to the nose (Figs. 1, 2, 7 and 8), and wherein the continuous outer surface has a curved shape from the widest part of the rim body to the nose (Fig. 2); and wherein the widest part (at B01) of the rim body is spaced away from the centerline of the rim body (evident from Fig. 2 which shows the maximum rim body width C0 occurring at a position at B01 which is radially outward of the centerline of the rim body), and wherein the circumferential outer portion is adapted to seat a bicycle tire (unlabeled, but shown in dotted lines in Figs. 2 and 7) that is narrower than the maximum rim body width (evident from Fig. 2 and paragraph [0052]) and narrower than the rim body is deep (evident from Fig. 2) to form an asymmetrical cross-sectional shape having a centerline that is spaced from the widest part of the rim body (evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, although Molodtsov further discloses the tangent line is tangent to the sidewall at the corresponding transition (evident from Fig. 2), Molodtsov fails to expressly disclose the continuous outer surface curves laterally inward at the corresponding transition such that the corresponding transition is a radiused area at a radially outer end of the corresponding sidewall with the radiused area having a smaller radius than a proximate portion of the corresponding sidewall. Instead, Molodtsov appears to show a sharp corner at the transition.
Hed, however, teaches an aerodynamic bicycle rim in which the continuous outer surface curves laterally inward at a corresponding transition (unlabeled, but clearly shown in Fig. 5) such that the corresponding transition is a radiused area at a radially outer end of the corresponding sidewall with the radiused area having a smaller radius than a proximate portion of the corresponding sidewall (evident from Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the transition of Molodtsov to be a radiused area at a radially outer end of the corresponding sidewall with the radiused area having a smaller radius than a proximate portion of the corresponding sidewall such that the continuous outer surface curves laterally inward at the corresponding transition, such as taught by Hed, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the strength and durability of the rim by minimizing potential stress concentrations at the transition.
Regarding claim 2, Molodtsov further discloses the asymmetrical cross-sectional shape of the bicycle tire and the rim body is asymmetrical about a widest portion of the asymmetrical cross-sectional shape (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, although Molodtsov further discloses the aerodynamic bicycle rim is adapted to seat the bicycle tire such that there is a tangent line tangent to the bicycle tire and tangent to a sidewall of the set of sidewalls as evident from Fig. 2, Molodtsov fails to expressly disclose the tangent line having a tangent angle between 8 and 17 degrees.
Hed, however, expressly teaches “to obtain improved aerodynamic efficiency, the ratio of the maximum rim width W to the tire diameter D of Fig. 5 is in the range of from about 1 to 1.5 and preferably from about 1.05 to about 1.25 (lines 48-52 of col. 4). It is readily apparent to one having ordinary skill that such adjustment of the ratio of the maximum rim width to the tire diameter would affect the resulting claimed tangent angle.
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the rim profile of Molodtsov by adjusting the ratio of the maximum rim width to the tire diameter such that the tangent angle is between 8 and 17 degrees with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining an improved aerodynamic efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, Molodtsov further discloses the widest part of the rim body is located at a radially outer third of the rim body (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Molodtsov further discloses the aerodynamic bicycle rim is adapted to seat the bicycle tire such that tangent line is tangent to the sidewall radially outward of the widest part of the rim body (evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Molodtsov further discloses the circumferential outer portion comprises a circumferential channel (unlabeled channel that receives tire as shown in Fig. 2) to receive the bicycle tire and wherein the aerodynamic bicycle rim is adapted to seat the bicycle tire such that tangent line is tangent to the sidewall at a portion of the sidewall that overlaps the circumferential channel (evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Molodtsov further discloses the circumferential outer portion comprises a circumferential channel (unlabeled channel that receives tire as shown in Fig. 2) to receive the bicycle tire and wherein the widest part of the rim body is radially inward of the circumferential channel (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Molodtsov discloses an aerodynamic bicycle rim 3, the aerodynamic bicycle rim comprising: a nose (the edge 46 of the fairing 5 having a radius RK as shown in Fig. 2); and a set of sidewalls (unlabeled in Fig. 2, but defined by layer 28 as shown in Figs. 3 and 4), each sidewall extending radially outward from the nose to form a rim body having a radially outermost edge distal the nose (Fig. 2), the rim body having a maximum rim body width C0 at a widest part (at B01) of the rim body that is spaced radially inward of the radially outermost edge of the rim body (Fig. 2) and radially outward from a centerline of the rim body (evident from Fig. 2 which shows the maximum rim body width C0 occurring at a position at B01 which is radially outward of the centerline of the rim body), each sidewall transitioning to the radially outermost edge of the rim body at a corresponding transition (transition between 28 and 17 shown in Fig. 3), wherein the rim body increases in width from the radially outermost edge of the rim body to the widest part of the rim body (Fig. 2) and decreases in width from the widest part of the rim body to the nose (Fig. 2); and wherein, the aerodynamic bicycle rim is operable to seat a bicycle tire (unlabeled, but shown in dotted lines in Figs. 2 and 7) that is narrower than the maximum rim body width to form an asymmetrical cross-sectional shape in which the widest part of the rim body is spaced from a centerline of the asymmetrical cross-sectional shape (evident from Fig. 2 and paragraph [0052]) and there is a tangent line tangent to the bicycle tire and a sidewall of the set of sidewalls (evident from Fig. 2).
Molodtsov fails to disclose the transition being radiused transition that curves laterally inward. Instead, Molodtsov appears to show a sharp corner at the transition.
Hed, however, teaches an aerodynamic bicycle rim in which the transition is radiused transition that curves laterally inward (evident from Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the transition of Molodtsov to be a radiused transition that curves laterally inward, such as taught by Hed, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the strength and durability of the rim by minimizing potential stress concentrations at the transition.
Although Molodtsov discloses a tangent line tangent to the bicycle tire and tangent to a sidewall of the set of sidewalls as evident from Fig. 2, Molodtsov further fails to expressly disclose the tangent line having a tangent angle less than 17 degrees.
Hed, however, expressly teaches “to obtain improved aerodynamic efficiency, the ratio of the maximum rim width W to the tire diameter D of Fig. 5 is in the range of from about 1 to 1.5 and preferably from about 1.05 to about 1.25 (lines 48-52 of col. 4). It is readily apparent to one having ordinary skill that such adjustment of the ratio of the maximum rim width to the tire diameter would affect the resulting claimed tangent angle.
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the rim profile of Molodtsov by adjusting the ratio of the maximum rim width to the tire diameter such that the tangent angle is less than 17 degrees with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining an improved aerodynamic efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Molodtsov further discloses the widest part of the rim body is located at a radially outer third of the rim body (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Molodtsov further discloses the tangent line is tangent to the sidewall radially outward of the widest part of the rim body (evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Molodtsov further discloses the rim body defines a circumferential channel (unlabeled channel that receives tire as shown in Fig. 2) to receive the bicycle tire and wherein the tangent line is tangent to the sidewall at a portion of the sidewall that overlaps the circumferential channel (evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Molodtsov further discloses the rim body defines a circumferential channel (unlabeled channel that receives tire as shown in Fig. 2) to receive the bicycle tire and wherein the widest part of the rim body is radially inward of the circumferential channel (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Molodtsov further discloses the widest part of the rim body is located at a radially outer third of the rim body (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Molodtsov further discloses the tangent line is tangent to the sidewall radially outward of the widest part of the rim body (evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Molodtsov further discloses the rim body defines a circumferential channel (unlabeled channel that receives tire as shown in Fig. 2) to receive the bicycle tire and wherein the tangent line is tangent to the sidewall at a portion of the sidewall that overlaps the circumferential channel (evident from Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, Molodtsov further discloses the rim body defines a circumferential channel (unlabeled channel that receives tire as shown in Fig. 2) to receive the bicycle tire and wherein the widest part of the rim body is radially inward of the circumferential channel (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Molodtsov discloses an aerodynamic bicycle rim 3, the aerodynamic bicycle rim comprising: a nose (the edge 46 of the fairing 5 having a radius RK as shown in Fig. 2); and a set of sidewalls (unlabeled in Fig. 2, but defined by layer 28 as shown in Figs. 3 and 4), each sidewall extending radially outward from the nose to form a rim body having a radially outermost edge distal the nose (Fig. 2), the rim body having a maximum rim body width C0 at a widest part (at B01) of the rim body that is spaced radially inward of the radially outermost edge of the rim body (Fig. 2) and radially outward from a centerline of the rim body (evident from Fig. 2 which shows the maximum rim body width C0 occurring at a position at B01 which is radially outward of the centerline of the rim body), wherein the rim body increases in width from the radially outermost edge of the rim body to the widest part of the rim body and decreases in width from the widest part of the rim body to the nose (Fig. 2), each sidewall transitioning to the radially outermost edge of the rim body at a corresponding transition (transition between 28 and 17 shown in Fig. 3); and wherein, the aerodynamic bicycle rim is adapted to seat a bicycle tire (unlabeled, but shown in dotted lines in Figs. 2 and 7) that is narrower than the maximum rim body width and narrower than the rim body is deep to form an asymmetrical cross-sectional shape in which the widest part of the rim body is spaced from a centerline of the asymmetrical cross-sectional shape (evident from Fig. 2 and paragraph [0052]).
Molodtsov fails to disclose the transition being radiused transition that curves laterally inward. Instead, Molodtsov appears to show a sharp corner at the transition.
Hed, however, teaches an aerodynamic bicycle rim in which the transition is radiused transition that curves laterally inward (evident from Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the transition of Molodtsov to be a radiused transition that curves laterally inward, such as taught by Hed, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving the strength and durability of the rim by minimizing potential stress concentrations at the transition.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
6. Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,109,839 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4 and 10 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,109,839 B2. In other words, claims 1-4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,109,839 B2 fully encompasses the subject matter of claims 1-4 and 10 and therefore anticipates claims 1-4 and 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 8, 15 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
8. 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 on (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
Prosecution Insights