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 .
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 1-14, 16, and 17 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.
Claim 1, line 13, recites "a plurality of complementary members" which is indefinite because it is unclear what makes a member a complementary member. Is there a specific structure that must be present for a member to be complementary to another member? How does one element "complement" another element? How does the term “complementary” enhance the claim limitation? Can there be members that meet the structural limitations, but do not complement each other? The Applicant is advised to remove the term “complementary” from the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14, 16, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued on Page 9 of the Remarks that “Claim 15 does not rely solely on the adjective "complementary" to identify the claimed members. Rather, the claim expressly defines the complementary members as members coupled to the rim part, arranged around the rotation axis, and provided to overlap the non-uniformity section when the wheel is viewed in the direction in which the rotation axis extends. Accordingly, the claim defines the complementary members by their structural arrangement and positional relationship, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty.
This understanding is consistent with at least paragraphs [0055]-[0056] and FIGS. 3 and 6 of the present application. Paragraphs [0055]-[0056] explain that the non-uniformity section 10a is a recessed region formed on the peripheral surface of the wheel, and FIG. 6 illustrates the complementary members 30 disposed to overlap the recessed non-uniformity sections.”
While the disclosure supports that each element 300 is a complementary member, the claim term “complementary” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what would make a member a complementary member. Can any member that meets the claim limitations in claim 1, lines 13, 14, 18, and 19 be viewed as being a complementary member? The Applicant is advised to remove the term “complementary” from the claims to overcome the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights