DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions. 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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/13/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites “said replaceable impact and wear protection article allowing for repair and/or replacement of said replaceable impact and wear protection article [via parent claim 1] . . . said replaceable impact and wear protection article is co-molded with said crank arm body.” The combination of the protection article being “replaceable” and that it be “co-molded with said crank arm body” renders the claim as indefinite because it is unclear as to whether or not the term “replaceable” as used in the claim includes partial destruction of the co-molded protection article to be replaced. “Co-molding” indicates an integral structure and the replacement of an existing protection article with a new one would require at least partial destruction of the co-molded article from the crank arm body. As such, the recitation renders the claim as indefinite. For purposes of examination, the term “replaceable” will be construed as including at least partial destruction of the bonded/co-molded/overmolded protection article to be replaced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11, 13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamanaka et al. (EP 0756990 A1; “Yamanaka”).
Yamanaka discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
A crank arm (1; FIG. 1) comprising:
a crank arm body (at 3; FIG. 1), said crank arm body having a front surface (right-hand surface in FIG. 2), a back surface (left-hand surface in FIG. 2), a first side surface (right-hand surface in FIG. 1) and a second side surface (right-hand surface in FIG. 1), said crank arm body having an upper portion (2; FIG. 3) proximate a spindle insert (24; FIG. 3), a lower portion (4; FIG. 3) proximate a pedal insert (41; FIG. 3) and a middle portion (at 3 in at least FIG. 1) disposed between said upper portion and said lower portion (depicted in FIG. 1);
a recessed region (32, 31 in FIG. 5) formed into said crank arm body (depicted in FIG. 5); and
a replaceable impact and wear protection article (33) coupled with said crank arm body (depicted in FIG. 3), said replaceable impact and wear protection article disposed at least partially within said recessed region (depicted in FIG. 3, 5) and at least partially in said middle portion of said crank arm body and at least partially covering said front surface of said crank arm body (depicted in FIG. 3), said replaceable impact and wear protection article allowing for repair and/or replacement of said replaceable impact and wear protection article (pg. 3 describes attachment via adhesive/caulking and therefore is detachable via removal or stripping of the adhesive/caulking for replacement with a new one; see MPEP § 2112, 2114); and
wherein said recessed region extends into at least a portion of said first side surface of said crank arm body (FIG. 5 depicts recessed region portion 32 cutting laterally into the region of the first and second side surfaces), said replaceable impact and wear protection article disposed at least partially within said recessed region in said first side surface of said crank arm body (FIG. 5 depicts recessed region portion 32 cutting laterally into the region of the first and second side surfaces for fitting the protection article 3).
Regarding claim 3:
The crank arm of Claim 1, wherein said recessed region extends into at least a portion of said second side surface of said crank arm body (FIG. 5 depicts recessed region portion 32 cutting laterally into the region of the first and second side surfaces) , said replaceable impact and wear protection article disposed at least partially within said recessed region in said first side surface of said crank arm body (FIG. 5 depicts recessed region portion 32 cutting laterally into the region of the first and second side surfaces for fitting the protection article 3).
Regarding claim 4:
The crank arm of Claim 1, wherein said recessed region extends into at least a portion of both said first side surface of said crank arm body and said second side surface of said crank arm body (FIG. 5 depicts recessed region portion 32 cutting laterally into the region of the first and second side surfaces) , said impact and wear protection article disposed at least partially within both said recessed region in said first side surface of said crank arm body and said recessed region in said second side surface of said crank arm body (FIG. 5 depicts recessed region portion 32 cutting laterally into the region of the first and second side surfaces for fitting the protection article 3).
Regarding claim 6:
The crank arm of Claim 1, wherein said replaceable impact and wear protection article is selected from the group consisting of: a plate and a strip (pg. 3, “aluminum alloy plate”).
Regarding claim 7:
The crank arm of Claim 1, wherein said replaceable impact and wear protection article is formed from a material selected from the group consisting of: a metal (pg. 3, “aluminum alloy plate”), a metal alloy, a rubber, a plastic, a composite material, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 8:
The crank arm of Claim 1, wherein said impact and wear protection article is adhesively coupled with said crank arm body (pg. 3 describes attachment via adhesive/caulking and therefore is detachable via removal or stripping of the adhesive/caulking for replacement with a new one; see MPEP § 2112, 2114).
Regarding claim 9:
The crank arm of Claim 1, wherein said impact and wear protection article is removably coupled with said crank arm body (pg. 3 describes attachment via adhesive/caulking and therefore is detachable via removal or stripping of the adhesive/caulking for replacement with a new one; see MPEP § 2112, 2114).
Regarding claim 11:
The crank arm of Claim 1, further comprising: said replaceable impact and wear protection article shaped such that, when at least partially disposed within said recessed region of said crank arm body, said replaceable impact and wear protection article will match a contour of said crank arm body (FIG. 3-4 depict a flush fit i.e. matching contour; pg. 2, “The reverse surface of the right crank 1 main body and the surface of the lid member 33 are arranged so as to form a single plane”).
Regarding claim 13:
A crank arm (1; FIG. 1) comprising:
a crank arm body (at 3; FIG. 1), said crank arm body having a front surface (right-hand surface in FIG. 2), a back surface (left-hand surface in FIG. 2), a first side surface (right-hand surface in FIG. 1) and a second side surface (right-hand surface in FIG. 1), said crank arm body having an upper portion (2; FIG. 3) proximate a spindle insert (24; FIG. 3), a lower portion (4; FIG. 3) proximate a pedal insert (41; FIG. 3) and a middle portion (at 3 in at least FIG. 1) disposed between said upper portion and said lower portion (depicted in FIG. 1);
a recessed region (32, 31 in FIG. 5) formed into at least a portion of said front surface of said crank arm body (depicted in FIG. 3)
a replaceable impact and wear protection article (33) coupled with said crank arm body (depicted in FIG. 3), said replaceable impact and wear protection article disposed at least partially within said recessed region (depicted in FIG. 3, 5) and at least partially in said middle portion of said crank arm body and at least partially covering said front surface of said crank arm body (depicted in FIG. 3), said replaceable impact and wear protection article allowing for repair and/or replacement of said replaceable impact and wear protection article (pg. 3 describes attachment via adhesive/caulking and therefore is detachable via removal or stripping of the adhesive/caulking for replacement with a new one; see MPEP § 2112, 2114); and
wherein said recessed region extends into at least a portion of said first side surface of said crank arm body (FIG. 5 depicts recessed region portion 32 cutting laterally into the region of the first and second side surfaces), said replaceable impact and wear protection article disposed at least partially within said recessed region in said first side surface of said crank arm body (FIG. 5 depicts recessed region portion 32 cutting laterally into the region of the first and second side surfaces for fitting the protection article 3).
Regarding claim 15:
The crank arm of Claim 13, wherein said recessed region extends into at least a portion of said second side surface of said crank arm body (FIG. 5 depicts recessed region portion 32 cutting laterally into the region of the first and second side surfaces) , said replaceable impact and wear protection article disposed at least partially within said recessed region in said first side surface of said crank arm body (FIG. 5 depicts recessed region portion 32 cutting laterally into the region of the first and second side surfaces for fitting the protection article 3) and at least partially covering said second side surface of said crank arm body (depicted in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 16:
The crank arm of Claim 13, wherein said recessed region extends into at least a portion of both said first side surface of said crank arm body and said second side surface of said crank arm body (FIG. 5 depicts recessed region portion 32 cutting laterally into the region of the first and second side surfaces) , said impact and wear protection article disposed at least partially within both said recessed region in said first side surface of said crank arm body and said recessed region in said second side surface of said crank arm body (FIG. 5 depicts recessed region portion 32 cutting laterally into the region of the first and second side surfaces for fitting the protection article 3), said replaceable impact and wear protection article at least partially covering both said first side surface of said crank arm body and said second side surface of said crank arm body (depicted in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 17:
The crank arm of Claim 13, wherein said impact and wear protection article is formed from a material selected from the group consisting of: a metal (pg. 3, “aluminum alloy plate”), a metal alloy, a rubber, a plastic, a composite material, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 18:
The crank arm of Claim 13, wherein said impact and wear protection article is adhesively coupled with said crank arm body (pg. 3 describes attachment via adhesive/caulking and therefore is detachable via removal or stripping of the adhesive/caulking for replacement with a new one; see MPEP § 2112, 2114).
Regarding claim 19:
The crank arm of Claim 13, wherein said impact and wear protection article is removably coupled with said crank arm body (pg. 3 describes attachment via adhesive/caulking and therefore is detachable via removal or stripping of the adhesive/caulking for replacement with a new one; see MPEP § 2112, 2114).
Regarding claim 20:
The crank arm of Claim 13, further comprising: said replaceable impact and wear protection article shaped such that, when at least partially disposed within said recessed region of said crank arm body, said replaceable impact and wear protection article will match a contour of said crank arm body (FIG. 3-4 depict a flush fit i.e. matching contour; pg. 2, “The reverse surface of the right crank 1 main body and the surface of the lid member 33 are arranged so as to form a single plane”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka.
Regarding claim 5, Yamanaka discloses the crank arm of Claim 1, see above, further including that the crank arm body be light weight (pg. 1, “Bicycles should be made as light-weight as possible, and all the parts of a bicycle should therefore be made as light as possible. This is true of bicycle cranks as well.”). However, it does not expressly disclose that said crank arm body is at least partially formed of a composite material. In certain circumstances where appropriate, an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on "common knowledge" in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). Here, the Examiner takes official notice that forming a crank arm body from composite material is instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Yamanaka’s crank arm to be formed at least partially from a composite material as such combination of elements are instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 10, Yamanaka does not expressly disclose that the replaceable impact and wear protection article is co-molded with said crank arm body.
In certain circumstances where appropriate, an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on "common knowledge" in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). Here, the Examiner takes official notice that a replaceable impact and wear protection article being co-molded/overmolded with said crank arm body, e.g. as a composite structure, is instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Yamanaka such that the replaceable impact and wear protection article being co-molded/overmolded with said crank arm body, e.g. as a composite structure as such a combination of elements are instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Yamanaka such that the replaceable impact and wear protection article being co-molded/overmolded with said crank arm body, e.g. as a composite structure, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, Yamanaka does not expressly disclose that said replaceable impact and wear protection article is formed of at least two separate parts.
In certain circumstances where appropriate, an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on "common knowledge" in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). Here, the Examiner takes official notice that providing a replaceable impact and wear protection article as being formed of at two separate parts, e.g. to provide more protective coverage, is instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Yamanaka such that a replaceable impact and wear protection article as being formed of at two separate parts, e.g. to provide more protective coverage as such a combination of elements are instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. "[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see MPEP § 2143(I)(G). Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of duplicating the protective element in Yamanaka to provide more protective coverage on the crank arm.
Also, it would have been obvious to a replaceable impact and wear protection article as being formed of at two separate parts, e.g. to provide more protective coverage since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.); see MPEP § 2144.04 (VI).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered and have required a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Yamanaka, as described supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)270-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656