DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
· “the second edge (222)” should be replaced with --the second face (222)-- for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
· Claim 1: “for the fixation of a bicycle spoke” should be amended to read “for fixation of a bicycle spoke” for clarity in line 1.
· Claim 1: “rotate an angle” should be amended to read “rotate by an angle” in line 13 for grammatical clarity.
· Claim 4: “The articulated nippleaccording to claim 2” should be amended to read “The articulated nipple according to claim 2” for clarity in line 1.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-18 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 recites the limitations "the rim" and “the longitudinal axis” in line 7 and 14, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
· Claim 2 recites the limitation "the articulated joint" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
· Claim 3 is indefinite because the phrase “the first face of the protrusion that, in use, contacts it” is unclear what the pronoun “it” refers to. Applicant is advised to the claim to explicitly identify the structure contacted by the first face of the protrusion, rather than using the pronoun “it”. For example, the limitation may be amended to recite: “wherein the first length of the radially inner face of the washer and the first face of the protrusion each have a spherical shape and contact one another during use”.
· Claims 5 and 10 recite the limitation "the assembly” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
· Claims 15 recites the limitation "the second end” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
· Claim 18 is indefinite because the claim includes multiple recitations of the same element without clarity as to whether the recited element refers to the same element previously set forth in the claims or to an additional element. Please note the following: “an articulated nipple” in line 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schlanger (US2021/0039429A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schlanger discloses an articulated nipple 200 (Figs. 4a-d) for the fixation of a bicycle spoke 2 comprising an elongated body (As shown in Figs. 4a and 4c, the nipple 200 is formed as an elongated body) and a washer 210, wherein the body comprises a threaded longitudinal orifice 208 configured for the threaded connection of an end 6 of a bicycle spoke 2 (Para [0085]; Figs. 4a and 4c) and the washer 210 is configured to abut against an inner surface (222 “bearing interface”) of the rim 70 (Fig. 4d), wherein: the body comprises a radial protrusion (202 “enlarged portion”; Figs. 4a-d) radially protruding therefrom; and the washer 210 comprises a radially inner face conforming a radial cavity (212 “socket”; Figs. 4c-d), where said protrusion 202 is housed inside said radial cavity 212 to conform an articulated connection (Fig. 4d) between the washer 210 and the body, said articulated connection being configured to allow for the body to rotate an angle (224 “bracing angle”; Fig. 4d) with respect to the washer 210 around an axis (The axis is implicitly shown in Fig. 4d) that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 29 of the washer 230.
Regarding claim 14, Schlanger discloses the angle is up to 15° (Examiner interprets the angle 224 shown in Fig. 4d as being up to 15 degrees. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 15, Schlanger discloses the protrusion 202 is adjacent the second end (Refer to the second end in the below annotated Fig. 4c) of the body.
PNG
media_image1.png
262
261
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4c of Schlanger
Regarding claim 18, Schlanger discloses a method for producing an articulated nipple 200 according to claim 1, comprising a step of applying pressure (As shown in Figs. 4c and 4d, Examiner interprets the assembly of the nipple body 200 and the washer 210, followed by the threaded engagement of the spoke with the nipple body, as necessarily involving the application of pressure to introduce and seat the protrusion of the body within the radial cavity of the washer. Accordingly, the claimed method step is met) .
9. Claims 1, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gratz (DE102016005990A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gratz discloses an articulated nipple 9 (Fig. 1) for the fixation of a bicycle spoke 8 comprising an elongated body (As shown in Fig. 1, the nipple 9 is formed as an elongated body) and a washer 13, wherein the body comprises a threaded longitudinal orifice (Refer to the threaded longitudinal orifice in the below annotated Fig. 1) configured for the threaded connection (Para [0052] and [0091]) of an end of a bicycle spoke (Refer to the end of the spoke 8 in the below annotated Fig. 1) and the washer 13 is configured to abut against an inner surface (Refer to the inner surface of the rim in the below annotated Fig. 1) of the rim 2, wherein: the body comprises a radial protrusion (Refer to the protrusion in the below annotated Fig. 8) radially protruding therefrom; and the washer 13 comprises a radially inner face conforming a radial cavity (Refer to the inner face and radial cavity in the below annotated Fig. 6), where said protrusion is housed inside said radial cavity (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 8) to conform an articulated connection between the washer 13 and the body (Figs. 1, 7, and 8), said articulated connection being configured to allow for the body to rotate an angle (Figs. 1, 7 and 8; Para [0057] and [0071]) with respect to the washer 13 around an axis (The axis is implicitly shown in Fig. 1) that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 23 (Fig. 6) of the washer 13.
PNG
media_image2.png
596
757
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 1 of Gratz
PNG
media_image3.png
493
677
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 6 of Gratz
PNG
media_image4.png
617
582
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 8 of Gratz
Regarding claim 14, Gratz discloses the angle is up to 15° (Examiner interprets the angle as shown in below annotated Fig. 1 as being up to 15 degrees. Accordingly, the limitation is met).
PNG
media_image5.png
615
590
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 1 of Gratz
Regarding claim 16, Gratz discloses the protrusion (Refer to the protrusion as discussed above with respect to claim 1) is placed at an intermediate portion of the body (Figs. 1 and 7-9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlanger in view of Meggiolan et al (US11850883B2; hereinafter “Meggiolan”) as applied to claims 1, 14, 15, and 18 above.
Regarding claim 17, Schlanger fails to disclose the body and the washer are made of one or more of the following materials: aluminum, brass, steel, magnesium, titanium, bronze and synthetic fibres.
Meggiolan, however, teaches that the nipple 40 is preferably made of steel (Col. 10, lines 57-58; Fig. 4) and the shaped washer 50 is made of steel (Col. 12, lines 1-2; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the nipple body and the washer of Schlanger from the materials taught by Meggiolan, such as steel, because such material is known and suitable for spoke attachment assemblies and provide the expected structural strength, durability, and wear resistance required for repeated spoke tensioning.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 2, 3, 5, 10 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
15. Claims 4, 6-9, and 11-13 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
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose a spoke nipple assembly including a washer.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON (TAE) CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights