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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Page 8 Line 4: Replacing “The drawing shows an example of the subject matter of the invention. It shows” with “The drawings show and example of the subject matter of the invention. The drawings show:” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 6. Replacing “flow channels” with “two flow channels” is suggested.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 4. Replacing “profile flanks” with “two free profile flanks” is suggested.
wording in Line 5. Replacing “profile” with “protective profile” is suggested.
wording in Line 5. Replacing “flow channels” with “two flow channels” is suggested.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 3. Replacing “flow channels” with “two flow channels” is suggested.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 2. Replacing “flow channels” with “two flow channels” is suggested.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 2. Replacing “profile flanks” with “two free profile flanks” is suggested.
wording in Line 3. Replacing “respective collecting region” with “collecting region” is suggested.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 2. Replacing “profile flanks” with “two free profile flanks” is suggested.
wording in Line 4. Replacing “respective flow channels” with “two flow channels” is suggested.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 2. Replacing “profile flanks” with “two free profile flanks” is suggested.
wording in Lines 2-3. Replacing “of the respective profile flank” with “of each of the two free profile flanks” is suggested.
wording in Line 4. Replacing “flow channel” with “two flow channels” is suggested.
wording in Line 4. Replacing “profile flank” with “two free profile flanks” is suggested.
wording in Line 6. Replacing “profile” with “protective profile” is suggested.
wording in Line 7. Replacing “the associated flow channel” with “each of the two flow channels” is suggested.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 2. Replacing “flow channels” with “two flow channels” is suggested.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality: punctuation in Lines 1-2. Replacing “claim 1 wherein” with “claim 1, wherein” is suggested for consistency with other claims.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 3. Replacing “profile” with “protective profile” is suggested.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 2. Replacing “a frame supported a wheel” with “a frame supporting a wheel” is suggested.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 2. Replacing “profile” with “protective profile” is suggested.
wording in Line 3. Replacing “flow channels” with “two flow channels” is suggested.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 1. Replacing “flow channels” with “two flow channels” is suggested.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 1. Replacing “profile flanks” with “two free profile flanks” is suggested.
wording in Line 2. Replacing “respective collecting region” with “collecting region” is suggested.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 1. Replacing “profile flanks” with “two free profile flanks” is suggested.
wording in Line 3. Replacing “respective flow channel” with “two flow channels” is suggested.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Lines 1-2. Replacing “free ends of each of the profile flanks” with “respective free end of the two free profile flanks” is suggested.
wording in Line 3. Replacing “flow channel formed by the profile flank” with “two flow channels formed by the two free profile flanks” is suggested.
wording in Line 4. Replacing “profile” with “protective profile” is suggested.
wording in Line 5. Replacing “associated flow channel” with “two flow channels” is suggested.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 1. Replacing “flow channels” with “two flow channels” is suggested.
wording in Line 2. Replacing “profile” with “protective profile” is suggested.
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 1-20 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 limitation “two flow channels…are closed with respect to the wet region” in Lines 3-5. This limitation contradicts the arrangement presented in Fig. 1 which shows that the two flow channels, Reference Characters 4 and 5, are opened with respect to the wet region via the inflow opening 6. Further, the Specification indicates that “spray or dirty water can easily flow from the wet region into the flow channels via the inflow opening” (Specification Page 4, Lines 3-4), also contradicting the recitation of Claim 1, Lines 3-5.
Claims 1-20 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 term “wet region” in Line 5. The term “wet region” is not defined or clearly delineated in the Claims or Specification; the boundaries of the “wet region” cannot be ascertained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Job (GB 128428 A) in view of Chiang (DE 102013112286 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Job teaches a splash guard for partially covering a wet region surrounding a rotatable component [Job Figs. 1 and 2; Job Page 1, Line 5: “This invention relates to mud guards for cycles and other road vehicles”], said splash guard comprising: a member having a protective profile that forms two flow channels that extend in a longitudinal direction of the protective profile, and that are closed with respect to the wet region [Job Fig. 2, wherein the two flow channels are represented by Reference Character a1 (typ), but does not teach a flow divider.
Chiang teaches the member having, between the flow channels, an inflow opening and a flow divider arranged in a region of the inflow opening, said flow divider dividing a liquid from the wet region so the liquid proceeds into the two flow channels [Chiang Figs. 1, 5, and 8; Chiang Abstract: “an apron for bicycles, wherein the protective plate (10) is formed along both the center line (11) on both sides as a first curved surface (12) and a second curved surface (13), wherein the cross sections of the first curved Surface (12) and the second curved surface (13) are V-shaped to each other”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the splash guard of Job to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a flow divider in view of Chiang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Job and Chiang because this would have achieved the desirable result of diverting mud to the sides of the fender, as recognized by Chiang [Chiang Abstract: Abstract: “mud, when splashing toward the fender, can be diverted to both sides due to the V-shape.”]. As such, the distribution of mud splashing on the underside of the fender would be more equally divided between the two flow channels, thus decreasing the possibility of uneven and adverse mud build-up in one of the two flow channels, and thereby improving the performance of the splash guard, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 3, Job teaches a splashguard but does not teach a flow divider. Chiang teaches the splash guard according to claim 1, wherein the flow divider is a flow guide ridge facing the wet region and extending in the longitudinal direction of the profile between the flow channels [Chiang Fig. 8]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the splash guard of Job to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a flow divider in view of Chiang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Job and Chiang because this would have achieved the desirable result of diverting mud to the sides of the fender, as recognized by Chiang [Chiang Abstract: Abstract: “mud, when splashing toward the fender, can be diverted to both sides due to the V-shape.”]. As such, the distribution of mud splashing on the underside of the fender would be more equally divided between the two flow channels, thus decreasing the possibility of uneven and adverse mud build-up in one of the two flow channels, and thereby improving the performance of the splash guard, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 4, Job teaches the splash guard according to claim 1, wherein the flow channels each taper in cross-section from the inflow opening to a collecting region opposite the inflow opening [Job Fig. 3, Reference Character a2].
Regarding Claim 5, Job teaches the splash guard according to claim 4, wherein each of the profile flanks is curved to form the respective collecting region [Job Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 10, Job teaches a splash guard but does not teach a flow divider. Chiang teaches the splash guard according to claim 1 wherein the flow divider extends in a central plane with respect to which the protective profile is symmetrical [Chiang Fig. 8]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the splash guard of Job to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a flow divider in view of Chiang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Job and Chiang because this would have achieved the desirable result of diverting mud to the sides of the fender, as recognized by Chiang [Chiang Abstract: Abstract: “mud, when splashing toward the fender, can be diverted to both sides due to the V-shape.”]. As such, the distribution of mud splashing on the underside of the fender would be more equally divided between the two flow channels, thus decreasing the possibility of uneven and adverse mud build-up in one of the two flow channels, and thereby improving the performance of the splash guard, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 11, Job teaches the splash guard according to claim 1, wherein the protective profile extends in a curved manner in the longitudinal direction of the profile and spans an arc angle of more than 180° [Job Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 12, Job teaches a bicycle comprising: a frame supported a wheel; and a splash guard according to claim 1 supported so as to partially surround said wheel [Job Fig. 1; Job Page 2, Line 6: “This invention relates to mudguards for cycles”].
Claims 2 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Job (GB 128428 A) in view of Chiang (DE 102013112286 A1) and further in view of Vens (EP 3434567 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Job and Chiang teaches a splash guard comprising a member having a flow divider but does not teach profile flanks extending to the flow divider. Vens teaches the splash guard according to claim 1, wherein the protective profile has two free profile flanks opposite each other with respect to a profile width of the protective profile, the profile flanks extending to the flow divider, which is arranged in a middle of the profile so as to form the flow channels and the inflow opening leading thereto [Vens Figs. 5 and 6, wherein the feature represented by Reference Character 9 extend to the flow divider, represented by the unnumbered feature located between the two free profile flanks and below the couplings spaces, represented by Reference Characters 3a and 3b.]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the splash guard, comprising a member having two flow channels and a flow divider, of the combination of Job and Chiang to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, profile flanks extending to the flow divider in view of Vens. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Job, Chiang, and Vens because this would have achieved the desirable result of facilitating connection of a cover layer to the base element, as recognized by Vens [Vens Claim 11: “the base element (1) comprises fixing elements (9) corresponding to these fixing means (8), so that the cover layer (5) is connectable to the base element (1) using said fixing means (8)”].
Regarding Claim 13, Job teaches a splash guard but does not teach a flow divider. Chiang teaches the splash guard according to claim 2, wherein the flow divider is a flow guide ridge facing the wet region and extending in the longitudinal direction of the profile between the flow channels [Chiang Figs. 1, 5, and 8; Chiang Abstract: “an apron for bicycles, wherein the protective plate (10) is formed along both the center line (11) on both sides as a first curved surface (12) and a second curved surface (13), wherein the cross sections of the first curved Surface (12) and the second curved surface (13) are V-shaped to each other”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the splash guard of Job to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a flow divider in view of Chiang. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Job and Chiang because this would have achieved the desirable result of diverting mud to the sides of the fender, as recognized by Chiang [Chiang Abstract: Abstract: “mud, when splashing toward the fender, can be diverted to both sides due to the V-shape.”]. As such, the distribution of mud splashing on the underside of the fender would be more equally divided between the two flow channels, thus decreasing the possibility of uneven and adverse mud build-up in one of the two flow channels, and thereby improving the performance of the splash guard, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 14, Job teaches the splash guard according to claim 13, wherein the flow channels each taper in cross-section from the inflow opening to a collecting region opposite the inflow opening [Job Fig. 3, Reference Character a2].
Regarding Claim 15, Job teaches the splash guard according to claim 14, wherein each of the profile flanks is curved to form the respective collecting region [Job Fig. 2].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Job (GB 128428 A) in view of Chiang (DE 102013112286 A1) and further in view of Scott Sports (DE 202009018065 U1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Job and Chiang teaches a splash guard comprising a member having a flow divider but does not teach a cable lead-through passage. Scott Sports teaches the splash guard according to claim 1, wherein the flow divider has a hollow cross-section forming a cable lead-through passage [Scott Sports Figs. 1b and 5]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the splash guard, comprising a member having a flow divider, of the combination of Job and Chiang, to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a hollow cross-section in view of Scott Sports. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Job, Chiang, and Scott Sports because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the use of a headlight arrangement that is protected from dirt and damage, as recognized by Scott Sports [Scott Sports Paragraph 0075: “at the end face of the mudguard 1 within the hollow chamber profile additionally a light source 10 arranged by the previously in the fender 1 inserted battery is supplied with electrical energy. In the illustrated variant, the bulb is a headlight and is in the fender 1 the front wheel of the bicycle 3 on the front side of the mudguard in the direction of travel 1 used. The surface normal of this front face of the front mudguard 1 already substantially in the direction of travel, so that in a simple manner, a headlight is created, which is arranged in the interior of the hollow chamber profile and thus largely protected from dirt and damage.”].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Job (GB 128428 A) in view of Chiang (DE 102013112286 A1) and further in view of Oglethorpe (GB 191121389 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Job and Chiang teaches a splash guard comprising a member having a protective profile that forms two flow channels but does not teach a water-discharging device. Oglethorpe teaches the splash guard according to claim 1, wherein the flow channels lead in the longitudinal direction of the profile to at least one profile end section and to a water-discharging device [Oglethorpe Fig. 4, Reference Character f (typ); Oglethorpe Page 1, Lines 11-12: “The ends c of the mudguard C open out in a fan-shaped member Fig. 4”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the splash guard comprising a member having two flow channels, of the combination of Job and Chiang to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a water-discharging device in view of Oglethorpe. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Job, Chiang, and Oglethorpe because this would have achieved the desirable ability to allow mud to flow clear of the wheel, as recognized by Oglethorpe [Oglethorpe Page 1, Line 12: “the channels d forming into tubes f to allow mud to flow clear of the wheel”].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (a) Claim 1 is rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112”, above) and if (b) Claim 6 is rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Job, Chiang, and Vens teaches a splash guard comprising a member having a flow divider but does not teach a free end bent away from the flow divider. The prior art does not teach or suggest the splash guard according to claim 2, wherein each of the profile flanks has a respective free end in the region of the inflow opening that is bent away from the flow divider and towards the respective flow channel. The closest reference, Oglethorpe (GB 191121389 A) teaches that each of the profile flanks has a respective free end in the region of the inflow opening that is bent away from the longitudinal centerline of the splash guard [Oglethorpe Fig. 4], but does not teach a flow divider.
Claims 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (a) Claim 1 is rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112”, above) and if (b) Claim 16 is rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Job, Chiang, and Vens teaches a splash guard comprising a member having a flow divider but does not teach a free end bent away from the flow divider. The prior art does not teach or suggest the splash guard according to claim 15, wherein each of the profile flanks has a respective free end in the region of the inflow opening that is bent away from the flow divider and towards the respective flow channel. The closest reference, Oglethorpe (GB 191121389 A) teaches that each of the profile flanks has a respective free end in the region of the inflow opening that is bent away from the longitudinal centerline of the splash guard [Oglethorpe Fig. 4], but does not teach a flow divider.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights