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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-10 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.
In claim 1, line 3, it is not entirely clear to what “therebetween” refers. In lines 4-5, “a crankset” should be -the crankset- because the term was introduced earlier in the claim (earlier in line 4).
In claim 7, line 3, it is not clear to what “its” refers.
In claim 9, line 2, “when dependent on 4 or 5” is unclear. If it refers to the dependency of claim 6, it is an erroneous recitation and must be deleted. Claim 6 depends from claim 2, not claim 4 or 5.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/194177 to Ochain in view of FR2409183 to Chepelow.
Regarding claim 1, Ochain teaches a bicycle (Figure 1) comprising a frame 5 a rear wheel 10, a suspension system 12 of the rear wheel relative to the frame which allows a predetermined relative displacement therebetween, a drive system 40 (page 12, lines 2-29) of the motion from a crankset 20 to the rear wheel 10, wherein the drive system comprises a crankset 20 fixed to the frame, a hub and pinion assembly 22 fixed to the rear wheel, and a drive chain 29 positioned to connect them directly to each other, wherein the crankset 20 and the hub and pinion assembly 22 are subject to reciprocal displacement by the action of the suspension system, wherein the crankset and the hub and pinion assembly each comprise at least one gear wheel 26 (Figure 3) engaged by said chain and a rotation shaft (crank axle), wherein a compensating device 40 (Figure 5) is operatively interposed between the gear wheel and the shaft of at least one of said crankset and said hub and pinion assembly, the compensating device 40 being positioned to allow an angular compensating stroke therebetween from a resting position, corresponding to no chain pull, to a compensating position, corresponding to a chain-pulling action generated by said reciprocal displacement, and vice versa (page 15, lines 1-28), wherein said compensating stroke is limited to a predetermined angle (page 16, lines 2-13), said compensating device comprises two main bodies 46, 48, which are rotatable with respect to each other and integrally to the gear wheel and to the shaft, respectively.
Ochain lacks a blocking device for blocking relative motion between the main bodies, operatively interposed between the two main bodies, which relative motion can be selectively activated and deactivated to prevent or allow the compensating stroke.
Chepelow teaches a bicycle crankset having a compensating device (Figure 1) between a gear wheel 2 and crank axle, where the compensating device allows relative movement therebetween. The compensating device includes a blocking device 9-11 (Figure 1B) that can block the relative movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the compensating device of Ochain with a blocking device, in view of Chepelow, with a reasonable expecatation of success, in order to eliminate movement between the gear wheel and crank axle when it is not deemed to be beneficial.
Regarding claim 2, Chepelow teaches the blocking device locks the main bodies in said resting position.
Regarding claim 3, the blocking device of Chepelow can be activated at any position of the compensating stroke and is activated when the latter reaches the resting position.
Regarding claim 4, the blocking device of Chepelow comprises at least one pair of engagement elements (screw 11 and a portion of crank 1) intended to engage with each other to provide the locking and integral to one and the other of the two main bodies, respectively, wherein the two engagement elements engage in the resting position, and wherein at least one of the two main bodies is integral with a guide (a guide 9 is positioned in the gear wheel) which comes into contact with the engagement element (portion of the crank 1) which is integral with the other main body and guides it to the resting position when the blocking device is activated during the compensating stroke.
Regarding claim 10, between the two main bodies 46, 48, of Ochain there are operatively interposed recall means (spring 70 between the main bodies 46, 48, to bias them into a resting position; page 16, lines 18-24) towards the resting position, corresponding to a condition of no chain pull, wherein the recall means act throughout the whole compensating stroke.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dragoni, JP’768, WO’097, and DE’970 each teach a crankset having a compensating device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights