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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: P.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal terms (see section 4 below). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprising”, “comprises”, “means”, and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-17 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 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the phrases “configured for the connection”, “configured for the passage”, and “configured for fitting”. These phrases are generally narrative (see section 7 below) and fail to describe any actual physical structure of the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “a rim” in line 8 is a double recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “rim” set forth in line 8 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claim 17 is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear how the spoke nipple may be made in more than one material as set forth in the phrase “made in one or more”. Namely, neither the claim nor the specification provides any guidance to accomplish this limitation.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlanger (2021/0039429). Figures 3f and 3g of Schlanger show a spoke nipple 130 mounted in a rim 180. The nipple 130 includes an elongated body (generally at 136) with an internal threaded orifice 140 for securing a spoke 2 to the rim 180. The nipple 130 further includes a head 132 extending radially from an end of the body, and an extension 146 on a side of the head 132 opposite the body. The extension 146 includes an internal orifice allowing passage of a threaded end of the spoke 2. The external diameter and length of the extension 146 fit into a hole 192 of the rim 180.
The nipple 130 of Schlanger includes physical features of both internal (the body and head portions) and external (the head and extension portions) of spoke nipples.
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.
Claim(s) 2-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlanger.
Regarding claims 2-16, Schlanger does not disclose the length or external diameter of the extension portion of the nipple 130. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the spoke nipple of Schlanger with an extension portion having a diameter suitable to fit properly in the spoke holes of the bicycle rim being used to prevent breakage of the spokes and/or difficultly in tensioning the spokes. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide the spoke nipple of Schlanger with an extension portion having a length suitable for securely fastening a spoke to the bicycle rim, while allowing sufficient length for tensioning of the spoke.
Regarding claim 17, Schlanger does not disclose the material from which the spoke nipple is formed. However, the use of aluminum and brass in the manufacture of spoke nipples is extremely well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the spoke nipple of Schlanger of a suitable material, dependent upon the desired strength and weight, dependent upon availability, cost, and the environment in which the spoke nipple will be used.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show spoke nipples with both internal and external physical features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (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 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights