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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5-8, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, lines 1-2, recites “wherein in the cross-sectional portion shorter reinforcing elements are embedded” which is grammatically awkward and should be changed to --wherein embedded in the at least one cross-sectional portion are reinforcing elements that are shorter than the long fibers--.
Claim 6, line 3, recites “the cross-sectional portion” which should be changed to --the at least one cross-sectional portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 7, line 3, recites “the cross-sectional portion” which should be changed to --the at least one cross-sectional portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 8, lines 1-2, recites “the cross-sectional portion” which should be changed to --the at least one cross-sectional portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 12, lines 1-2, recites “the cross-sectional portion” which should be changed to --the at least one cross-sectional portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 13, lines 1-2, recites “the cross-sectional portion” which should be changed to --the at least one cross-sectional portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 13, line 3, recites “the cross-sectional portion” which should be changed to --the at least one cross-sectional portion-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
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 1-18 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, line 12, recites “the end portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear which end portion the Applicant is referring to. Line 2 discloses two end portions, and the Applicant has not previously singled out one of the two end portions.
The term “some” in claim 1, line 13, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “some” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as some may not be the same as what another person considers as some thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
The term “substantial” in claim 1, line 15, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as substantial may not be the same as what another person considers as substantial thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 1, line 16, recites “at least one end portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the at least one end portion from line 16 is related to the two end portions from line 2 of claim 1. Is the Applicant trying to claim --at least one end portion of the two end portions--?
Claim 2, lines 1-2, recites “at least one end portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the at least one end portion from claim 2 is related to the at least one end portion from claim 1, line 16, and the two end portions from line 2 of claim 1. Should claim 2, lines 1-2, be amended to recite --the at least one end portion--?
Claim 2, line 4, recites “a threaded portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the threaded portion from claim 2 is related to or different from the threaded portion from claim 1, line 5. Is the Applicant trying to claim two separate threaded portions?
Claim 3, lines 1-2, recites “at least one end portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the at least one end portion from claim 3 is related to the at least one end portion from claim 1, line 16, and the two end portions from line 2 of claim 1. Should claim 3, lines 1-2, be amended to recite --the at least one end portion--?
The term “considerable” in claim 6, line 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as substantial may not be the same as what another person considers as substantial thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 6, line 3, recites “long fibers” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the long fibers from claim 6 are related to or different from the long fibers from claim 1, lines 13-14. Is the Applicant trying to claim two separate sets of long fibers?
The term “considerable” in claim 6, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as substantial may not be the same as what another person considers as substantial thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 6, line 4, recites “reinforcing elements” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the reinforcing elements from claim 6 are related to or different from the reinforcing elements from claim 1, lines 13-14. Is the Applicant trying to claim two separate sets of reinforcing elements? What are the reinforcing elements in claim 6 shorter than?
The term “considerable” in claim 7, line 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as substantial may not be the same as what another person considers as substantial thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 7, line 2, recites “long fibers” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the long fibers from claim 7 are related to or different from the long fibers from claim 1, lines 13-14. Is the Applicant trying to claim two separate sets of long fibers?
The term “considerable” in claim 7, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as substantial may not be the same as what another person considers as substantial thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
The term “significant” in claim 8, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as significant may not be the same as what another person considers as significant thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cross-sectional area" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the head portion" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A head portion is claimed in claim 4, but claim 8 does not depend from claim 4.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the shorter reinforcing elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What are the shorter reinforcing elements being compared to so that they can be viewed as being shorter?
Claim 11, lines 3-4, recites “at least one end portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the at least one end portion from claim 11 is related to the at least one end portion from claim 1, line 16, and the two end portions from line 2 of claim 1. Should claim 11, lines 3-4, be amended to recite --the at least one end portion--?
Claim 11, line 2, recites “the end portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear which end portion the Applicant is referring to. Claim 1, line 2, discloses two end portions, and the Applicant has not previously singled out one of the two end portions.
Claim 13, line 4, recites “the end portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear which end portion the Applicant is referring to. Claim 1, line 2, discloses two end portions, and the Applicant has not previously singled out one of the two end portions.
Claim 14, line 2, recites “a thermoplastic matrix material” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the thermoplastic matrix material from claim 14 is related to the thermoplastic matrix material n from claim 1, line 7. Is the Applicant trying to claim the matrix material is a thermoplastic matrix material--?
Claim 14, lines 3-4, recites “a thermoplastic matrix material” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the thermoplastic matrix material from claim 14 is related to the thermoplastic matrix material n from claim 1, line 7. Is the Applicant trying to claim the matrix material is a thermoplastic matrix material--?
Claim 15, line 1, recites “a rim” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the rim from claim 15 is related to or different from the rim from claim 1, line 3. Is the Applicant trying to claim two separate rims?
Claim 15, line 2, recites “a hub” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the hub from claim 15 is related to or different from the hub from claim 1, line 3. Is the Applicant trying to claim two separate hubs?
The term “several” in claim 15, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “several” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as several may not be the same as what another person considers as several thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 15, line 2, recites “spokes” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the spokes from claim 15 is related to or different from the spoke from claim 1, line 1. Is the Applicant trying to claim a plurality of spokes according to claim 1?
The term “aerodynamic” in claim 16, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “aerodynamic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as aerodynamic may not be the same as what another person considers as aerodynamic thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 17, lines 1-2, recites “the end portion” which is indefinite because it is unclear which end portion the Applicant is referring to. Claim 1, line 2, discloses two end portions, and the Applicant has not previously singled out one of the two end portions.
The phrase “nearly completely” in claim 17, line 2, is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “nearly completely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as nearly completely may not be the same as what another person considers as nearly completely thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13-17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 5,110,190 A).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a wheel component for a vehicle, with a spoke (C) configured straight with a center portion (10) and two end portions (12, 14), to detachably connect the spoke with a hub (50) and with a rim (60) by means of the end portions, wherein at least one of the two end portions comprises a threaded portion (31),
wherein the spoke is manufactured from a fibrous composite material (a material made of fibers and resin) and comprises at least one matrix material (resin; Column 11 / Line 68) and reinforcing elements (fibers; Column 11 / Line 68) embedded therein, wherein the spoke is formed without loops and eyelets (see Figure 12);
the end portions are configured integrally with the center portion, each forming an end of the spoke (see Figure 12);
the threaded portion is formed in one piece with the end portion (see Figure 12); and
at least some of the reinforcing elements are configured as long fibers (the fivers shown in Figure 3 are viewed as being long fibers because they extend along a length of the spoke), and extend through the entire center portion, and over at least a substantial part of the two end portions (Column 5 / Lines 1-3; see Figure 3); and
at least one end portion comprises a cross-sectional region (only the region of 20 where the fibers are located as shown in Figure 3) with long fibers (the fibers in 20 as shown in Figure 3) embedded therein as reinforcing elements, and at least one cross-sectional portion without long fibers embedded therein as reinforcing elements (the portion of 20 where the fibers are not present).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson discloses that at least one end portion has an outer diameter (the diameter of 20) that is larger than at least one transverse dimension (the width of 10; see Figure 3) in the center portion and wherein at least one of the end portions comprises a threaded portion (31) which screws to a spoke nipple.
Regarding claim 4, Johnson discloses that at least one of the end portions comprises a head portion (20) **[for supporting the spoke]**.
Regarding claim 7, Johnson discloses that a considerable part of the cross-sectional region comprises solely long fibers (the fibers in 20 as shown in Figure 3) and wherein a considerable part of the cross-sectional portion does not comprise reinforcing elements (the part of 20 in Figure 3 that does not have fibers).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson discloses that the cross-sectional portion forms a significant share of the cross-sectional area of the spoke in the head portion (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Johnson discloses that the matrix material of the spoke is uniform overall (the resin material is found throughout the spoke thus meeting the claim limitation) and wherein the spoke is in one piece (see Figure 12).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson discloses that the cross-sectional portion radially surrounds the cross-sectional region (see Figure 3), and wherein the cross-sectional portion forms a thickening on the end portion (see Figures 1a, 3, and 12).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson discloses that the cross-sectional region comprises a thermoplastic matrix material (Column 12 / Line 20) and wherein the spoke body comprises a thermoplastic matrix material (Column 12 / Line 20).
Regarding claim 15, Johnson discloses a rim (60) and a hub (50) and several separate spokes (C) configured straight, wherein the hub is connected detachably with the rim by means of the spokes and wherein the spokes are supported on the end portions of the spokes (see Figure 6c).
Regarding claim 16, Johnson discloses that the center portion is aerodynamic in shape (as best understood, the center portion is aerodynamic given the broadness of the term).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson discloses that the end portion of the spoke is accommodated at least nearly completely within the rim (see Figure 6c).
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.
Claims 3, 11, and 12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,110,190 A) in view of Liu (CN 214606894 U; see Applicant provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that at least one end portion has a conical portion adjacent to the center portion and a support portion adjacent thereto.
Liu teaches at least one end portion (the end of 3 where 31 is located in Figure 5) that has a conical portion (see Paragraph 0013 and Figure 5) adjacent to a center portion (the middle of 1) and a support portion (the portion of 3 with the largest diameter as shown in Figure 5) adjacent thereto.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one end portion of Johnson to have a conical portion adjacent to the center portion and a support portion adjacent thereto, as taught by Liu, for the purpose of providing a shape that allows the center part to pass through the end portion thereby allowing the length of the spoke to be optimized. Furthermore, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent.
Regarding claim 11, Johnson discloses that the cross-sectional region has a cross section (the region where each fiber is located in Figure 3 is viewed to be rectangular in nature in light of the shape of the body of 10 being rectangular as shown in Figure 2) deviating from a rotationally symmetrical cross section (20 is circular) in at least one end portion.
Johnson does not disclose that the deviating cross section is taken from a group of shapes comprising a polygonal, star-shaped, oval, elliptic, or conical shape.
Liu teaches at least one end portion (the end of 3 where 31 is located in Figure 5) that has a conical portion (see Paragraph 0013 and Figure 5) adjacent to a center portion (the middle of 1) and a support portion (the portion of 3 with the largest diameter as shown in Figure 5) adjacent thereto.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one end portion of Johnson to have a conical shape, as taught by Liu, for the purpose of providing a shape that allows the center part to pass through the end portion thereby allowing the length of the spoke to be optimized. Furthermore, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent.
Regarding claim 12, Johnson discloses that the cross-sectional portion is centrally accommodated in the end portion.
Johnson does not disclose that the cross-sectional portion has a cone-like portion.
Liu teaches at least one end portion (the end of 3 where 31 is located in Figure 5) that has a cross-sectional portion with a conical portion (see Paragraph 0013 and Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-sectional portion of Johnson to have a cone-like portion, as taught by Liu, for the purpose of providing a shape that allows the center part to pass through the end portion thereby allowing the length of the spoke to be optimized. Furthermore, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent.
Claims 5, 6, and 9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,110,190 A) in view of Schlanger (US 8,657,387 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that in the cross-sectional portion shorter reinforcing elements are embedded.
Schlanger teaches a cross-sectional portion (see Figure 4b) with shorter reinforcing elements (161) embedded in it.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-sectional portion of Johnson to have shorter reinforcing elements are embedded in it, as taught by Schlanger, for the purpose of increasing the strength of the cross-sectional portion.
Regarding claim 6, Johnson discloses that a considerable part of the cross-sectional region comprises solely long fibers (see Figure 3).
Johnson does not disclose that a considerable part of the cross-sectional portion comprises solely shorter reinforcing elements.
Schlanger teaches a cross-sectional portion (see Figure 4b) with shorter reinforcing elements (161) embedded in it.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cross-sectional portion of Johnson to have shorter reinforcing elements are embedded in it, as taught by Schlanger, for the purpose of increasing the strength of the cross-sectional portion.
Regarding claim 9, Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that at least part of the shorter reinforcing elements is formed by fiber bits or reinforcing particles.
Schlanger teaches with shorter reinforcing elements (161) embedded in a spoke.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spoke of Johnson to have shorter reinforcing elements embedded in it, as taught by Schlanger, for the purpose of increasing the strength of the cross-sectional portion.
Claim 18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,110,190 A) in view of Heyse (US 7,926,884 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the material of the rim comprises a fibrous composite material and/or metal.
Heyse teaches a rim made of a fibrous composite material (Column 2 / Lines 65-67) for the purpose of providing a particularly lightweight wheel (Column 2 / Lines 65-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the rim of Johnson to be made of a fibrous composite material for the purpose of providing a particularly lightweight wheel, as taught by Heyse.
**The above statements in brackets are instances of intended use and functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, see MPEP 2114. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Henig (US 2025/0269682 A1) discloses a spoke structure that are structurally similar to the spoke in the current application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM EST.
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 at (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 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights