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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Claim 3 “a quick release lock”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 disclosure is objected to because the specification is silent about claim 3 limitation “a quick release lock.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because specification is silent about limitation “a quick release lock.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 5-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by D1 (Landwehr, DE 198 57 266).
For Claim 1, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-12, a wheel hub for clamping into a fork, the wheel hub comprising a wheel hub-axle (as shown below) and a hub housing (as shown below) held on the wheel hub- axle, wherein the wheel hub-axle is designed as a hollow shaft (P.3, para. [1]), and the wheel hub further comprises a thru-axle (1) which can be inserted through the hollow shaft (Hollow shaft surrounds axle 1, P.3, para. [1]) to clamp the wheel hub into a fork in order to subsequently fix it at its respective ends to the fork ends, characterized in that the wheel hub comprises a locking latch (5; P.3, para. [2]) movably held in the hub housing, which can be brought into a locking position to secure the thru-axle in the hollow shaft (Locking latch 5 engages a groove in axle 1. P.6, para. [5]), wherein the locking latch (5) engages in a recess provided on the thru-axle (Figure 8.)
PNG
media_image1.png
721
905
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For Claim 2, D1 discloses the wheel hub according to claim 1, characterized in that to lock the thru-axle (1) in the hollow shaft, the locking latch (5) can be inserted through an opening in the hollow shaft into the recess (Figures 7-8.)
For Claim 3, D1 discloses the wheel hub according to claim 1, characterized in that the thru-axle (1) has a quick-release lock at at least one of its ends (Figure 7.)
For Claim 5, D1 discloses the wheel hub according to claim 1, characterized in that the locking latch (5) can be biased by a spring (7, Figure 10), which brings the locking latch (5) into a locking position as its resting position (P.5, para. [2].)
Claim 6 (Currently Amended): The wheel hub according to claim 1, characterized in that the recess is designed as a circumferential groove on the thru-axle (Figure 8.)
For Claim 7, D1 discloses the wheel hub according to claim 1, characterized in that the recess is formed by at least one pocket (groove in axle 1 that receives the locking latch 5, Figure 8), which is created by a radial wedge-shaped cutout on the outer circumference of the thru-axle (Figure 8.)
For Claim 10, D1 discloses a wheel with a wheel hub according claim 1 (Description.)
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Landwehr, DE 198 57 266) in view of D2 (Leudtke et al., US Pub 20200331549).
For Claim 4, D1 discloses the wheel hub according to claim 1, but does not disclose characterized in that the wheel hub comprises an internal actuation mechanism inside the hub housing with an electrically driven motor, by which the locking latch is movable.
D2 teaches an actuation mechanism with motor 704 and cam 716 to lock and unlock a slider 714 (para. [0035]) providing a safe and reliable locking system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with an actuation system, such that the actuation mechanism disposed inside the hub housing with an electrically driven motor, by which the locking latch is movable, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a safe and reliable locking system.
For Claim 9, D1 discloses the wheel hub according to claim 4, but does not disclose characterized in that the locking latch (5) is actuated by an eccentric cam, which is mounted on an output shaft of the motor.
D2 teaches an actuation mechanism with motor 704 and eccentric cam 716 mounted on the motor shaft to lock and unlock a slider 714 (para. [0035]) providing a safe and reliable locking system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with an actuation system, such that the actuation mechanism disposed inside the hub housing with an electrically driven motor, by which the locking latch is movable, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a safe and reliable locking system.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Landwehr, DE 198 57 266) in view of D3 (Vetterick et al., DE 43 20 663).
For Claim 8, D1 discloses the wheel hub according to claim 7, but does not disclose characterized in that a plurality of pockets is provided, which are spaced radially from each other around the outer circumference of the thru-axle, and the wedge shape of a respective cutout has a complementary shape to the part of the locking latch that fully contacts the pocket when engaged.
D3 teaches a latch, for bicycle, with shaft 2 having plurality of wedge shape recesses 3 and matching locking bolt end 6a (P.5, para. [4]) providing a safe and secured latch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axle of D1 with a plurality of recesses (pockets), such that the plurality of recesses are spaced radially from each other around the outer circumference of the thru-axle, and the wedge shape of a respective cutout has a complementary shape to the part of the locking latch that fully contacts the pocket when engaged, as taught by D3 with a reasonable expectation of success of having a safe and secured lock.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Landwehr, DE 198 57 266) in view of D4 (Nicolai, US Pub 2006-0158022).
For Claim 11, D1 discloses a vehicle with a wheel according to claim 10, but does not disclose further comprising a fork with two fork legs, wherein at least one end of a fork leg has a closed bore for passing through the thru-axle.
D4 teaches a fork having two fork legs with at least one end of a fork leg has a closed bore (8) for passing through the thru-axle 18 (Figure 6) for ease of assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 with fork ends, such that at least one end of a fork leg has a closed bore for passing through the thru-axle, as taught by D4 with a reasonable expectation of success of providing ease of assembly.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides example of invention. A few of the prior art cited but not applied includes Watterson (US 1,150,406); Becker (US 10,173,465); and Terry (US 5,626,401).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, KRISTINA FULTON can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights