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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Claims 11 and 18-20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “spoke nipple” in the claim 11 appears to be used by the claim to mean the headed portion of the spoke connecting structure (i.e., spoke nipple) that engages the rim structure or a separate washer (i.e., if the structure represented by the “spoke nipple” is a separate piece) that engages the rim structure (note paragraph [0075] of Applicant’s specification where the “tension adjustment element 4008 may be a separate piece from the spoke nipple 4002”) while the accepted meaning is “a typically cylindrical component that connects the spoke of a wheel to the rim” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. As such, the limitation “the spoke interfacing structure including a spoke nipple, a spoke engaging structure, and a tension adjustment element” is unclear and indefinite because the spoke nipple comprises the ”spoke engaging structure” and the “tension adjustment element”.
Regarding claim 18, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the faceted annulus”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (CN 113942340 A; hereinafter “Zhou”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou, in the embodiment of Figs. 19-22, discloses a wheel for a bicycle (evident from last paragraph on page 1 of the machine translation), the wheel comprising: a central hub 200 having a first end and a second end opposite the first end (Fig. 20), wherein the central hub is configured for rotational attachment to the bicycle (evident from last paragraph on page 1 of the machine translation); a rim 300 comprising a radially inner portion (unlabeled radially inner portion connected to spokes as shown in Fig. 6) disposed along an inner circumference of the rim (Fig. 6); a first spoke array (a first integral spoke assembly 100 shown in Fig. 20) removably attached to the central hub and the radially inner portion of the rim (Fig. 20), the first spoke array being at a first side of the wheel (Fig. 20) and comprising: a first central flange 14 (Fig. 21); and a plurality of first spokes 1 integral with and extending away from the first central flange, such that a first single part is formed (Fig. 21); and a second spoke array (a second integral spoke assembly 100 shown in Fig. 20) removably attached to the central hub and the radially inner portion of the rim (Fig. 20), the second spoke array being at a second side of the wheel (Fig. 20), the second side of the wheel being opposite the first side of the wheel (Fig. 20), the second spoke array comprising: a second central flange 14; and a plurality of second spokes 1 integral with and extending away from the second central flange, such that a second single part is formed (Figs. 20 and 21).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou further discloses the central hub comprises a first flange (a first flange 3 shown in Fig. 22) and a second flange (a second flange 3 shown in Fig. 22), the first flange being closer to the first end of the central hub than the second end of the central hub (Fig. 22), and the second flange being closer to the second end of the central hub than the first end of the central hub (Fig. 22), and wherein the first spoke array is removably attached to the first flange of the central hub (evident from Fig. 21), and the second spoke array is removably attached to the second flange of the central hub (evident from Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou further discloses the first central flange and the plurality of first spokes of the first spoke array are made of a first material (evident from S11 and S13 on page 9 of the machine translation), and the second central flange and the plurality of second spokes of the second spoke array are made of a second material (evident from S11 and S13 on page 9 of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou further discloses the first material and the second material are a same carbon fiber composite material (evident from S11 and S13 on page 9 of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou further discloses the first central flange is a first faceted annulus (Figs. 20 and 22), and the second central flange is a second faceted annulus (Figs. 20 and 22).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou further discloses each of the first faceted annulus and the second faceted annulus has an inner surface that is shaped as a pentagon (Figs. 20 and 22).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou further discloses the central hub further comprises a first boss (unlabeled, but shown in Fig. 22) extending between the first flange and the first end (Fig. 22), and a second boss (implicit from Figs. 20 and 22) extending between the second flange and the second end, and wherein an outer surface of the first boss is a same shape as the inner surface of the first faceted annulus (Figs. 20 and 22), and an outer surface of the second boss is a same shape the inner surface of the second faceted annulus (Figs. 20 and 22).
Regarding claim 12, Zhou discloses a spoke array 100 that is removably attachable to a central hub 200 and a rim 300 of a wheel for a bicycle (Abstract; last paragraph on page 1 of the machine translation), such that the spoke array forms all spokes 1 of one side of the wheel (Fig. 20), the spoke array comprising: a central flange 14; and a plurality of spokes 1 integral with and extending away from the central flange, such that a single part is formed (Figs. 20 and 21).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou further discloses the central flange is a faceted annulus having an inner surface that is shaped as a pentagon (Figs. 20 and 22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Mercat et al. (US 2007/0046097 A1; hereinafter “Mercat”).
Regarding claim 5, although Zhou further discloses the rim further comprises: a first sidewall (unlabeled but shown in Fig. 6); a second sidewall (unlabeled but shown in Fig. 6) spaced apart from the first sidewall, wherein the first sidewall and the second sidewall extend radially outward from the radially inner portion (Fig. 6); and a radially outer tire engaging portion (unlabeled but shown in Fig. 6) disposed along an outer circumference of the rim, the radially outer tire engaging portion extending from the first sidewall and the second sidewall, respectively (Fig. 6), Zhou fails to expressly disclose the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the radially outer tire engaging portion, and the radially inner portion of the rim are made of a third material, the third material being a carbon fiber composite material.
Mercat, however, teaches a wheel for a bicycle in which the first sidewall 9, the second sidewall 10, the radially outer tire engaging portion 8, and the radially inner portion 7 of the rim 3 are made of a third material, the third material being a carbon fiber composite material (paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Zhou by forming the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the radially outer tire engaging portion, and the radially inner portion of the rim from a carbon fiber composite material, such as taught by Mercat, as a well-known bicycle rim material that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a rim with desired material and physical properties, such as a good strength-to-weight ratio.
9. Claims 9, 10, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Tsai (US 2009/0152938 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou fails to disclose the first and second bosses having the claimed first and third retention features, respectively, and the first and second faceted annuli having the claimed second and fourth retention features, respectively. Instead, Zhou discloses the first and second faceted annuli being retained to the outer surfaces of the first and second bosses, respectively, via a bolted connection (i.e., bolts extend through connecting holes 16 in the central flanges to threaded holes 34 in the respective flanges of the central hub as evident from Figs. 20-22) between the faceted annuli and the respective flanges of the central hub.
Tsai, however, teaches a wheel wherein a first boss 11 comprises a first retention feature 31 at the outer surface of the first boss (Fig. 3; paragraph [0021]), and a first annulus (i.e., a first connection ring 23) comprises a second retention feature 32 at the inner surface of the first annulus (Fig. 2; paragraph [0021]), the second retention feature being configured to interact with the first retention feature (Fig. 3; paragraph [0021]), such that the first spoke array is attached to the central hub (Fig. 3), and wherein the second boss 12 comprises a third retention feature 31 at the outer surface of the second boss (Fig. 3; paragraph [0021]), and a second annulus (i.e., a second connection ring 23) comprises a fourth retention feature 32 at the inner surface of the second annulus (Fig. 2; paragraph [0021]), the fourth retention feature being configured to interact with the third retention feature (Fig. 3; paragraph [0021]), such that the second spoke array is attached to the central hub (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Zhou by substituting its annuli retention arrangement for the claimed annuli retention arrangement, such as taught by Tsai, as a well-known alternative configuration that would have a reasonable expectation of success for ensuring the respective annuli remain secured to the respective bosses of the central hub during use of the wheel.
Regarding claim 10, Zhou further teaches the first retention feature is a first detent feature (i.e., “recesses” per paragraph [0023]) that extends into the first boss, and the second retention feature is a second detent feature (i.e., “ribs” per paragraph [0023]) that extends away from the inner surface of the first annulus, and wherein the third retention feature is a third detent feature (i.e., “recesses” per paragraph [0023]) that extends into the second boss, and the fourth retention feature is a fourth detent feature (i.e., “ribs” per paragraph [0023]) that extends away from the inner surface of the second annulus.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Zhou fails to disclose the faceted annulus comprises a retention feature at an inner surface of the faceted annulus, wherein the retention feature is a protrusion extending from the inner surface of the faceted annulus, radially inwardly. Instead, Zhou discloses the first and second faceted annuli being retained to the outer surfaces of the first and second bosses, respectively, via a bolted connection (i.e., bolts extend through connecting holes 16 in the central flanges to threaded holes 34 in the respective flanges of the central hub as evident from Figs. 20-22) between the faceted annuli and the respective flanges of the central hub.
Tsai, however, teaches a spoke array in which an annulus (i.e., connection ring 23) comprises a retention feature 32 at an inner surface of the annulus, wherein the retention feature is a protrusion (i.e., “ribs” per paragraph [0023]) extending from the inner surface of the annulus, radially inwardly (Fig. 2; paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Zhou by substituting its annulus retention arrangement for the claimed annulus retention arrangement, such as taught by Tsai, as a well-known alternative configuration that would have a reasonable expectation of success for ensuring the respective annuli remain secured to the respective bosses of the central hub during use of the wheel.
10. Claim 11, as best understood in light of the section 112 issues noted above, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Walthert et al. (US 2014/0239703 A1; hereinafter “Walthert”).
Although Zhou further discloses a spoke interfacing structure (i.e., rim connecting part 13 shown in Fig. 19) for fixing the spokes to the rim, Zhou fails to expressly disclose the spoke interfacing structure including a spoke nipple, a spoke engaging structure, and a tension adjustment element, wherein the tension adjustment element is located within the rim, above the spoke nipple.
Walthert, however, teaches a spoke interfacing structure including a spoke nipple (i.e., spherical head 26 of spoke nipple 5 and/or reinforcing unit 6), a spoke engaging structure (internal thread of spoke nipple 5 that receives the external threads of the spoke 4 as described in paragraph [0058]), and a tension adjustment element (“tool engagement point 27” as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the tension adjustment element is located within the rim 2, above the spoke nipple (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Zhou by utilizing a spoke interfacing structure which includes a spoke nipple, a spoke engaging structure, and a tension adjustment element, wherein the tension adjustment element is located within the rim, above the spoke nipple, such as taught by Walthert, as a well-known spoke interfacing structure that would have a reasonable expectation of success in connecting the spokes to the rim while providing means for the tensioning of the spokes.
11. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Theuer (US 2010/0019564 A1).
Regarding claims 13-16, although Zhou further discloses the central flange and the plurality of spokes integral with the central flange are made of a carbon fiber composite material (evident from S11 and S13 on page 9 of the machine translation) including carbon fibers of reinforcing material (evident from S11 and S13 on page 9 of the machine translation), Zhou fails to expressly disclose the carbon fiber composite material includes a matrix of a polymer-based material, wherein a continuous fiber of the carbon fibers extends from a first spoke of the plurality of spokes to a second spoke of the plurality of spokes via the central flange, wherein the first spoke is at an acute angle relative to the second spoke.
Theuer, however, teaches a wheel in which a central flange (flange defined by the intersection of rings 4 at the center of the wheel as shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 5) and the plurality of spokes 9 integral with the central flange are made of a carbon fiber composite material (paragraph [0022]), and wherein the carbon fiber composite material includes a matrix of a polymer-based material and fibers of reinforcing material (“synthetic-resin-impregnated wound carbon fibres” per paragraph [0022]), the fibers being carbon fibers (paragraph [0022]), wherein a continuous fiber of the carbon fibers extends from a first spoke (a first spoke 9 partially defined by a first ring 4) of the plurality of spokes to a second spoke (a second spoke 9 partially defined by the first ring 4) of the plurality of spokes via the central flange (paragraph [0023]; Fig. 5), wherein the first spoke is at an acute angle (e.g., 72° for the embodiment of Fig. 5) relative to the second spoke (paragraph [0023]; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel of Zhou by utilizing a carbon fiber composite material that includes a matrix of a polymer-based material wherein a continuous fiber of the carbon fibers extends from a first spoke of the plurality of spokes to a second spoke of the plurality of spokes via the central flange, wherein the first spoke is at an acute angle relative to the second spoke, such as taught by Theuer, as a well-known carbon fiber composite arrangement for forming the spoke array that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing desired physical and material properties such as a good strength-to-weight ratio.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 20 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
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows other examples of integrally formed spoke arrays for bicycle wheels.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights