Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 301 to 352 of 352
  1. #301
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    745
    Reiterating, every element recited in a patent claim must be present in an accused device for that to infringe the claim and thus the patent.

    Each patent claim is analyzed separately for infringement. Because only one claim need be infringed to establish infringement of the patent, it is common for only one or two of the claims to be infringed.

    Also, here is how to read dependent claims:

    Claim 3 of the patent may be re written as follows:


    [1.] 3 A spoke for use in connection with a wheel, the spoke comprising:
    a braided fiber having a first end and a second end; and
    a rod having a first end and a second end, whereby the first end of the rod is threaded,
    wherein the second end of the rod is disposed inside the first end of the braided fiber, and wherein the braided fiber is configured to frictionally engage with the rod when tension is applied thereby reducing a diameter of the braided fiber surrounding the rod and increasing a holding force on the rod to inhibit the braided fiber from detaching from the rod.
    [2. The spoke of claim 1, ]wherein the second end of the rod is fastened to an inside of the first end of the braided fiber with adhesive.
    [3. The spoke of claim 2, ]wherein the adhesive consists of ethyl cyanoacrylate glue.

    Underlining indicates the addition of claims 2 and 3 to claim 1. The brackets indicate deleted text.

  2. #302
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    156
    Anything made by you before the patent was granted is exempt. Time travel doesn't exist.

    Infringement is possible in the US simply by you copying and executing their design, even for personal use (and if they go after anyone for that, they are d-bags - would it really be worth the expense to go after you legally?).

    If your method is significantly different than theirs, then you're not infringing. The key is in determining whether the differences are significant enough. Their patent has to be very specific as there is so little that is functionally different from a metal-spoked setup.

    Make an adhesive the method of securing the rod inside the "rope" and you've bypassed the finger trap patent. Or use a spoke chunk with an eyelet on one end and threads on the other.
    Change the method the rope attaches to the hub.
    You now have a significantly different product.
    Done.

    Look at Spyderco knives. That hole in the blade has to be circular for them to be able to go after anyone who does something similar. Make the hole a trapezoid, and they've got nothing on you.

  3. #303
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    745
    Also, it appears that using a patented device made before the patent was granted would constitute infringement. Although what Okashira has done presents a very unique fact pattern, if, in fact, one of his made designs infringes. I express no opinion on that issue.

    I am a lawyer, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

  4. #304
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,646
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Also, it appears that using a patented device made before the patent was granted would constitute infringement. Although what Okashira has done presents a very unique fact pattern, if, in fact, one of his made designs infringes. I express no opinion on that issue.

    I am a lawyer, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
    Does it matter if he isn't selling it?
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  5. #305
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Does it matter if he isn't selling it?
    I thought that it does matter, but I have since been educated that even making the item constitutes infingement.

  6. #306
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Reiterating, every element recited in a patent claim must be present in an accused device for that to infringe the claim and thus the patent.

    Each patent claim is analyzed separately for infringement. Because only one claim need be infringed to establish infringement of the patent, it is common for only one or two of the claims to be infringed.

    Also, here is how to read dependent claims:

    Claim 3 of the patent may be re written as follows:


    [1.] 3 A spoke for use in connection with a wheel, the spoke comprising:
    a braided fiber having a first end and a second end; and
    a rod having a first end and a second end, whereby the first end of the rod is threaded,
    wherein the second end of the rod is disposed inside the first end of the braided fiber, and wherein the braided fiber is configured to frictionally engage with the rod when tension is applied thereby reducing a diameter of the braided fiber surrounding the rod and increasing a holding force on the rod to inhibit the braided fiber from detaching from the rod.
    [2. The spoke of claim 1, ]wherein the second end of the rod is fastened to an inside of the first end of the braided fiber with adhesive.
    [3. The spoke of claim 2, ]wherein the adhesive consists of ethyl cyanoacrylate glue.

    Underlining indicates the addition of claims 2 and 3 to claim 1. The brackets indicate deleted text.

    Perfect, I think this helps.

    So the claims themselves are treated as "and" statements
    The dependent claims are treated as "and" statements to the prior claims
    Items within each claim are treated as "and" statements

    Individual claims are treated as "or" statements. (this patent has two individual claims)

    To elaborate, this tells me that if one was drafting their own patent, it would be desirable to limit the number of items within a claim and to reduce the number of dependent claims, would it not?

  7. #307
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Also, it appears that using a patented device made before the patent was granted would constitute infringement. Although what Okashira has done presents a very unique fact pattern, if, in fact, one of his made designs infringes. I express no opinion on that issue.

    I am a lawyer, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
    you disagree with robbnj, but since you didn't stay at the Holiday Inn i'll have to side with you (I am guessing that is some kinda lawyer joke )

  8. #308
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    745
    As noted above the patent act forbids making using selling offering to sell and importing. Any single one of those acts is an act of infringement.

    As a practical matter, there are no damages if there are no sales, or none that can be easily quantified. But patent litigation is often pursued primarily for the injunction against further infringement.

  9. #309
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    745
    Almost. Every claim is separate from every other claim in the sense that it is different and must be considered on its own. They are "or" statements as against each other.

    The patent has 20 claims. Two of the claims 1 and 19 can be read alone. The other 18 incorporate other claims. That's just shorthand notation so you don't have to repeat the claim language 20 times in full.

  10. #310
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    As noted above the patent act forbids making using selling offering to sell and importing. Any single one of those acts is an act of infringement.

    As a practical matter, there are no damages if there are no sales, or none that can be easily quantified. But patent litigation is often pursued primarily for the injunction against further infringement.
    Theoretically by giving instruction here they could go after damages that way, no?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  11. #311
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Also, it appears that using a patented device made before the patent was granted would constitute infringement. Although what Okashira has done presents a very unique fact pattern, if, in fact, one of his made designs infringes. I express no opinion on that issue.

    I am a lawyer, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
    You design/invent, and build a widget.
    Fred patents your invention.
    You now have no rights to the widget that you invented, built, and still own because Fred holds the patent on it?

    Color me intrigued.

  12. #312
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Theoretically by giving instruction here they could go after damages that way, no?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Nope. Public knowledge by way of the patent. The patent actually must be detailed enough that someone could use it to make the item you've patented.

    If the instrcution is shared in order to educate, it's cool. But, don't be a d-bag and share the instrux in order to help people infringe the patent.

  13. #313
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    Nope. Public knowledge by way of the patent. The patent actually must be detailed enough that someone could use it to make the item you've patented.

    If the instrcution is shared in order to educate, it's cool. But, don't be a d-bag and share the instrux in order to help people infringe the patent.
    That's not 100% accurate. The patent has to be clear enough that someone skilled in the art could use it, not just Joe Blow Public.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  14. #314
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Theoretically by giving instruction here they could go after damages that way, no?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Yes. Supplying commodity parts and instructing assembly into an infringing device is generally known as "active inducement" of infringement. Supplying specially made components, less than a whole, that are assembled into an infringing device is generally known as "contributory" infringement. This stuff can get super-complicated.

    Talking about a published patent application or granted patent, and what it discloses, alone is not likely to be considered any type of infringement. It would require suppplying some parts to a specific customer and giving them information to assemble the parts into an infringing whole.

  15. #315
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by robbnj View Post
    You design/invent, and build a widget.
    Fred patents your invention.
    You now have no rights to the widget that you invented, built, and still own because Fred holds the patent on it?

    Color me intrigued.
    That is a different deal entirely.

    Here every infringing act except use either didn't occur (sales, importation) or occurred prior to grant (making). Although it is a unique fact pattern, I believe use alone is sufficient to constitute patent infringement. There is an argument that infringement by "use" only occurs with method or process claims.

    There can also be liability from the date of publication rather than grant, if the claims dont change between publication and grant, which didn't happen here.

  16. #316
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Yes. Supplying commodity parts and instructing assembly into an infringing device is generally known as "active inducement" of infringement. Supplying specially made components, less than a whole, that are assembled into an infringing device is generally known as "contributory" infringement. This stuff can get super-complicated.

    Talking about a published patent application or granted patent, and what it discloses, alone is not likely to be considered any type of infringement. It would require suppplying some parts to a specific customer and giving them information to assemble the parts into an infringing whole.
    Thanks, I'm better versed in tech patents so I wasn't sure how that would apply here.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  17. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Thanks, I'm better versed in tech patents so I wasn't sure how that would apply here.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Haha I have to laugh at "tech." This is "tech." It's insulting to all kinds of engineers to consider only IT things "tech." The name "Big Tech" is a misnomer and fallacious.

    I saw a ridiculous headline a few years ago: "Boeing goes high tech" referring to installation of wifi equipment on an airliner. As if 100 years of aircraft design and manufacture is somehow "low tech." GMAFB.

    /end rant

    To your point, however, most "tech" patents, presumably meaning software, contain method or process claims that consist of a series of steps rather than a list of physical items or components. Indirect (meaning inducement of or contributory infringement) gets very, very tricky. Much easier to deal with "apparatus" claims.

  18. #318
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Haha I have to laugh at "tech." This is "tech." It's insulting to all kinds of engineers to consider only IT things "tech." The name "Big Tech" is a misnomer and fallacious.

    I saw a ridiculous headline a few years ago: "Boeing goes high tech" referring to installation of wifi equipment on an airliner. As if 100 years of aircraft design and manufacture is somehow "low tech." GMAFB.
    And I have to laugh at you for rejecting a word used in a way that has become ubiquitous.

    Seriously though, it wouldn't even need to be used in this case if the courts had some semblance of an understanding about software.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  19. #319
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,646
    So basically, all of us that are making our own home-made tire sealant are doing it illegally?

    I mean, technically, that's what all of us that are doing this are doing. We've figured out how to make something that works as well as what is sold by Stans, Orange, etc., we are using at least a very similar make-up and many of the same materials, and so on.

    I'd have to believe that the court would favor in your favor if you supplied your information on your process. While you may have been inspired by Berd to build your own polymer spoke wheels, you came up with your own open-source process to make these, in fact, you've documented it in this thread many times over, and these processes are different than Berd. That's what we did with sealant, we experimented with many materials until we settled on a formula that does what we want. They are simply trying to "strong arm" people in this thread that are interested in doing it themselves, because it's been revealed that it's something that can be done individually without big machinery and equipment. I'm sure they aren't happy about that.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  20. #320
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,959
    patent fights are not simple

    a water balloon patent fight cost 17 million dollars so far for the patent owner, and could go as high as 50 million by the time it is done
    -
    no one on either side can fight patents in courts unless you got financial backing deep enough
    -
    if Berd wants to pursue this they can



    it's probably best for the homemade poly spoke crowd to walk away from this issue

    for small potatoes sales like berd spokes, both sides, at a minimum, likely will be out $750,000 in legal fees just to -start- a patent battle
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  21. #321
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    So basically, all of us that are making our own home-made tire sealant are doing it illegally?

    I mean, technically, that's what all of us that are doing this are doing. We've figured out how to make something that works as well as what is sold by Stans, Orange, etc., we are using at least a very similar make-up and many of the same materials, and so on.

    I'd have to believe that the court would favor in your favor if you supplied your information on your process. While you may have been inspired by Berd to build your own polymer spoke wheels, you came up with your own open-source process to make these, in fact, you've documented it in this thread many times over, and these processes are different than Berd. They are simply trying to "strong arm" people in this thread that are interested in doing it themselves, because it's been revealed that it's something that can be done individually without big machinery and equipment. I'm sure they aren't happy about that.
    Not the same, I just did a quick Google patent search and the first three tire sealant patents are all expired.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  22. #322
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    Well this thread got interesting. I have to wonder why Berd bothered patenting something that is essentially tying rope in a known fashion, that anyone can do on their kitchen table.

    At any rate, I'll respect their patent.

  23. #323
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,646
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Not the same, I just did a quick Google patent search and the first three tire sealant patents are all expired.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Surely someone has a patent, Slime, WTB, etc. Patents can be renewed, I remember for a while that we all thought the FSR patent was expiring and it'd always end up renewed, until it eventually did expire, but it was way down the road from what we originally thought.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  24. #324
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Surely someone has a patent, Slime, WTB, etc. Patents can be renewed, I remember for a while that we all thought the FSR patent was expiring and it'd always end up renewed, until it eventually did expire, but it was way down the road from what we originally thought.
    With the recent relative explosion in that area I would think they are all expired. There is also the unique and not obvious criteria. With multiple holders holding patents on a relatively simple item they may be scared to push too hard on litigation out of fears of invalidation. The two I gave a skim at looked so similar I'm not sure how the second got granted.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  25. #325
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    273
    No patent expert, but I didn't think you could just renew. That would defeat the whole point of them expiring. I thought you could add to a patent, which would in a way renew, but couldn't just hit a button to get another 17(?) years.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  26. #326
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by compengr View Post
    No patent expert, but I didn't think you could just renew. That would defeat the whole point of them expiring. I thought you could add to a patent, which would in a way renew, but couldn't just hit a button to get another 17(?) years.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
    You can't except in the rare case you can get Congress involved.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  27. #327
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    And I have to laugh at you for rejecting a word used in a way that has become ubiquitous.

    Seriously though, it wouldn't even need to be used in this case if the courts had some semblance of an understanding about software.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Didn't mean to pick at you. It is the ubiquitousness of the term "tech" and its current definition with which I have a problem.

    The courts and principally the Supreme Court have jacked up software patent (and copyright to an extent) law to a fare the well. Still, its abstract yet material nature presents some difficult problems.

  28. #328
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    Didn't mean to pick at you. It is the ubiquitousness of the term "tech" and its current definition with which I have a problem.

    The courts and principally the Supreme Court have jacked up software patent (and copyright to an extent) law to a fare the well. Still, its abstract yet material nature presents some difficult problems.
    I get what you're saying. I still use the word technology in the sense you described. To me, "tech", is referring to an industry.

    It's rooted in ignorance on their behalf. Not a pejorative, I wouldn't expect a lay person to grasp all the concepts at play. Some of the criteria they settled on with Alice borders on the absurd.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  29. #329
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    So basically, all of us that are making our own home-made tire sealant are doing it illegally?

    I mean, technically, that's what all of us that are doing this are doing. We've figured out how to make something that works as well as what is sold by Stans, Orange, etc., we are using at least a very similar make-up and many of the same materials, and so on.

    I'd have to believe that the court would favor in your favor if you supplied your information on your process. While you may have been inspired by Berd to build your own polymer spoke wheels, you came up with your own open-source process to make these, in fact, you've documented it in this thread many times over, and these processes are different than Berd. That's what we did with sealant, we experimented with many materials until we settled on a formula that does what we want. They are simply trying to "strong arm" people in this thread that are interested in doing it themselves, because it's been revealed that it's something that can be done individually without big machinery and equipment. I'm sure they aren't happy about that.
    Patents cover very specific things, not general notions like "tire sealant" or "flexible spokes." You may be infringing a patent on a tire sealant with your home brew or maybe not. Depends on whether that formulation was patentable, and when, and whether anyone patented it.

    There are quite a few patents for "flexible spokes" of different configurations. Some are even expired or about to.

    Patent infringement is, for the most part, "strict liability," meaning you need not intend to infringe a patent, but if you do you do.

  30. #330
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    745
    And no a patent cannot be "renewed." It has a term of 20 years from its earliest filing date. It is subject to payment of maintenance fees at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after its grant date. Failure to pay those results in early expiration.

    There are some procedures by which improvements on an original idea are patented that can appear to be "extensions" of the original patent, but they are not. They are patents on the improvements, only.

    There is so much misinformation about patents out there, particularly on technical hobby boards like this one, which is a big reason I decided to give some examples on this thread because it has such concrete examples.

  31. #331
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    And no a patent cannot be "renewed." It has a term of 20 years from its earliest filing date. It is subject to payment of maintenance fees at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after its grant date. Failure to pay those results in early expiration.

    There are some procedures by which improvements on an original idea are patented that can appear to be "extensions" of the original patent, but they are not. They are patents on the improvements, only.

    There is so much misinformation about patents out there, particularly on technical hobby boards like this one, which is a big reason I decided to give some examples on this thread because it has such concrete examples.
    You also have the instances where you can get Congress to act if the USPTO drug its feet or interference happened. I do know those are extremely rare but they happen.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  32. #332
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    You also have the instances where you can get Congress to act if the USPTO drug its feet or interference happened. I do know those are extremely rare but they happen.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Oh yes, you are correct. There is such thing as a patent term extension, and it is an extension of the 20 year term. They are available only for pharmaceuticals or other items subject to approval by the FDA and compensate for "lost term" pending FDA approval.

    Pharma patent practice is super-rarefied stuff. Ordinary electro-chemical-mechanical types like me almost consider it an entirely different field.

    And, there are automatic term "adjustments" to compensate for PTO delay that usually appear on the face of the patent and are typically a matter of months or days. These just happen according to a formula that accounts for unusual delays by the Patent Office (PTO).

    The Berd patent has a term adjustment of 118 days. Assuming maintenance fees were paid, it would expire on May 5, 2036. But you have to add 118 days to that. Generally, we don't consider that too big a deal because in a lot of cases, patented technology is pretty obsolescent by the time it's 20 years old. Not always, but most of the time.

  33. #333
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Schulze View Post
    Well this thread got interesting. I have to wonder why Berd bothered patenting something that is essentially tying rope in a known fashion, that anyone can do on their kitchen table.

    At any rate, I'll respect their patent.
    As will I. As soon as I get a chance, I will go through the thread and cull out any information or anything that may be seen as encouragement on how to violate their patent, and the details of their methodology.

  34. #334
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    101
    spit balling here... what if one looped the cord through two spoke holes then tensioned at the hub. This would reduce nipple weight and threaded spoke weight at the rim and avoid the patent, but make it harder to true/tighten. aren't there hubs that tighten at the hub though?

  35. #335
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    101
    To be clearer, I would thread the cord through a nipple that has threads on the outside. The outside nipple threads would mate with threads on the inside of the hub flange. Pull that cord into one rim hole and out the next on the same side. This open end could then be fed back through another hub flange nipple or just tied off. Tensioning would be done by screwing the hub flange mounted nipple away from the hub. This would reduce total weight and more importantly rim weight. It also skips the tricky and sketchy (to me) aspects of the fingerlick design.

    This ‘fat hole’ nipple could also be placed in the rim and not the hub. Seems a better and lighter system to me.
    Last edited by andrew k; 2 Weeks Ago at 10:04 PM. Reason: Add note

  36. #336
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,646
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Not the same, I just did a quick Google patent search and the first three tire sealant patents are all expired.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Well, I found this, granted in 2004. Filed in 2002, application dated 2003. That means at worst, it'd expire in 2022, right?

    US Patent 6,782,931
    What is claimed is:

    1. A system for converting and retrofitting a bicycle wheel having a tire with an inner cavity engaged to a rim with an inner channel, comprising: a strip of rim tape disposed within said channel; a strip of sealing tape disposed within said channel, wherein said sealing tape completely covers said rim tape; and a liquid sealing compound disposed within said channel and said cavity and adapted for disposal within said wheel for sealing along said sealing tape and said beads, wherein said sealing compound comprises: about 3 parts by volume liquid latex; about 7 parts by volume water; and about 6 parts by volume propylene glycol.

    2. The system of claim 1 further comprising a valve stem inserted through a predetermined portion of said rim tape, said sealing tape, and said rim tape.

    3. The system of claim 1, wherein said sealing compound further comprises about 0.25 parts by volume of an aggregate material.

    4. The system of claim 3, wherein said aggregate material comprises particles ranging in diameter from about 0.15 millimeters to about 0.60 millimeters.

    5. The system of claim 3, wherein said aggregate material comprises cornmeal.
    Also see: United States Patent Application 20030136490
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  37. #337
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Well, I found this, granted in 2004. Filed in 2002, application dated 2003. That means at worst, it'd expire in 2022, right?

    US Patent 6,782,931


    Also see: United States Patent Application 20030136490
    Potentially, however that one is covering more than sealant which is a different problem statement. That's describing an entire system. You could probably get around it simply by removing the standard rim tape if you ever had to.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  38. #338
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    Potentially, however that one is covering more than sealant which is a different problem statement. That's describing an entire system. You could probably get around it simply by removing the standard rim tape if you ever had to.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    This is correct. This is directed to Stan's kits for "non-tubeless" rims, but as part of it recites the broad formula for the sealant.

    Also note that it expired early (June 2018) for failure to pay maintenance fees.

    And a very similar one, US7055569B2, also expired early.

  39. #339
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    This is correct. This is directed to Stan's kits for "non-tubeless" rims, but as part of it recites the broad formula for the sealant.

    Also note that it expired early (June 2018) for failure to pay maintenance fees.

    And a very similar one, US7055569B2, also expired early.
    I would imagine, layman's guess, that they probably decided it wasn't enforceable thus not worth paying?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  40. #340
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sissypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by andrew k View Post
    To be clearer, I would thread the cord through a nipple that has threads on the outside. The outside nipple threads would mate with threads on the inside of the hub flange. Pull that cord into one rim hole and out the next on the same side. This open end could then be fed back through another hub flange nipple or just tied off. Tensioning would be done by screwing the hub flange mounted nipple away from the hub. This would reduce total weight and more importantly rim weight. It also skips the tricky and sketchy (to me) aspects of the fingerlick design.

    This ‘fat hole’ nipple could also be placed in the rim and not the hub. Seems a better and lighter system to me.
    Pi-Rope has done something similar which requires proprietary hubs, as you need a threaded flange. With braided rope, you need to splice to get a strong junction, I'm not sure how splicing would fit into this description. Splicing is much stronger than knots or adhesive of any kind.

    I'd really avoid running rope through adjacent nipple holes as rims aren't designed to handle the stresses of a properly tensioned "spoke" laying across the rim bed. Alternatively, if you were to take two adjacent nipples and thread eyebolts into these adjacent nipples, then run rope from one hub flange through eyebolt 1, across to eyebolt 2, and down to the opposite flange on the other side of the hub, the angular force exerted on those two eyebolts for a properly tensioned spoke would torque the nipples out of the rim.

    One idea I have proposed earlier involves two adjacent eyebolts (A and B) attached to two adjacent nipples (A2 and B2) set on the rim bed. One end of the rope would be spliced into eyebolt A, passed through the corresponding hub flange, routed across the hub shell and passed through the opposite flange, and spliced taught through eyebolt B. Tensioning would be done by adjusting either nipple A2 or B2. Of course, a compatible spoke lacing pattern would have to be identified. This method would be faster and easier to build as it requires half of the amount of splicing. I think it would still be easy to true the wheel.

  41. #341
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    101
    sissypants- you are probably right about threading the cord through the rim.

    i think it should be possible, however, to make a proprietary nipple with an inside portion that accepts the cord through the middle. The cord could be overhand knotted to prevent it from pulling through the nipple. This would probably be a weak point. Rather than a proprietary hub, i would think it would be possible to slip a female proprietary nipple into the hub and rim to accept the proprietary male (outside threaded) nipple (the one with the cord through the middle). Maybe there just isn't enough room in the hub hole for the cord and a male/female sheath around it?

    your eyebolt solution sounds tenable as well.

  42. #342
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by tuckerjt07 View Post
    I would imagine, layman's guess, that they probably decided it wasn't enforceable thus not worth paying?

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
    Pretty good guess. Or not worth enforcing these last few years given that no one other than Stans seems to sell that type of kit and now plain ol rim tape, valves and sealant are the order of the day.

    Might be surprised too how often these fees just get missed from someone dropping the ball. It's discovered later and everyone just shrugs their shoulders and says "oh well." The fees can be paid much, much later upon payment of a hefty surcharge.

  43. #343
    Armature speller
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,806
    Like people forgetting to pay the yearly fee for "microsoft.com".

  44. #344
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,033
    @sissypants I think that idea falls apart at needing independent tension for every spoke. But I like it. Keep thinking. I still like the loop idea too. Patent got ends? Loop got no ends!

  45. #345
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    90
    so what about what pi-rope have been doing, different material and propirotary hub interfaces, anything there that coulds be adjusted

  46. #346
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    101
    i just looked at pi-rope. they seem to be doing just what i suggested above. Maybe it isn't possible, but i would think it would be possible to make a proprietary nipple that would be able to slide into most hubs - avoiding the need for a proprietary hub.

  47. #347
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sissypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Lefty View Post
    @sissypants I think that idea falls apart at needing independent tension for every spoke. But I like it. Keep thinking. I still like the loop idea too. Patent got ends? Loop got no ends!
    Darth, in all reality, would you actually need to tension two adjacent spokes independently? Instead of truing your wheel with 28 spokes, can't you true it with 14 spokes? That is, assuming each of these adjacent pairs of spokes share the same tension.

    The only reason I'm not a fan of the loop idea is because it seems like it would look "not cool". I do think you'd end up using nearly the same amount of material, maybe a little more, but that would outweigh the time spent doing a single splice rather than two for each spoke.

  48. #348
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sissypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by andrew k View Post
    i just looked at pi-rope. they seem to be doing just what i suggested above. Maybe it isn't possible, but i would think it would be possible to make a proprietary nipple that would be able to slide into most hubs - avoiding the need for a proprietary hub.
    The problem is the hub flange is soo small that by the time you have a female nipple behind the flange and going through the flange, and a male bolt going into the flange, you've got nothing left to epoxy in the rope, not to mention tensile strength of the system. Besides, you'll be adding weight (0.3g for the nipple, plus another 0.2-0.5g for the male bolt) and that defeats the purpose. It's also more complexity, more hardware, etc. You could make the hub flanges bigger, but you really don't want that extra nipple in the system, it just defeats the purpose.

  49. #349
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,033
    Quote Originally Posted by sissypants View Post
    Darth, in all reality, would you actually need to tension two adjacent spokes independently?
    If they are "adjacent" on the rim, yes. Each side has a different tension for dish.

    If they are "adjacent" on the hub yes too. Look at your lacing pattern. Gotta have crosses to receive the torque loads. Otherwise the torque will pull the string through the eye. Unless it's a rim brake front.

    I'm not saying there's no solution, I just can't visualize it yet.

  50. #350
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,100
    How about a purpose made hub shell? Make it so one piece of string goes from nipple to nipple and wraps partially around the hub where it is clamped. Then you can tension each side from the rim side.

    Just the shell, say for a DT 350. Swap over internals.

  51. #351
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Darth Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,033
    ooh, here's an idea to go with that. No hub holes at all. Hub torque received by friction of all the strings each wrapped halfway around it.

    Maybe you could macramé the strings into a kind of braid around the hub, push the hub into the center, tension it up.

    That would be a nightmare to start truing, I bet!

  52. #352
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,512
    Hey guys, I'm quite certain I'm going to attempt to build, slowly for my kid, a real WW hard tail 24" bicycle over the next 3-4 months to have it ready for when she is tall enough. Which is, uh definitely beyond my mechanical abilities.

    I'm planning to Alibaba a lot of stuff (i.e. bars, stem, cf frame mainly).

    Wheel choices appear to be pretty limited in this category so I'm probably going to have something built. Wondering if one of you wheel builder side guys would be interested in installing some Poly spokes on provided rims/ hubs?

    Also, if anyone has a lead on some inexpensive yet lightweight 24" wheels I'd love to hear it. Chinese made CF wheels would be ideal.

    Thanks!

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Polymer Berd Spokes
    By Jayem in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-17-2018, 08:02 AM
  2. Replies: 69
    Last Post: 09-10-2016, 12:07 AM
  3. Spokes Spokes Spokes
    By cb4photo in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-25-2008, 02:57 AM
  4. Ever wanted to own your own bike store?
    By pinkheadedbug in forum Eastern Canada
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-06-2007, 03:49 PM
  5. Own your own bike stable!!!
    By AZClydesdale in forum Where are the Best Deals?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-29-2004, 08:33 AM

Members who have read this thread: 458

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.