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 .
Claims 2-7, 10-12, 14, 16-20, and 22-25 have been canceled.
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, upper portions of the fork legs having the same circumference as the recessed areas 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.
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 1, 8-9, 13, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (USPN 5,310,203) in view of Lalikyan (USPN 6,412,803) and Tsai (USPN 9,598,137) and Tsai (USPN 9,598,137, cited 03/08/2018).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 13, and 15, Chen teaches a fork 10 for a mountain bike (in col. 1, lines 10-17; Chen suggests that a conventional bicycle is one that does not have a shock absorbing apparatus whereas a mountain bike is designed for off-road, rough terrain, and has shock absorbers; the Chen bicycle is designed for rough terrain and has resilient front forks, so Chen teaches using the fork on a mountain bike). The fork comprises a set of first tubes 20; and a set of second tubes 16 telescopically positioned within said set of first tubes, wherein both of the tubes of said set of first tubes comprises a recess (a laterally inner portion of each leg that tapers outwardly toward the bottom to provide a larger spacing between the lower ends of the first tubes than the spacing between the upper ends of the tubes and that has a smaller circumference that requires less material than larger circumference areas of the tube) configured for receiving at least a portion of a disc brake assembly (the brake assembly is not claimed and the increased spacing will allow space for a portion of a brake assembly if it were positioned at the wheel hub).
Chen is silent regarding a cylinder segment shape at the recesses, recesses of different sizes and upper portions having the same size circumference as the recessed areas.
Lalikyan teaches a vehicle front fork having upper and lower telescopically engaged sets of tubes 22, 24. At least one of the lower tubes 24b is generally cylindrical upper portion, with a constant cross section that is not recessed, and a lower recessed area with a flat notched section for receiving a flat brake rotor 14, thereby forming a cylinder segment cross sectional shape of the lower end of the tube 24b that appears to have a slightly smaller circumference than non-recessed areas. A disc brake assembly (including brake disc 14 is illustrated in Figures 4 and 6, coupled to wheel hub 8) is coupled with said disc brake caliper mount, said disc brake assembly being at least partially disposed within said recessed area. While the Lilikyan reference does not explicitly teach a recess as deep as the width of a brake rotor, it does illustrate a recess that has substantially that depth. Making the recess slightly deeper would have been an obvious design modification that would allow a narrower fork, thereby minimizing weight and bulk.
Tsai illustrates fork arms having lower areas with laterally recessed parts. The first fork leg 21 has a recess 24 where a brake rotor 300 is attached and upper areas there are not recessed (as seen in Figure 3, col. 3, lines 34-38). Tsai also teaches that the lower, recessed area of fork legs 21 is reinforced by expanding the circumference of the leg toward the rear at 28 and to the side at 29 at the recessed area 24 (col. 4, lines 14-24; Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed combination, to provide notch in the tubes of the front fork, as taught by Lalikyan, with a reasonable expectation of success, forming a cylinder segment shape, in order to accommodate a brake between the narrowly spaced fork legs 22, 24. Lalikyan shows the majority of the brake rotor width received within the recess, but not the entirety of the width of the rotor. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the tube with a deeper recess, wide enough to accommodate the entire width of the rotor, in order to minimize the width of the front fork, thereby minimizing the weight and bulk of the fork structure. Since both lower legs of Chen are tapered or recessed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide recesses forming a cylinder segment shape, as taught by Lalikyan, in both lower tubes in order to accommodate brake rotors on either side or both sides of the wheel hub and make the recesses difference sizes in order to accommodate brake discs of different size and/or to distribute weight and balance an otherwise unbalanced front fork. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the recessed areas of the tubes with the same circumference as the upper portions by expanding the tubes to the rear and/or to the side at the recessed areas, in view of Tsai, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reinforce the fork at the location where it is recessed and tends to be weaker than the non-recessed portions.
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Chen teaches a stopper element 201 (see Figures 3 and 4) disposed adjacent to an upper portion of said recess (upper end of lower cavity 202) and interior to a first leg tube 20 of said at least one first leg tube, wherein, during compression of said fork, said stopper element restricts a portion of a piston assembly 19 from entering an area within said first leg tube that is adjacent to said recess.
Regarding claim 9, Chen shows all of the claimed features including a front crown 2 with receiving ends that receive upper tubes 16 and the receiving ends are spaced at approximately the same distance as the distance between the tubular portions of the lower tubes that are not at the recess (most of the upper halves of the lower tubes 20 are straight and tubular and are spaced apart about the same distance as the space between the receiving ends).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s 1, 8, 9, 13, 15, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on 571-272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights