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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/21/26 (hereinafter Response) has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application with claims 6-17 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Based on the arguments presented in the Response on pp.6-7 the 112(a) rejections raised in the final office action mailed 8/19/26 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,222,751 A to Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a bicycle frame (10) (Figs. 1 and 5) comprising:
a top tube (12) that connects to a head tube (11) at a front portion of the bicycle frame (10) (Figs. 1 & 5 and col lns 15-23 noting that Fig. 5 depicts the most relevant embodiment however Fig. 1 includes shared components of the bicycle frame of Fig. 5 as well as Fig. 1, e.g., the head tube 11.); a seat tube (14) that extends from a bottom bracket (15); a first seat stay (16) that connects to the top tube (12) at a first point of intersection (32) and a second seat stay (16) that connects to the top tube (12) at a second point of intersection (32) such that a back portion of the top tube (12) extends beyond the first point of intersection (32) and the second point of intersection (32) so that the top tube (12) is a cantilever; and a seatmast (28) sized to receive a seatpost (35), wherein the seatmast (28) extends upward from the top tube (12) at a location on the top tube (12) that is to the rear of the first point of intersection (32) and the second point of intersection (32) such that the back portion of the top tube (12) forms the cantilever, wherein the seatmast (28) extends upward from the top tube (12) at an angle such that a front of the seatmast (28) aligns with a front of the seat tube (14) and a rear of the seatmast (28) aligns with a rear of the seat tube (14) (Fig. 2 depicts first and second seat stays 16. Fig. 5 & col 3 lns 23-63 disclose and depict that the TT extends behind the junction of seat stays 16 and TT 12 and at a minimum forms a cantilever when the frame is in the folded position, e.g., see Fig. 3 as an example, however, examiner asserts a cantilever exists as shown in the assembled state as well).
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Chen further discloses a down tube (13) that extends from the head tube (11) to the bottom bracket (15) (Figs. 1 & 5 and col lns 15-23 and col 3 lns 23-44).
PNG
media_image1.png
134
118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 2, Chen further discloses a first support that extends from the seat tube (14) to the first seat stay (16) and a second support that extends from the seat tube (14) to the second seat stay (16) (Fig. 5 & col 3 lns 23-44 disclose that the seat stays 16 and seat tube are supported by welding).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 3, further comprising an opening (A) formed under the top tube (12) and configured to convey turbulent air from underneath the top tube (12) to behind the bicycle frame (10), wherein at least a portion of the opening (A) is formed by a bottom portion of the top tube (12), at least a portion of the opening is formed by the first seat stay (16) and the second seat stay (16), and at least a portion of the opening is formed by the first support and the second support (Annotated Fig. 2, Fig. 5 & col 3 lns 23-63 disclose and depict an opening formed between he seat tube 14 and the seat stays 16 below the top tube 12 that exists both in the embodiment of Fig. 1 and Fig. 5. Examiner asserts that depending on the environmental conditions and speed the bicycle is travelling, at least some air travelling over the bike would be non-laminar, turbulent air would flow through the opening A, e.g., when a bicycle is mounted to the roof of a vehicle travelling on the highway. Further, Examiner notes that the underlined clause is considered to be intended use as it is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and although fully considered – is not understood to affect the scope of the claim because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses a bicycle frame (10) (Figs. 1&5) comprising:
a top tube (12) that connects to a head tube (11) at a front portion of the bicycle frame (10) (Figs. 1 & 5 and col lns 15-23 noting that Fig. 5 depicts the most relevant embodiment however Fig. 1 includes shared components of the bicycle frame of Fig. 5 as well as Fig. 1, e.g., the head tube 11.); a seat tube (14) that extends from a bottom bracket (15); a first seat stay (16) that connects to the top tube (12) at a first point of intersection (32) and a second seat stay (16) that connects to the top tube (12) at a second point of intersection (32); a seatmast (28) sized to receive a seatpost (35), wherein the seatmast (28) extends upward from the top tube (12) at a location on the top tube (12) that is to the rear of the first point of intersection (32) and the second point of intersection (32) such that a back portion of the top tube (12) forms a cantilever,wherein the seatmast (28) extends upward from the top tube (12) at an angle such that a front of the seatmast (28) aligns with a front of the seat tube (14) and a rear of the seatmast (28) aligns with a rear of the seat tube (14) (Fig. 2 depicts first and second seat stays 16. Fig. 5 & col 3 lns 23-63 disclose and depict that the TT extends behind the junction of seat stays 16 and TT 12 and at a minimum forms a cantilever when the frame is in the folded position, e.g., see Fig. 3 as an example, however, examiner asserts a cantilever exists as shown in the assembled state as well); and an opening (A) formed under the top tube (12) and configured to convey turbulent air from underneath the top tube (12) to behind the bicycle frame (10) (Annotated Fig. 2, Fig. 5 & col 3 lns 23-63 disclose and depict an opening formed between he seat tube 14 and the seat stays 16 below the top tube 12 that exists both in the embodiment of Fig. 1 and Fig. 5. Examiner asserts that depending on the environmental conditions and speed the bicycle is travelling, at least some air travelling over the bike would be non-laminar, turbulent air would flow through the opening A, e.g., when a bicycle is mounted to the roof of a vehicle travelling on the highway. Further, Examiner notes that the underlined clause is considered to be intended use as it is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and although fully considered – is not understood to affect the scope of the claim because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 19, depending on claim 18, Chen further discloses a first support that extends from the seat tube (14) to the first seat stay (16); and a second support that extends from the seat tube (14) to the second seat stay (16) (Fig. 5 & col 3 lns 23-44 disclose that the seat stays 16 and seat tube are supported by welding).
Regarding claim 20, depending on claim 19, Chen further discloses wherein at least a portion of the opening (A) is formed by a bottom portion of the top tube (12), at least a portion of the opening (A) is formed by the first seat stay (16) and the second seat stay (16), and at least a portion of the opening is formed by the first support and the second support (Annotated Fig. 2, Fig. 5 & col 3 lns 23-63).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen.
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 2, further comprising a first chain stay (17) that extends from the bottom bracket (15) to the first seat stay (16) and a second chain stay (17) that extends from the bottom bracket (15) to the second seat stay (16) (Figs. 1 & 5 and col lns 15-23 and col 3 lns 23-44).
To the extent that an argument can be made that Chen does not explicitly/inherently disclose a second, non-drive side chain stay, Examiner asserts that including a non-drive side chain stay would be considered so old and well known in the art that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found prima facia obvious to modify Chen to include a second chain stay for supporting a rear wheel with a dropout on the drive side and the non-drive side and to improve the torsional rigidity/lateral strength of the frame. See the following examples, US 425,017 A, US 426,191 A, US 509,986 A, US 3,030,124 A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims being rejected under Nicol/Crusack 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20180086410-A1 to Hsu disclosing an alternative cantilevered rear portion of the top tube with seat stays joining the top tube in front of the cantilever.
US-20170210439-A1 to Schwaiger disclosing an alternative cantilevered rear portion of the top tube with seat stays joining the top tube in front of the cantilever.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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 at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
