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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 5, 2025, regarding the specification objections (page 6) and claim objections (page 7) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related REJECTION/OBJECTION(S) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-9 (pages 7-11) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, therefore the related rejections have been maintained:
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 8, para. 1- para. 4) that Chen does not disclose the claimed seat tube structure and folding mechanism because Chen describes Connection Tube 18 as being “located on/ at the end of seat tube 14” and therefore the Connection Tube 18 and the Seat Tube 14 cannot be considered an “upper tube” and a “lower tube” of the seat tube in accordance with the claims, the examiner disagrees. A seat tube is commonly understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to mean a member of a bicycle frame which connects the top tube, bottom bracket, and seat stays together, while supporting the seat post. As seen in Fig. 1 of Chen, the Bottom Bracket 15 and Seat Stays 16 are connected directly to Seat Tube 14, but the Top Tube 12 is connected first to Connection Tube 18 and then to Seat Tube 14 via Seat Post 19, and further the Seat Post 19 is shown to be supported by both members, such that the combination of Connection Tube 18 and Seat Tube 14 are understood to fulfil to role of a seat tube.
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 8, para. 5- page 9, para. 2) that Chen does not disclose an upper tube and a lower tube that are selectively rotatable because the Chen describes rotation of Down Tube 13, but not rotation of Connection Tube 18 and the Seat Tube 14, the examiner disagrees, pointing to the 103 rejections of claim 1 in this and the previous office actions which states that it would have been obvious to rearrange the bicycle of Chen such that it folded about the seat tube, which would cause the Connection Tube 18 and the Seat Tube 14 to rotate with respect to each other. The examiner further notes that this aspect of the rejection has not been specifically addressed in the applicant’s response.
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 8, para. 5- page 9, para. 2) that Chen does not disclose the claimed locking clip because it does not restrict rotation between the upper tube and the lower tube, the examiner disagrees, pointing to the 103 rejections of claim 2 in this and the previous office actions which states that, because Bolt 141 and Lug 142 secure Seat Post 19 to Seat Tube 14 such that it secures Connection Tube 18 to Seat Tube 14 it can be said to restrict rotation between them; noting further that the claims do not require the Connection Tube 18 to be directly secured to the Seat Tube 14 by the locking clip.
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 10, para. 2) that Chen and Groendal together do not disclose the claimed connection between the downtube and the bottom bracket shell because Groendal’s Top Clip Member 92 is described in para. [0044] as connecting to a Rear-Facing Stem 72 of Head Tube 24, the examiner disagrees, noting that the same structure of the Top Clip Member 92 is also formed on the other end of Down Tube 22 and is connected to Bottom Bracket Shell 26 via Stem 82 as illustrated in Fig. 3 and discussed in the 103 rejections of claims 3 and 5 in this and the previous office actions; see also para. [0037].
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 10, para. 3) that Chen and Kao together do not disclose the claimed locking coupler because Coupling Tube 1 and Coupling Shaft 21 do not act form the locking coupler as claimed, the examiner disagrees, pointing to the 103 rejections of claim 7 in this and the previous office actions which relies on the Collar 22 and the Flange Member 11 of Kao to for the teachings of the claimed locking coupler.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US5360225A).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches a bicycle frame (Abstract) comprising:
a front frame (Front Frame A, Fig. 1) having a top tube (Top Tube 12, Fig. 1), a down tube (Down Tube 13, Fig. 1), and a head tube (Head Tube 11, Fig. 1), the top tube (12) being attached to the head tube (11) (as illustrated in Fig. 1), and the down tube (13) being positioned below the top tube (12) and further being attached to the head tube (11) (as illustrated in Fig. 1);
a rear frame (Rear Frame B, Fig. 1) having a pair of spaced-apart seat stays (Seat Stay 16, Fig. 1), a pair of spaced-apart chain stays (Chain Stay 17, Fig. 1), and a bottom bracket shell (Bottom Bracket Tube 15, Fig. 1), each of the seat stays (16) and the chain stays (17) having a rear end (right end in Fig. 1) and a front end (left end in Fig. 1), the rear ends of the seat stays (16) and the rear ends of the chain stays (17) being connected to a rear drop out (illustrated in Fig. 1 adjacent to Rear Wheel Center C2), the front end of each chain stay (17) being connected to the bottom bracket shell (15), and the down tube (13) being releasably connected to the bottom bracket shell (15) (Col. 2: Lines 11-26 teach the Down Tube 13 being fastened to the Bottom Bracket Shell 15 through Bushings 24 & 25; a person with reasonable skill in the art would recognize that said fastening could be unfastened such that the Down Tube 13 and the Bottom Bracket Shell 15 can be said to be releasably connected);
a seat tube (the combination of Seat Tube 14 and Connection Tube 18, Fig. 1) arranged between the front frame (A) and the rear frame (B) and coupled to the front frame (A) and the rear frame(B), the seat tube (14 & 18) having an upper tube (18) and a lower tube (14), the upper tube (18) and the lower tube (14) being selectively rotatable with respect to one another (a person with reasonable skill in the art would recognize that the Seat Tube 14 and the Connection Tube 18 would be capable of rotating about the Seat Post 19), the upper tube (18) being connected to the top tube (12) (as illustrated in Fig. 1), the lower tube (14) being connected to the front end of the seat stays (16) (as illustrated in Fig. 1), and the bottom bracket shell (15) being connected to the lower tube (14) (as illustrated in Fig. 1);
wherein the bicycle frame is adapted to be configured in a first position (as illustrated in Fig. 1) or a second position (as illustrated in Fig. 2), in the first position the front frame is positioned forwardly of the seat tube (as illustrated in Fig. 1), and in the second position the front frame is rotated rearwardly of the seat tube (as illustrated in Fig. 2).
A person with reasonable skill in the art might reasonably recognize that the bicycle frame could be moved from the first position to the second position by disconnecting the down tube (13) from the bottom bracket shell (15) and rotating the upper tube (18) of the seat tube with respect to the lower tube (14) of the seat tube, however Chen does not explicitly teach the bicycle folding about the seat tube (14 & 18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the bicycle of Chen such that it folded about the seat tube, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen further teaches a locking clip (the combination of Bolt 141 and Lug 142, Fig. 1) for selectively securing the upper tube (18) of the seat tube to the lower tube (14) of the seat tube to thereby restrict rotation therebetween (as Bolt 141 and Lug 142 secure Seat Post 19 to Seat Tube 14 such that it secures Connection Tube 18 to Seat Tube 14 it can be said to restrict rotation between them), the locking clip including a crank lock (142) that is adapted to move between a lock position and an unlock position (as a person with reasonable skill in the art would recognize when viewing Fig. 1).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Groendal (US20160288861A1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claims 3 and 5 (similar limitations, different dependency), Chen does not teach the down tube having a pinned connection to a stem of the bottom bracket shell.
Groendal teaches, in another bicycle frame (Abstract), a down tube (Down Tube 22, Fig. 3) which includes a frame engagement section (Top Clip Member 92, Fig. 6) including a transverse hole (Indentation 102, Fig. 6), and the bottom bracket shell (Bottom Bracket Shell 26, Fig. 3) includes a stem (Stem 82, Fig. 3) having a pair of spaced-apart flanges (Flanges 124, Fig. 6), each of the flanges (124) have a though hole which is aligned with one another (as illustrated in Fig. 6, the holes being engaged with Pin 128) and oriented axially with the transverse hole (102) of the frame engagement section (92), wherein the down tube (22) and the bottom bracket shell (26) are connected to one another by inserting the frame engagement section (92) between the flanges (124) so that the transverse hole (102) aligns with both of the through holes, and then inserting a locking pin (128) through the through holes and the transverse hole (102) (Paras. [0044]- [0046]).
Groendal’s locking pin is a clevis pin (Para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Chen and Groendal before them at the time of the invention, to modify Chen’s bicycle frame to include a down tube having a pinned connection to a stem of the bottom bracket shell as suggested by Groendal. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing the ability to disconnect the downtube from the bottom bracket shell that would beneficially allow for the bicycle to be more compactable for storage, and the install/uninstall of the pin performed without tools, thus beneficially increasing the user-friendliness of the bicycle frame.
Regarding Claims 4 and 6 (similar limitations, different dependency), Chen, as modified by Groendal above, includes all limitations (see rejection of the respective parent claim above, including details on Groendal’s locking pin as a clevis pin, as well as motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kao (US5419573A).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen does not teach a locking coupler.
Kao teaches, in another folding bicycle frame (Figs. 4 & 5), a locking coupler (the combination of Collar 22 and Flange Member 11, Fig, 1) for selectively securing an upper tube (Seat Post 2, Fig. 1) of a seat tube (the combination of Seat Post 2 and Coupling Tube 1, Fig. 1) to a lower tube (Coupling Tube 1, Fig. 1) of the seat tube (1 & 2) to thereby restrict rotation therebetween (Fig. 2 and Col. 3: Lines 19-34 teach Collar 22 and Flange Member 11 meshing together in a way that a person with reasonable skill in the art would recognize as restricting relative rotation), the locking coupler having a male coupler (Flange Member 11, Fig. 3) and a female coupler (Collar 22, Fig. 3), the male coupler (11) including {a} tongue member (Contour Portion 12, Fig. 3), and the female coupler (22) including {a} groove (Recess Portion 221, Fig. 3), the tongue members (12) and the grooves (221) being dimensioned so that the tongue members (12) are arranged inside the grooves (221) to prevent rotation between the upper tube (2) and the lower tube (1) (being meshed as discussed above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Chen and Kao before them at the time of the invention, to modify Chen’s bicycle frame to include the locking coupler as suggested by Kao. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of securely and selectively restricting the relative rotation of a front and a rear frame member that would beneficially provide a more solid yet collapsible frame.
Chen as modified above does not teach a plurality of tongue and groove members.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the singular tongue and groove members taught by Chen as modified above as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Kao and Groendal.
Regarding Claim 8, Chen, as modified above, does not teach the down tube having a pinned connection to a stem of the bottom bracket shell, but Groendal does (see the 103 rejection of claims 3 and 5 above, including evidence from Groendal for the modification, and motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen, as modified above, does not teach a clevis pin, but Groendal does (see the 103 rejection of claims 4 and 6 above, including evidence from Groendal for the modification, and motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611