DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose the substructures being formed of multiple pieces (claim 1).
In response to applicants arguments, the examiner agrees, but argues that it would have been obvious to have formed the thermoplastic substructures of multiple pieces of fiber meshes to allow for easier, and cheaper manufacture within the molds by having less waste caused by using larger fiber meshes of fiber and avoiding creases due to folding of longer pieces of fiber mesh, especially around bends and cross-members.
Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose the substructures fiber meshes being formed of discontinuous fibers (claim 8).
In response to applicants arguments, the examiner disagrees, and argues that carbon fiber weaves inherently already contain multiple individual filaments of carbon fiber of varying lengths which are bundled into tows/strands (K-count is a known measure of the number of filaments in a single tow/strand), which are then bundled into in to yarns, which are woven into the carbon fiber mesh. This characteristic of carbon fiber meshes is interpreted to encompass applicant’s claim of discontinuous reinforcement fibers.
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 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellanca et al. (US 5,011,172) in view of Voss et al. (US 5,557,982).
In Re claim 1, Bellanca et al. disclose a composite bicycle frame structure, comprising: a thermoplastic material with axial and radial cross-oriented fibers within the thermoplastic material (col. 3, lines 43-68), wherein the composite structure comprises first and second substantially semicylindrical sub-structures (42, 44; fig. 8) that are the same cross-sectional shape, and wherein the semicylindrical sub-structures include an overlapping region (43; fig. 8). The examiner points out that the intended use and the environment for usage are the same as applicant’s (a bicycle frame structure). The examiner therefore asserts that Bellanca’s fiber-reinforced composite structure is capable of, and is intended to, limit vibrations to less than 5.0m/s2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have designed and constructed the composite structure of Bellanca to limit vibration to less than 5m/s2 in order to prevent shocks and vibrations for a more comfortable ride.
Bellanca fails to disclose that the substructures are formed of several pieces.
However, the examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the thermoplastic substructures of any number of pieces of fiber meshes as a matter of obvious design choice, simply to allow for folding-crease-free, easier, and cheaper manufacture within the molds by having less waste caused by using larger meshes of fiber, especially around bends and cross-members. The examiner notes that it constructing a formerly integral structure into several elements involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP2144.04).
Bellanca fails to disclose an outermost layer of hoop-wound fibers.
Voss et al. is related to the art of fiber-reinforced composite bicycle frames. Voss et al. teach the concept of laying outer hoop-wound reinforcement fibers in a substantially transverse direction to at least one fiber direction of a respective substructure (see figs. 2B and 2C) and the direction of the fiber-reinforced composite structure (see “Direction Axis Of Bar”); wherein outer layer hoop-wound fibers (OL’) are substantially transverse to the direction of middle layer fibers (ML); and the middle layer fiber (ML) are substantially transverse to the fiber direction of inner layer fibers (IL’). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the fiber-reinforced composite structure of Bellanca to include outermost hoop-wound fibers laid in a transverse directions of the fiber-reinforced composite structure, as taught by Voss et al., simply to provide an increase in strength, and improve the connection between the two substructures of the fiber-reinforced composite structure of Bellanca.
In Re claim 2, see fig. 1 of Bellanca.
In Re claim 3, the fiber-reinforced composite structure of Bellanca, as modified, does not specifically show a damping coefficient greater than 0.5 Ibf s/in. However, the claimed feature is considered to be an engineering design criteria and material property of fiber-reinforced composites. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the proper damping coefficient for the composite structure of Bellanca in order to meet a certain requirement in the use of the composite structure such as damping shocks and vibration to provide a more comfortable ride for a bicycle rider. The examiner further notes that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP2144.05).
In Re claim 7, the transverse fibers of Ballanca are inherently discontinuous as the structure is C-shaped. Voss et al. also show discontinuous fibers (see figs. 2A-2C).
In Re claim 8, Bellanca et al. disclose a composite bicycle frame structure, comprising: first and second substantially semicylindrical fiber-reinforced sub-structures (42, 44; fig. 8) that are the same cross-sectional shape, and wherein the semicylindrical sub-structures include an overlapping region (43; fig. 8) which is greater than 0.03 inches in a circumferential/radial direction. The examiner points out that the intended use and the environment for usage are the same as applicant’s (a bicycle frame structure). The examiner therefore asserts that Bellanca’s fiber-reinforced composite structure is capable of, and is intended to, limit vibrations to less than 5.0m/s2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have designed and constructed the composite structure of Bellanca to limit vibration to less than 5m/s2 in order to prevent shocks and vibrations for a more comfortable ride. As best understood, carbon fiber weaves inherently already contain multiple individual filaments of carbon fiber of varying lengths which are bundled into tows/strands (K-count is the measure of the number of filaments in a single tow/strand), which are then bundled into in to yarns, which are woven into the carbon fiber mesh, thus reading on the claimed “discontinuous reinforcement fibers”.
Bellanca fails to disclose an outermost layer of hoop-wound fibers.
Voss et al. is related to the art of fiber-reinforced composite bicycle frames. Voss et al. teach the concept of laying outer hoop-wound reinforcement fibers in a substantially transverse direction to at least one fiber direction of a respective substructure (see figs. 2B and 2C) and the direction of the fiber-reinforced composite structure (see “Direction Axis Of Bar”); wherein outer layer hoop-wound fibers (OL’) are substantially transverse to the direction of middle layer fibers (ML); and the middle layer fiber (ML) are substantially transverse to the fiber direction of inner layer fibers (IL’). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the fiber-reinforced composite structure of Bellanca to include outermost hoop-wound fibers laid in a transverse directions of the fiber-reinforced composite structure, as taught by Voss et al., simply to provide an increase in strength, and improve the connection between the two substructures of the fiber-reinforced composite structure of Bellanca.
In Re claim 9, as best understood, the overlapping joint of Bellanca is the same as applicant’s, and therefore meets the limitations of a “scarf” joint.
In Re claim 10, see fig. 1, 2, 5, and 6 of Bellanca, which show many other substructures of the fiber-reinforced composite bicycle frame structure. Figs. 7-9 of Bellanca show that various overlapping joints are possible for use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are hereby allowed.
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 THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616