DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 01/22/26 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1-2, 5, 7 and 13 are maintained as previously presented. The examiner inadvertently selected the incorrect box on the prior PTO-892; line 11 has now been corrected and all the objection to the drawings have been withdrawn. In view of amendment, claims 1-16 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026, regarding Baenziger fails to teach “push bike mode” (‘Remarks’, page 7) have been fully considered but was not found persuasive for this reason: Shown in fig. 6 of Baenziger, a user propels the bicycle using their feet on the ground, allowing user cycling in a push mode typically before mastering pedaling that includes pedal and circular crank wheel, allowing a conventional cycling in the bicycle mode. The dual-mode functionality provides development advantages, allowing user, or child to transition from balance training to pedaling without switching vehicle. Baenziger teaches that the disclosed bicycle frame geometry supports push-bike mode of operation, as the rider can propel and control the bicycle using ground-pushing rather than pedal-driven rotation whenever needed, The reference explains that the seat-tube and bottom-bracket configuration allows the rider to place a foot flat on the ground while remaining seated, thereby enabling forward motion through foot-pushing in the same manner as a balance bike. This inherent capability demonstrates that Baenziger’s design accommodates and anticipates a push-mode riding condition, in which the bicycle can be operated without engaging the pedals and instead advanced by the rider’s feet contacting the ground. Accordingly, Baenziger teaches the functional characteristics of a push-bike mode and supports the understanding that the bicycle can be ridden using push-mode operation when required. It should be noted that the term “child” may not denote a fixed age range, it inherently implies structural and ergonomic features tailored to the physical and development characteristics of young user, such as “child”.
Applicant’s further argument (‘Remarks’, page 8) regarding Baenziger fails to disclose or suggest “the claimed geometrical relationship disclosed and claimed by applicant that enables a Dual-Mode-operation.” have been fully considered but was not found persuasive for this reason: as depicted in fig. 6 of Baenziger, the bicycle includes a frame geometry and horn tube arrangement configured to accommodate user across an unknown or variable age range, including children. The design enables operation in both pedal mode and push-assisted mode, wherein one leg remains in contact with the ground for stability. Notably, the crank wheel is positioned proximate to ground level, which facilitates access and propulsion for users for varying statures.
The mathematical relationship recited in the claims, such as (xz = B * xb, where 0.62 < B < 0.7) not an abstract construct but is directly defined by and derived from the bicycle’s geometrical configuration, as taught in the prior art of record. As explained in detail in the 35 U.S.C §103 rejection below, Baenziger discloses specific structural relationships between the seat-tube position, bottom-bracket location, and rider reach geometry that inherently establish the same quantitative parameters reflected in the claim mathematical value. Because these geometrical constraints dictate the rider’s leg extension, ground-reach capability, and push-mode operability, the resulting mathematical relationship is simply a formal expression of the physical dimensions already taught by Baenziger. Accordingly, the cited reference provides the underlying structural disclosure that supports the claimed mathematical relationship.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baenziger (US 2012/0205891 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baenziger teaches:
A frame for a bicycle (10, see Fig. 1) for a child (fig. 6 illustrates use of the bicycle by a child, and although no specific age range is provided, the depiction is understood to represent a child user, see MPEP 2111.02 regarding intended use and the effect of preamble), the frame comprising:
a main tube (64, 65, 66 and 68) having a first end and second end; [See annotated fig 3 below and para. 0033 where components 64, 65, 66 and 68 are interpreted as being a main tube having a first end and a second end];
a head tube (30) connected to the first end; [ see annotated fig. 3 below]
a pedal assembly (fig. 5) mechanically connected to the main tube (64,64,66 and 68), [see fig. 5 depicting a pedal assembly including a crankset and pedals]
wherein the pedal assembly (fig. 5) forms a pedal circle (24) [ see para. 0023 and fig. 3]; and
a seat tube (52) connected to the main tube (64, 65, 66 and 68) [ para. 0028, line 5 where 52 is welded to portion of main tube 64, 65, 66 and 68], wherein the seat tube (52) is configured to support a saddle (14) [ see fig. 3 and para. 0036, line 5 where saddle 14, interpreted as including the saddle 14 and the seat post, is positioned in seat tube 52], wherein the saddle (14) is configured to slide along the seat tube (52) [ para. 0021 and para. 0036 disclose where seat post is slidably engaged in the tube] in a plurality of intermediate positions between a fully retracted position and a fully extended position [fig. 1, 3 and para. 0036 / 0039], wherein the seat tube (52) is so arranged, with respect to the main tube (64, 65, 66 and 68), that, whatever the position of the saddle (14) is between the fully retracted position and the fully extended position [ fig. 1 and 3 and para. 0036 / 0039], distances xz (xz) and xb (xb) satisfy a relationship [ see annotated fig. 3 below]:
wherein xz (xz) [see annotated fig. 3 below] is the distance between an upper center of gravity of the saddle and a plane surface (64) [fig. 1] substantially parallel to the ground surface (12), containing a center (65) of the pedal circle (24) and xb (xb) is the distance between the upper center of gravity and the center (65) of the pedal circle (24) [See annotated fig. 3 below], and
wherein the relationship between xz and xb enables the bicycle to be used in a push bike mode or a bicycle mode [ ‘Abstract’ teaches: “a bicycle design includes a seat tube affixed to the chain stay at a fixed distance rearward of the bottom bracket so that the rider sitting on the saddle can comfortably fully extend one leg to place a foot flat on the ground or to use the proper full leg extension for pedaling”; It should be noted that a push bike mode refers to a configuration in which a rider propels the bicycle forward by pushing with their feet on the ground as depicted in fig. 6, rather than using pedals and in bicycle mode refers to the conventional operation configuration in which the rider propels the vehicle using pedals as depicted in fig. 6; thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a child-specific bicycle with dual-mode functionality as discloses by Baenziger.
Baenziger does not appear to explicitly disclose the geometrical relationship between xz and xb as mentioned below:
xz = B * xb
0.62 < B < 0.7
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle frame geometry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed relationship of xz and xb as being xz = B * xb; 0.62 < B < 0.7; because defining the relationship of xz and xb is the result of mere optimization of variables, e.g., those discussed in [0010] of Baenziger, that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed mathematical relationship, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of mathematical relationship would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
933
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig: Annotated fig. 3 of Baenziger
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Baenziger further discloses: wherein the seat tube (52) is so arranged, with respect to the main tube (64, 65, 66 and 68), that, when the saddle is in the fully retracted position [ fig. 1; distance 16 between saddle 14 and ground 12], the distances xz and xb satisfy a relationship [ fig. 1]:
Baenziger does not appear to explicitly disclose when the saddle in is the fully retracted position, the distances xz and xb satisfy the relationship:
xz = D * xb
0.62 < D < 0.63.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle frame geometry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed relationship of xz and xb as being xz = B * xb; 0.62 < B < 0.63; because defining the relationship of xz and xb is the result of mere optimization of variables, e.g., those discussed in [0010] of Baenziger, that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed mathematical relationship, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of mathematical relationship would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Baenziger further discloses wherein the seat tube (52) is so arranged, with respect to the main tube (64, 65, 66 and 68), that, when the saddle is in the fully extended position [ fig. 3; distance 46 between saddle 44 and ground 12], the distances xz and xb satisfy a relationship [fig. 3]:
Baenziger does not appear to explicitly disclose when the saddle is in the fully retracted position, the distances xz and xb satisfy the relationship:
xz = E * xb
0.69 < D < 0.7.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle frame geometry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed relationship of xz and xb as being xz = E * xb; 0.69 < B < 0.7; because defining the relationship of xz and xb is the result of mere optimization of variables, e.g., those discussed in [0010] of Baenziger, that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed mathematical relationship, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of mathematical relationship would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 1: Baenziger further discloses, wherein the seat tube (52) is so arranged, with respect to the main tube (64, 65, 66 and 68), that, whatever the position of the saddle is between the fully retracted position (see fig. 1; para. 0039 and distance 16) and the fully extended position (see fig. 3 and distance 46), a line joining an upper center of gravity, and the center of the pedal circle forms an angle (A) [see annotated fig. 3 of Baenziger below], with respect to a portion of the main tube (64, 65, 66 and 68) adjacent to the second end, between 39o and 45.5° [Para. [0040] where included angle 54 between leg dimension 16 and 18 for the shorter rider on the fully retracted position, shown, in FIG. 1, is 45°. The leg dimension is shown intersecting bottom bracket 65 which is the center of the pedal circle and therefore the angle 54 is interpreted as being equivalent to the angle formed between the center of the pedal circle, the center of gravity of the seat, and a vertical line to the ground. Based on the Pythagorean theorem, the angle opposite to 54, (A) shown in Annotated Fig. 3 below, also is 45o.
Using the same logic as the fully retracted position, Para. [0040] discloses where included angle 56 between leg dimensions 46 and 48 for the taller rider on the fully extended position shown, in FIG. 3, is 37°. Therefore, the angle opposite to 56, (A) is 53o.]
Based on the above, Baenziger discloses the angle A is between 37o and 45° and thus Baenziger does not explicitly disclose the angular value between 39o and 45.5o
However, MPEP 2144.05.I, citing to the holding in In re Wertheim, states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle frame geometry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed angular range of 39o and 45.5o.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed geometrical value, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of geometrical value would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
PNG
media_image2.png
618
976
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig: Annotated fig. 3 of Baenziger
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 1, Baenziger further discloses wherein a distance xf is between 47 mm and 67 mm, wherein the distance xf is a projection, along the direction of a portion of the main tube adjacent to the second end of a distance between the center of the pedal circle and an intersection between an axis of the seat tube and the ground surface. [See Annotated fig. 1 of Baenziger below].
Baenziger does not appear to explicitly disclose that the distance xf is a value which is between 47 mm and 67 mm.
PNG
media_image3.png
855
1228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle frame geometry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the xf value as being 47mm and 67mm is the result of mere optimization of variables, that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Fig: Annotated fig. 1 of Baenziger
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed xf value, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of geometrical value would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 1, wherein Baenziger further discloses that the seat tube (52) is so arranged, with respect to the main tube (64, 65, 66 and 68), that the distances xc (xc) and xp (xp) satisfy a relationship (See annotated fig. 3 of Baenziger below):
wherein xc is the distance between an upper center of gravity of the saddle in the fully retracted position and the upper center of gravity of the saddle in the fully extended position, and xp is a diameter of the pedal circle. (See annotated fig. 3 of Baenziger below).
Baenziger does not appear to explicitly disclose the distances xc and xp satisfy the relationship:
PNG
media_image4.png
33
86
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle frame geometry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed relationship of xc and xp as being xc = D* xp; 0.73 < B < 0.8; because defining the relationship of xc and xp is the result of mere optimization of variables, e.g., those discussed in [0036 and 0039] of Baenziger, that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed mathematical relationship, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of mathematical relationship would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
PNG
media_image5.png
588
915
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3 of Baenziger
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 1, Baenziger further discloses that a front fork (31) attached to the head tube (30), wherein a longitudinal direction of a lower portion the front fork forms an angle (annotated fig. 5 of Baenziger below), with respect to the head tube (30) [See paragraph 0024, where “Front fork 31, in which front wheel 28 is mounted for rotation, extends from the center of front wheel 28, upward at head tube”. Any element that has upward projection to the headtube axis has some angle].
Baenziger does not appear to explicitly disclose the angular value between 9o and 9.5o
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle frame geometry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the angular value as being 9o and 9.5o is the result of mere optimization of variables, e.g., those discussed in [0024] of Baenziger, that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
PNG
media_image6.png
655
1014
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed mathematical value, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of mathematical value would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Annotated fig. 5 of Baenziger
Regarding claims 10 and 11, depending on claims 9 and 10 respectively, Baenziger further discloses that the front fork (31) is mechanically pivotably linked to a front wheel (28) around an axis of rotation [ see figs. 1&5 and para. 0011], wherein the front wheel (28) is configured to be in point contact with a ground surface (12) [ see fig. 3 where front wheel is in contact to the ground surface], wherein the head tube (30) and the front fork (31) are arranged, with respect to the main tube (64, 65, 66, and 68), so that the distance xd is a projection, along the direction of a portion of the main tube adjacent to the second end, of a distance between the axis of rotation and an intersection between an axis of the head tube and the ground surface [ See annotated fig. 5 below depicting distance xd and paragraph 0024. Any element projected upward would create angle and a distance].
Baenziger does not appear to explicitly disclose the distance xd between 35mm and 55 mm.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle frame geometry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the xd value as being between 35mm and 55mm because it is the result of mere optimization of variables, that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed xd value, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of geometrical value would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
PNG
media_image7.png
550
814
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 5 of Baenziger
Regarding claim 16, depending on claim 1, Baenziger further discloses a rear wheel (58) mechanically linked to the second end of the main tube (64, 65, 66 and 68); a front wheel (28) mechanically linked to the front fork (31); and a saddle (14) supported by the seat tube (52). [ See Figs. 1 & 5 and para. 0011].
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baenziger (US 2012/0205891 A1) in view of Jiang Tianming (CN204077927U).
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 1, Baenziger further discloses that the seat tube (52) forms an angle (50), with respect to a portion of the main tube (64, 65, 66 and 68) adjacent to the second end [see para. 0039].
Baenziger does not appear to explicitly disclose the angular value between 58o and 61o, however,
Jiang similar to Baenziger, teaches that it was old and well known in the art of bicycles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention teaches that a light bicycle frames whose seat tube forms an angle between seat post (seat tube of Jiang) and main tube (lower tube of Jiang) towards rear end as shown in fig. 1 is set to 60 deg to 62 deg.
[ See abstract and para. 0011 of Jiang].
Baenziger and Jiang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of bicycle manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle frame geometry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle between the seat tube and the main tube at the rear end of the frame of Baenziger to be an angular value between 58o and 61o as taught by Jiang in order to have a frame that is firm and reliable in structure, e.g., see [abstract] of Jiang, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baenziger (US 2012/0205891 A1) in view of Wang (CN2076068 U).
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 1, Baenziger further discloses that the head tube (30) forms an angle (see annotated fig. 3 below), with respect to a portion of the main tube (64, 65, 66, and 68) adjacent to the second end [Annotated Fig. 3 below and para. 0024].
Baenziger does not appear to explicitly disclose the claimed angular value between 61o and 63.5o
Wang, similar to Baenziger, teaches that it was old and well known in the art of bicycles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention teaches that the backward angle between the axis center line of the front fork and the horizontal line (i.e., the caster angle β) can be as low as 63° [ para. 0004 of Wang].
PNG
media_image8.png
813
1306
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle frame geometry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle formed by head tube with respect to the main tube as taught by Wang into the invention of Baenziger with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously obtain the result which aims to provide a kind of chair which can be used for sitting in a natural reclining posture [para.0003 of Wang] and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Annotated fig. 3 of Baenziger
Claims 12 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baenziger (US 2012/0205891 A1) in view of Kline (US 2002/0098933 A1).
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 1, Baenziger does not appear to explicitly disclose the main tube comprises a plate comprising a rectilinear groove extending transversally through the plate and extending, from the second end, into the direction of a portion of the main tube adjacent to the second end.
Kline teaches that it was old and well known in the art of bicycles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the main tube to include a plate (2) comprising a rectilinear groove (1) extending transversally through the plate (2) and extending, from the second end, into the direction of a portion of the main tube adjacent to the second end [ Fig. 1 and para. 0010 teach a set of grooves 1 with axle slot 3 on the dropout 2 of the bicycle frame provides a reasonable amount of travel for the necessary adjustment of the position of the wheel and the tensioning of the chain slot 3 into the direction of a portion of the second end of the main tube].
Baenziger and Kline are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of bicycle manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a bicycle main tube of the bicycle frame extended towards rear end with slot on the dropout plate as taught by Kline into the invention of Baenziger with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously obtain a wheel support configuration at the rear end of the bicycle main frame which allow a reasonable amount of travel for the necessary adjustment of the position of the wheel and the tensioning of the chain. [ para. 0010. Line 5 of Kline].
Regarding claim 13, depending on claim 12, the modified combination of Baenziger as modified by Kline discloses the frame (10) wherein the dimensions xg (xg, annotated fig. 1 of Kline below) and xp (xp) satisfy a relationship, but doesn’t explicitly disclose the dimensions which satisfy a relationship:
xg = F * xp
0.4 ≤ F ≤ 0.5
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle frame geometry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed relationship of xg and xp as being xg = F * xp; 0.4 < B < 0.5; because defining the relationship of xg and xp is the result of mere optimization of variables, that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed mathematical relationship, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of mathematical relationship would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
PNG
media_image9.png
615
830
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Kline
Annotated fig. 3 of Baenziger
PNG
media_image10.png
382
639
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, depending on claim 12, the modified combination of Baenziger/Kline further teaches that the frame (10) according to claim 12, wherein the plate [‘dropout’ 2 of Kline] further comprises a cylindrical surface (fig.1) directed by a direction perpendicular to the plate (2), the plate being outwardly delimited (fig. 1) by the cylindrical surface (fig. 1), and wherein the cylindrical surface (fig. 1) has a circular cross section (fig. 2).
See para. 0010, line 29 of Kline where “dropout 2 of Kline [ ‘plate’ of the claimed invention] can be manufactured in many shapes and sizes to accommodate different needs according to the type of bicycle” and also, see fig. 2 of Kline where dropout (plate) has round shaped cross section and fig. 1 shows it is projected far side perpendicular to the plate 2. Thus, forming cylindrical surface with circular cross section.
It would have been obvious to have modified Baenziger in view of the teachings of Kline for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 12 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, depending on claim 14, Baenziger as modified by Kline doesn’t explicitly disclose the circular cross section that has a diameter between 80 mm and 90 mm.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle frame geometry before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the diameter value as being 80 mm and 90 mm is the result of mere optimization of variables, that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed diameter of circular cross section value, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of geometrical value would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b).
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 NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Koppikar. Vivek can be reached on 571-272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
March 9, 2026