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 10-11 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 6, lines 2, “the forward rotational stop” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim. In claim 7, lines 2, “the forward rotational stop” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim. In claim 8, lines 2, “the rearward rotational stop” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikesell (PGub 2016/0039494) in view of EP2527239 to Colegrove (cited by applicant on 08/01/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Mikesell teaches a bicycle 100 (see Abstract, line 1; Figure 1) including a frame 102 having a rear bracket portion 154, a rear wheel 110 having a rear wheel axle 161, a derailleur system having a chain, a sprocket set, and a rear gearshift mechanism (para [0002]; Figure 1) having a basic element (portion of derailleur connected at hole 220 of bracket element 158), and a bracket element 158 connecting an inner side of the rear bracket portion (see Figure 14; derailleur hanger/bracket element 158 is connected to an inner side of rear bracket portion 154 of the bicycle frame) to the rear gearshift mechanism, comprising: a first portion of the bracket element 158 has a cutout (hole 220 which is aligned with the hub and receives the axle; Figure 14; para [0037]) in which a portion of the rear wheel axle 161 is fixed. A second portion of the bracket element includes a mounting opening 220 in which the basic element of the rear gearshift mechanism is secured, wherein the bracket element is secured or can be secured in a frictionally locking manner on the rear bracket portion (para [0037], lines 6, 7), wherein the bracket element 158 is configured to be rotated about an axis coaxial with the rear wheel axle 161. The bracket element has a first stop formation (forward portion of surface 234; seen in Figure 13), and a second stop formation (vertical surface of bracket element 158 that engages a vertical surface of rear bracket portion 154 as the protrusion 232 is inserted into opening 230 of rear bracket portion see Figure 14).
Mikesell fails to teach stop formations that interact with inner sides of the rear bracket portion.
Colegrove shows a bicycle with a frame 20,72, a rear wheel 88, and a rear bracket portion 126. As seen in Figure 5, a bracket element (insert 170) is secured on an inner side at 180 of the bracket portion 126. The contour 180 in the bracket portion 126 includes a recess or depression between front and rear walls that form stops on the inner side of the rear bracket portion that interact with front and rear walls forming first and second stop formations on the bracket element 170 that prevent the bracket element from rotating forwardly and rearwardly (Figure 5; para [0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the bracket element of Mikesell on the inner side rather than the outer side of the rear bracket portion and to form the stop formations at front and rear walls on the inner bracket portion side, as taught by Colegrove, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to position the bracket element in a more protected location between the rear frame arms and to provide simple and reliable rotation stops.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Colegrove includes a depression in the rear bracket portion that forms mating stop formations of the forward and rearward rotational stops that engage the stop formations on the bracket element 170 (contour 180 in bracket portion 126 of Colegrove includes a recess that has front and rear walls that engage stop formations on the bracket element 170).
Regarding claims 7-9, the contour 180 in the rear bracket 126 of Cosgrove forms a central recess and side projections on either side of the recess such that walls between the recess and protections form the forward and rearward stops (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 12, Mikesell teaches, with respect to the embodiment of Figures 14 and 15, that bracket element 158 includes a stem 232 that extends through the opening 230 in the bracket portion 154 and is retained by a ring-shaped fastener 238 that abuts rib 244 on the bracket element 158 to frictionally lock the bracket element on the bracket portion. Colegrove teaches a bracket element having a stem 172 that extends through the bracket portion 126 and is retained by a ring-shaped fastener from an outer side of the rear bracket portion (seen in Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the fastener of Mikesell on the outer side rather than the outer side of the rear bracket portion, as taught by Colegrove, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to position the bracket element in a more protected location between the rear frame arms and to provide simple and reliable rotation stops.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikesell and Colegrove as applied to claims 1, 6-9, and 12 above, and further in view of Duehring (USPN 5082,303).
Regarding claim 2, the combination fails to specify the materials of the bracket element.
Duehring teaches a bracket 10 for receiving a wheel axle 28 at 26 and for connection to a derailleur at 48. The bracket element includes at least one plastic region 18 (see col. 5, lines 33-36) and at least one metal region 16 (see col. 5, lines 9-12), the plastic region and the metal region being releasably connected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the combination bracket element with plastic and metal regions, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the bracket to fail before the dropout member or the derailleur, thereby sacrificing the bracket, which is less expensive and easier to replace, in favor of the dropout or derailleur.
Regarding claim 3, Mikesell teaches that the rear bracket portion has a forward rotational stop (forward wall of projection at 236) and a rearward rotational stop (rearward wall of projection at 236), wherein the bracket element 158 is stopped against the forward rotational stop in a first stop position, and is stopped against the rearward rotational stop in a second stop position.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Mikesell is silent regarding the material of the stop formations. However, Duehring teaches forming at least a substantial portion of the derailleur hanger from plastic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the stop portions of the Mikesell bracket from plastic, in view of Duehring, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent damage to the bicycle frame.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art to Mikesell fails to teach stop formations on the bracket element that interact with inner sides of the rear bracket portion, however, Colegrove is now relied upon for that feature. Therefore, the examiner does not agree that positioning the bracket element on an inside rather than an outer side of the rear bracket portion of the frame, such that the stop formations of the bracket element interact with the inner side of the rear bracket portion, constitute a patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, applicant argues that Duehring fails to teach a bracket element that includes a plastic region and a metal region because, they argue, the metal region of Duehring forms the dropout and the plastic region is the hanger. However, a lower extension of the metal portion of Duehring projects below the useful portion of the dropout and is only present to provide an extension and base for the hanger, so it is more part of the hanger (bracket element) than it is part of the dropout (rear bracket portion of the frame). Therefore, it teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that the hanger portion can include metal and plastic elements. The rejection is being maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yasuda (which does not predate applicant’s effective filing date) teaches a derailleur hanger that is held frictionally on a rear bracket portion of a bicycle frame.
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 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.
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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/