Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/931,830

BICYCLE AIR SPRING

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 13, 2022
Examiner
BURCH, MELODY M
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Specialized Bicycle Components, INC.
OA Round
2 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

64%
Career Allow Rate
658 granted / 1029 resolved
Without
With
+26.5%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
49 pending
1078
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.8%
+3.8% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION 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 . 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, 3, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonovsky in view of PT-88389 (PT’389). Re: claims 1, 3, and 5-7. Antonovsky shows in figures 1A-1C an air spring comprising: a first body 32; a first piston 40 cooperating with the first body to define a pressurized first chamber 20 including a gas as described in paragraph [0045], the first piston 40 with the exception of the peripheral surface configured to slidably move relative to the first body 10; a pressurized second chamber 30; a flow passage 33 between the first chamber and the second chamber; a sealing structure 50 or particularly upper and lower elements 50 including the intervening peripheral surface to selectively permit or restrict flow between the first chamber and the second chamber, wherein pressure from both the first chamber and the second chamber contributes to biasing the first piston toward an extended position when flow is permitted between he first chamber and the second chamber; the air spring having a fully extended position (piston in top position) and a fully compressed position (piston in bottom position), the air spring configured such that during the majority of the movement of the air spring from the fully extended position to the fully compressed position flow is permitted from the first chamber to the second chamber and while the air spring is adjacent the fully compressed position, the sealing structure covers an opening into the flow passage to restrict flow between the first chamber and the second chamber. Antonovsky is silent with regards to the sealing structure being a bushing. PT’389 teaches in claim 3 the limitation of a seal being in the form of a bushing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sealing structure of Antonovsky to have been a bushing, in view of the teachings of PT’389, in order to include a sealing component that provides greater durability. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 9, 10, 12-14, 20-26, and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 29-31, 33-36, and 39-45 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the rejections using the Perrin reference have been withdrawn in light of the amendments and arguments, the rejections using the Antonovsky reference have been maintained for independent claim 1. Applicant argues that the relatively large aperture 33 is not capable of being covered by the smaller O-ring 50. Examiner notes that it is Antonovsky, in view of the teachings of PT’389, that teaches the claimed limitation. The sealing structure 50 of Antonovsky which includes both upper and lower elements 50 and the intervening peripheral surface of the piston covers the aperture 33 as shown in figure 1C. Modifying the sealing structure of Antonovsky with a bushing in view of the teachings of PT’389 would also cover the aperture 33. Accordingly, the above rejections have been maintained. 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 MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally. 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. mmb February 3, 2026 /MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 13, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 30, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12595845
DRIVELINE INCLUDING A HYDRODYNAMIC RETARDER AND METHOD OF OPERATING A HYDRODYNAMIC RETARDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595835
END-STOP CONTROL VALVES FOR PROVIDING PROGESSIVE DAMPING FORCES IN VIBRATION DAMPERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584534
System and Method for Improved Heave Compensation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584530
ELECTROMAGNETIC BRAKE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583426
BRAKING SYSTEM, METHOD OF OPERATING A BRAKING SYSTEM AND TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE WITH A BRAKING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+26.5%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1029 resolved cases by this examiner