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
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, 4-8, 10-13, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi et al. (US 2003/0226420 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oi et al. discloses a bicycle handlebar (12) adapted to be mounted with at least one control device (20; it has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted for” a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.04.), comprising:
a handlebar body (the body of 12) having an outer surface (the outer surface of 12 shown in Figure 3); and
a recessed structure (46) recessed from the outer surface of the handlebar body, and having a mounting surface (the flat surface of 46) that is indented from the outer surface of the handlebar body and that is adapted for the at least one control device to be mounted thereto (see Paragraph 0032),
wherein the handlebar body has left (the left side of 12 in Figure 2) and right (the right side of 12 in Figure 2) straight portions respectively located at two opposite sides of a longitudinal vertical plane (a vertical plane through the center of 12, i.e. through the member to the right of numeral 22 in Figure 2) that has a normal vector (a vector that extends horizontally in Figure 2) extending in a left-right direction, each of the left and right straight portions having an outer surface portion (the outer surface of the left and right halves of 12 in Figure 2) that serves as a portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body, the recessed structure being recessed from the outer surface portion of one of the left and right straight portions of the handlebar body (see Figures 2 and 3);
wherein the recessed structure further has a transition zone (see the tapered sides of 46 in Figure 3) between the mounting surface and the outer surface of the handlebar, wherein the transition zone is configured as a rounded edge (see the area that leads into 46 in Figure 3), a portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body whereat the recessed structure is formed being configured as a curved surface (51 in Figure 6; the body of 12 outside of 46 is round thus meeting the claim limitation), and that the transition zone has a radius of curvature (the radius of curvature of the sides of 46 as shown in Figures 3 and 11) and the outer surface of the handlebar body has a radius of curvature (the radius of curvature of 12 in Figure 3).
While it appears to the transition zone has a smaller radius of curvature than that of the portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body given the diameter of 12 and the radius of the transition zone(s) as shown in Figure 3, Oi et al. does not disclose that the radius of curvature of the transition zone being smaller than that of the portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the radius of curvature of the transition zone be smaller than that of the portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the Applicant has not disclosed any benefit to the radius of curvature of the transition zone being smaller than that of the portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body thus it is viewed as being mere design choice. Having the radius of curvature of the transition zone be smaller than that of the portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body would allow for more room for the control device(s) to mount onto the handlebar body.
Regarding claim 4, Oi et al. discloses that the mounting surface is configured as a planar surface (see Figures 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, Oi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the mounting surface is configured as a curved surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mounting surface be a curved surface, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent.
Regarding claim 6, Oi et al. discloses that the mounting surface extends about the handlebar body (46 in Figure 3 is viewed as “extending about” the handlebar body because it is formed in the handlebar body).
Regarding claim 7, Oi et al. discloses an extent of the mounting surface (the axial length of 46 in Figure 3) and a dimension (the length of the circular portion of 20 that attaches to the handlebar as shown in Figure 2) of the at least one control device.
Oi et al. does not disclose that that the extent of the mounting surface is adapted to be larger than the dimension of the at least one control device.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the extent of the mounting surface be larger than the dimension of the at least one control device, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Altering the extent of the mount surface to be larger than the dimension of the at least one control device would allow for axial adjustment of the at least one control device thus allowing the user to optimize the location of the at least one control device.
Regarding claim 8, Oil et al. discloses that the mounting surface is adapted to be shaped to fit the contour of a mounting surface (the surface of 20 that engages 46) of the at least one control device that is mounted to the mounting surface (It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted for” a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. See MPEP 2111.04.).
Regarding claim 10, Oi et al. discloses that the mounting surface of the recessed structure extends along the one of the left and right straight portions of the handlebar body (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Oi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the mounting surface of the recessed structure faces downwardly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mounting surface of the recessed structure face downwardly, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Having the mounting surface of the recessed structure face downwardly would allow a rider to look downward on the computer which would be beneficial if the rider rides in a position with their head over the handlebars such as in a racing scenario.
Regarding claim 12, Oi et al. discloses a bicycle handlebar (112; Figure 11) **[adapted to be mounted with at least one control device]** (It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted for” a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.04.), comprising:
a handlebar body (the body of 112 in Figure 11) having an outer surface (the outer surface of 112); and
a recessed structure (141, 142) recessed from the outer surface of the handlebar body, and having a mounting surface (154) that is indented from the outer surface of the handlebar body and that is **[adapted for the at least one control device to be mounted thereto]** (It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted for” a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.04.),
wherein the handlebar body has a left straight portion (the left side of 130 in Figure 11), a right straight portion (the right side of 130 in Figure 11), a left drop portion (132) and a right drop portion (131), the left and right straight portions being respectively located at two opposite sides of a longitudinal vertical plane (a plane that extends through the center of 112 in Figure 11) that has a normal vector (a vector that extends horizontally relative to the axial centerline of 130 in Figure 11) extending in a left-right direction, the left drop portion being connected to a leftmost end of the left straight portion that is distal from the right straight portion (see Figure 11), curling downwardly and extending rearwardly, the right drop portion being connected to a rightmost end of the right straight portion that is distal from the left straight portion (see Figure 11), curling downwardly and extending rearwardly, each of the left and right drop portions having an outer surface portion (the outer surface of 131 and 132 in Figure 11) that serves as a portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body (see Figure 11), the recessed structure being recessed from the outer surface portion of one of the left and right drop portions of the handlebar body (141 and 142 are located in the drop portions);
wherein the recessed structure further has a transition zone (see the tapered sides of 46 in Figure 3) between the mounting surface and the outer surface of the handlebar, wherein the transition zone is configured as a rounded edge (see the area that leads into 46 in Figure 3), a portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body whereat the recessed structure is formed being configured as a curved surface (51 in Figure 6; the body of 12 outside of 46 is round thus meeting the claim limitation), and that the transition zone has a radius of curvature (the radius of curvature of the sides of 46 as shown in Figures 3 and 11) and the outer surface of the handlebar body has a radius of curvature (the radius of curvature of 12 in Figure 3).
While it appears to the transition zone has a smaller radius of curvature than that of the portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body given the diameter of 12 and the radius of the transition zone(s) as shown in Figure 3, Oi et al. does not disclose that the radius of curvature of the transition zone being smaller than that of the portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the radius of curvature of the transition zone be smaller than that of the portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the Applicant has not disclosed any benefit to the radius of curvature of the transition zone being smaller than that of the portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body thus it is viewed as being mere design choice. Having the radius of curvature of the transition zone be smaller than that of the portion of the outer surface of the handlebar body would allow for more room for the control device(s) to mount onto the handlebar body.
Regarding claim 13, Oi et al. discloses that the mounting surface of the recessed structure extends along the one of the left and right drop portions of the handlebar body (see Figure 11).
Regarding claim 16, Oi et al. discloses that the at least one control device comprises at least two control devices (113; Paragraph 0049), further comprising at least an additional one recessed structure (141, 142) for the other one of the control devices to be mounted thereto, the additional one recessed structure being recessed from the outer surface portion of one of the left and right straight portions of the handlebar body (see Figure 11).
Regarding claim 17, Oi et al. discloses that the recessed structure further has two curved surfaces (the part of 12 that directly connect to 46 in Figure 3) respectively connected to two opposite ends (the left and right end of 46 along the axial direction as shown in Figure 3) of the mounting surface, an assembled surface (46 and the two viewed curved surfaces as shown in Figure 3) consisting of the mounting surface and the curved surfaces being continuous.
Regarding claim 20, Oi et al. discloses a maximum offset distance (the distance between 46 and the outer surface of 12) between the mounting surface and the outer surface of the handlebar body.
Oi et al. does not explicitly disclose that the maximum offset distance ranges from 1 to 5 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the maximum offset distance to be from 1 to 5 millimeters. The changes in dimensions of maximum offset distance would have been a matter of choice in design since the bicycle handlebar of Oi et al. would not perform differently, and the Applicant has not established that the claimed range of dimensions of the maximum offset distance is critical.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi et al. (US 2003/0226420 A1) in view of Eade (US 10,494,051 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Oi et al. discloses that each of the left and right drop portions has an upper portion (an upper portion of 131 and 132) curling downwardly from the respective one of the left and right straight portions, and a lower portion (a lower portion of 131 and 132) extending rearwardly from the upper portion.
Oi et al. does not disclose a first reference plane in which the lower portion of the left drop portion resides being oblique to the longitudinal vertical plane, a second reference plane in which the lower portion of the right drop portion resides being oblique to the longitudinal vertical plane.
Eade teaches a left drop portion (1300, 1450, 1550) and a right drop portion (1300, 1400, 1500), a first reference plane (a plane through the left drop portion) in which a lower portion (1550) of the left drop portion resides being oblique to a longitudinal vertical plane (a vertical centerline through 1100), a second reference plane (a plane through the right drop portion) in which the lower portion of the right drop portion resides being oblique to the longitudinal vertical plane (also see the handlebar structure in Figure 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the left and right drop portions of Oi et al. to have reference planes such that the lower portions of the left and right drop portions oblique to the longitudinal vertical plane, as taught by Eade et al., for the purpose of providing a handlebar structure that is comfortable, aerodynamic, and creates a leveraged posture for the rider.
**The above statements in brackets are instances of intended use and functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, see MPEP 2114. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 18, 19, 21, and 22 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.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-8, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM 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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617