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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 11/25/25 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1-4, 9 and 15-29 have been amended and claims 5-8 and 10-14 remain cancelled as previously indicated. In light of amendments, all the objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. In view of amendment, a new ground(s) of rejections is made under 35 USC § 103 (details below) and claims 1-4, 9, 15-29 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see ‘Remarks’ filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 19 of the argument, the applicant submits that Mayer does not disclose “selective frame geometry change – only suspension reaction under load, as an objective in Mayer is to maintain frame stiffness”. The examiner disagrees. Mayer expressly discloses a bicycle frame assembly whose geometry changes dynamically through coordinated movement of multiple pivoting frame portions as depicted in figures 1 through 4, and specific to fig. 4. Mayer’s main frame portion, intermediate frame portion, and rear frame portion are interconnected through a system of articulated joints and linkage that allows the relative positions of these structural parts to vary during operation. This multi-link arrangement inherently forms a variable-geometrical structure, because the spatial relationship between the steering tube, crankset region, seat-supporting structure, and rear wheel support changes as the linkage rotates about their respective pivots. The claimed “variable-geometrical structure” is therefore fully met by Mayer’s design. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection over Mayer in view of Andrea (details below). Such geometry changes occur continuously as the suspension compresses and rebounds, demonstrating the same functional capability recited in claim 1 – namely, a frame structure whose geometry is not fixed but varies through movement of interconnected articulated components.
Further, on page 20 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant submits that Mayer does not teach or suggest “two distinct frame geometries corresponding to different riding modes. Its frame geometry is constant, while suspension compression slightly alters the effective saddle height dynamically, but not through selective actuation”. The examiner disagrees. As shown in figure 4, Mayer’s linkage-based suspension system provides a frame architecture in which the geometry changes through controlled articulation of multiple frame parts. Mayer teaches the same variable-geometry concept required by claim 1. The claim structure therefore represents no more than the predictable use of known bicycle frame linkage operating according to their established function.
Further, on page 20 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant submits that claim 1 is amended to introduce “the seat constructional part and the bearing element locked in the downhill configuration via a locking mechanism of the adjustable part". In view of the amendment and upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over Mayer in view of Andrea (details below).
For these reasons, the new limitations of claim 1 do not distinguish from the current art of record e.g. Mayer and Andrea. Accordingly, claims 1-29 including independent claim 15 are rendered obvious.
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 no obviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US PAT. 5725227 A in view of Pedretti Andrea (IT UB20154242 A1; hereinafter, “Andrea”).
Regarding claim 1, Mayer discloses: a bicycle frame (12, fig. 1-5) consisting of a bearing element (26) comprises a front fork mount (27, fig.2) and a crankset mount (28), a seat constructional part (40, fig. 2) comprises a saddle's (22) clamp, an adjustment part (42), a rear wheel suspension set (48, fig. 2) comprises a swingarm (44, fig. 2) and a shock absorber (60, [col. 4, ;line 15-20]) characterized
in that,
the bearing element (26) is connected by at least one articulated joint (38) to the seat constructional part (40) and by at least one articulated joint (54, fig. 2) to the rear wheel suspension set (48), and the seat constructional part (40) is connected by at least one articulated joint (pivotal joint via 60 and 62, fig. 2) to the rear wheel suspension set (48) and the adjustment part (42) is configured to selectively change the geometry of the bicycle frame between a pedaling configuration (X position) and a downhill configuration (Y position) [col 5, line 20-30 discloses: “ the tubular member 42 will flex slightly”; and shown in fig. 4, 5a and 5b , the suspension set transitions through its top stroke, mid stroke, and bottom stroke positions, thereby configured to selectively change the geometry of the bicycle frame between a pedaling configuration (X position) and a downhill configuration (Y position)], wherein a change of the geometry of the bicycle frame from the downhill configuration (fig. 4 downhill configuration) to the pedaling configuration (fig. 1 pedaling configuration) causes the saddle's clamp and the seat constructional part to shift closer [see fig. 4 where 40 moves back causes the saddle's clamp and the seat constructional part to shift closer] to the rear wheel suspension set (48, fig. 4), the crankset mount (28). Mayer fails to explicitly teach that the bearing element, and the seat constructional part and the bearing element locked in the downhill configuration via a locking mechanism of the adjustable part; however,
Andrea in another ‘bicycle frame’ similar to Mayer teaches that the bearing element (fig. 1), and the seat constructional part (fig. 1) and the bearing element locked in the downhill configuration via a locking mechanism of the adjustable part [ the slider would be moved in translation between the opposite end-of-stroke positions (forward and backward) and locked in any of these positions or in any intermediate position between them respectively by actuation means and by locking means entirely similar to those above. described for the previous embodiments of the invention; note that any position includes downhill configuration of the claimed invention].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of Mayer invention to include the locking feature, such as the bearing element locked in the downhill configuration via a locking mechanism of the adjustable part as taught by Andrea, since doing so merely applies a known mechanism to achieve predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Chiesa (US 20190047649 A1; hereinafter, “Chiesa”).
Regarding claim 15, Mayer discloses a method for dynamic changes to the geometry of a bicycle frame (geometry of a bicycle frame assembly, ‘Abstract’) in the parameters of a saddle angle (N, annotated fig. 3 below), a saddle height relative to crankset bracket (P, annotated fig. 3 below), a rear suspension stroke (Q, annotated fig. 3 below), utilizing an adjustment part (42. Fig. 3) for variable length characterized (as depicted in annotated fig. 3 below and fig. 4) in that the bicycle frame is a shock absorbing lever mechanism (as shown in fig. 3, 4, 5, 5A and 5B articulations), which is raised towards the X position (X, annotated fig. 3 below) by releasing a lock of the adjustment part (42) [col. 4, line 45-55 teaches: “this is particularly true when the rider is standing and the suspension is effectively locked out (it should be understood that this posture of the rider has effect of releasing the lock, so saddle moves up). The rider. therefore, has better control of the bicycle 10 when traveling over rough terrain”] and fixed in a position between the X and the Y of the saddle (22) by pressing on the saddle (22) [annotated fig. 3 below at Y position when the saddle is pressed downward by the rider) and locking the adjustment part (42) again [ No flex of 42 is allowed is being considered as “locking” of the adjustment part].
Mayer teaches that a shock absorbing lever mechanism as specified above, which is raised towards the X position and fixed in a position between the X and the Y of the saddle by pressing on the saddle as depicted in annotated fig. 3 below, but doesn’t appear to explicitly teach that by releasing a lock of the adjustment part and locking the adjustment part when fixed in a position between the X and the Y of the saddle; however,
Chiesa in another bicycle component similar to Mayer, teaches that a shock absorbing lever mechanism, which is raised towards the X position by releasing a lock of the adjustment part (locking device 3 of seat post device 2, [0089]) and fixed in a position between the X and the Y of the saddle by pressing on the saddle and locking the adjustment part [ 0090 teaches that when sitting down or lifting his weight ( fixed in a X position or Y position of the claimed invention), supported by an energy storage device 9, not shown. Then the seat post device 2 locks in the current position 10, 20. It is also possible to provide continuous adjustment (fixed in a position between X and Y positions of the claimed invention), so that e.g. the saddle 103 remains in position as the control 16 is released; thus, fixed in a position between the X and the Y of the saddle by pressing on the saddle and locking the adjustment part.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adjustment part in the form of a spring or pneumatic operating means provided with a position lock, thereby allowing the seat post to raise towards the X position and fixed in a position between the X and the Y of the saddle by pressing on the saddle and locking the adjustment part as taught by Chiesa into the invention of Mayer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously provide on-the-fly adjustability of the suspension characteristics, as motivated by the recognized advantages of improved rider control, efficiency, and adaptability to terrain conditions.
PNG
media_image1.png
579
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3 of Mayer
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Andrea and further in view of Chiesa (US 20190047649 A1; hereinafter, “Chiesa”).
Regarding claim 2, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) extends from the saddle's (22) clamp downwards (see annotated fig. 4 below where 40 extends downward when 42 flex) and then towards the front fork (when 50 moves forward via pivotal 60) mount (27) with the bearing element (26), movably in a plane perpendicular (annotated fig. 4 below shows moving action under perpendicular plan) to a rear wheel axis (AA', annotated fig. 4 below), and the rear wheel suspension set (48, fig. 4) is connected by the swingarm (44, [ col. 3, line 60-67 discloses: “a rear frame portion ( or swing arm), designated generally by the reference numeral 44. includes a pair of upper arms 46 and a pair of lower arms (suspension set) 48 which are respectively connected at their rearward-most ends by parallel drop out brackets 50]) to the bearing element (26 via 54, fig. 3) in the area above (fig. 4 shows in the area above when articulated) the crankset mount (28); and the swingarm (44) connects (fig. 4 via upper arm 46) to the shock absorber (60) which connects ( at 64, fig. 3) to the seat constructional part (40), where said connections are articulated joints movable (via 60 and 62) in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis (AA'), and the adjustment part (42) is the fixed between the bearing element (26) and the seat constructional part (40) by articulated joints movable in a plane perpendicular ( annotated fig. 4 below) to the rear wheel axis (AA'). Mayer fails to disclose that the adjustment part (42) comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter; however,
Chiesa in another bicycle component similar to Mayer, teaches that the adjustment part (saddle accommodation 11, [0093])) comprises a spring or a pneumatic (spring 19 or piston member 5, [0103]) or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position ( via damper 111 articulation during the drive), with a position lock (locking device 3, [0088]), and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter (control 16 attached to the handle bar 108, [0088]) [ para. 0088 teaches that for locking a set saddle position, the bicycle component 1 comprises a locking device 3 disposed in the interior of the seat post device 2, not visible here, or releasing or actuating the locking, an actuating device 6 is provided with a control 16 attached to the handlebar 108.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adjustment part in the form of a spring or pneumatic operating means provided with a position lock, released by a handlebar shifter as taught by Chiesa, thereby allowing the seat post to shift between discrete position (X to Y position) to alter the suspension geometry of the modified Mayer with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to advantageously provide on-the-fly adjustability of the suspension characteristics, as motivated by the recognized advantages of improved rider control, efficiency, and adaptability to terrain conditions.
PNG
media_image2.png
641
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 4 of Mayer
Regarding claim 3, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises a saddle support (lower support at 22, fig. 1) extending from the saddle's (22) clamp downwards and then towards the front fork mount (27), where it is connected to the bearing element (26, fig. 2) via an upper constructional link (38) and via a lower constructional link (B), so that the upper constructional link (38) is closer to front fork mount (27) than lower constructional link (B), and the axes of the links (axis at 38 and B), formed by drawing lines through the link connection points, cross at a point (Z; [annotated fig. 4 above]) near a handlebar (18, fig. 1) where said joints (38 and B) are movable in the planes perpendicular (annotated fig. 4 above) to an axis of a rear wheel (AA'), and the rear wheel suspension set (48) is connected by the swingarm (44) to the bearing element (26) in the area above the crankset mount (28); and the swingarm (44) connects to the shock absorber (60) which connects to the seat constructional part (40), where said connections are articulated joints movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel (AA') axis, and the adjustment part (42) is the fixed between the bearing element (26) and the seat constructional part (40) by articulated joints movable in a plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis (AA'). Mayer fails to disclose that the adjustment part (42) comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part (42) is released by a handlebar shifter; however,
Chiesa in another bicycle component similar to the modified Mayer, teaches that the adjustment part (saddle accommodation 11, [0093])) comprises a spring or a pneumatic (spring 19 or piston member 5, [0103]) or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position ( via damper 111 articulation during the drive), with a position lock (locking device 3, [0088]), and the position lock of the adjustment part is released a handlebar shifter (control 16 attached to the handle bar 108, [0088]) [ para. 0088 teaches that for locking a set saddle position, the bicycle component 1 comprises a locking device 3 disposed in the interior of the seat post device 2, not visible here, or releasing or actuating the locking, an actuating device 6 is provided with a control 16 attached to the handlebar 108.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adjustment part in the form of a spring or pneumatic operating means provided with a position lock, released by a handlebar shifter as taught by Chiesa, thereby allowing the seat post to shift between discrete position (X to Y position) to alter the suspension geometry of the modified Mayer with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to advantageously provide on-the-fly adjustability of the suspension characteristics, as motivated by the recognized advantages of improved rider control, efficiency, and adaptability to terrain conditions.
Regarding claim 4, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises an upper constructional link (38) articulated with the bearing element (26) in the front fork mount (27) area and articulated with the saddle support (lower support of 40, fig. 1) in central part ( central part of bicycle); and the saddle support (40) is vertically oriented (shown in fig. 2, 40 is oriented vertically), with an upper end connected to the saddle (22) and with a lower end connected to a lower constructional link (B via 42, fig. 2) which is connected to the bearing element (26) between the crankset mount (28) and the front fork mount (27), where all joints are movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis (AA'), and the rear wheel suspension set (48) is connected by the swingarm (44) to the bearing element (26) in the area above the crankset mount (28, fig. 4); and the swingarm (44) connects to the shock absorber (60) which connects to the seat constructional part (40, fig. 4), where said connections are articulated joints movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis (AA' via 62 and 60), and the adjustment part (42) is the fixed between (fig. 4) the bearing element (26) and the seat constructional part (40) by articulated joints (38 and 58) movable in a plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis (AA'). Mayer doesn’t appear to disclose that the adjustment part (42) comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter; however,
Chiesa in another bicycle component similar to the modified Mayer, teaches that the adjustment part (saddle accommodation 11, [0093])) comprises a spring or a pneumatic (spring 19 or piston member 5, [0103]) or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position ( via damper 111 articulation during the drive), with a position lock (locking device 3, [0088]), and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter (control 16 attached to the handle bar 108, [0088]) [ para. 0088 teaches that for locking a set saddle position, the bicycle component 1 comprises a locking device 3 disposed in the interior of the seat post device 2, not visible here, or releasing or actuating the locking, an actuating device 6 is provided with a control 16 attached to the handlebar 108.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adjustment part in the form of a spring or pneumatic operating means provided with a position lock, released by a handlebar shifter as taught by Chiesa, thereby allowing the seat post to shift between discrete position (X to Y position) to alter the suspension geometry of the modified Mayer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously provide on-the-fly adjustability of the suspension characteristics, as motivated by the recognized advantages of improved rider control, efficiency, and adaptability to terrain conditions.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Andrea, in view of Schmider et al. (US 20040188978 A1; hereinafter “Schmider”), in view of Lesage Philippe (WO2006005687; hereinafter “Lesage”) and further in view of Chiesa.
Regarding claim 9, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises an upper constructional link (38, fig. 2), articulated with the bearing element (26 via 38 pivotal joint) in the front fork mount mounting area (area around fork mount 27) and articulated with a saddle support (40 via 60 and 62, fig. 4) in central portion ( central portion of the overall frame); and the saddle support (40) is vertically oriented (40 vertically oriented as depicted in fig. 2) with its upper end connected to the saddle (22, fig. 1),
Mayer as modified above doesn’t appear to teach that a triple-arm lever rotatably connected to the bearing element and with its arms articulated to the lower end of the saddle support, the adjustment part and rear wheel suspension set where all connections are movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis; however,
Schmider in another cantilever rear suspension for a bicycle similar to the modified Mayer teaches that a triple-arm lever (lever arm 4, [0034]) rotatably connected [0034 teaches that the lever arm 4 can be pointed in any direction (rotatably) or even omitted in favor of attaching the shock absorbing element 7 directly to the swing arm 5; thus, rotatably connected], to the bearing element (12B) and with its arms articulated to the lower end of the saddle support (fig. 2B shows arms articulated to the lower end of the saddle support), the adjustment part (7, [0034]) and rear wheel suspension set (5) where all connections are movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis ( axis of rear wheel 111) [ 0034 teaches that if the lever arm 4 is pointed in a generally upward direction, for example at an angular displacement of 60 degrees or more from the swing arm 5, it can be located within the frame 12 with the shock absorber element 7, and can have a reasonable length, i.e. greater than the distance between the center of the crank axle and the front of the rear wheel 11, and can be oriented within about 30 degrees of normal to the shock absorber element 7; thus, all connections are movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a triple-arm lever that is rotatable connected to the saddle support, adjustment member, and suspension links as taught by Schmider into the invention of the modified Mayer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the design and consolidate multiple load paths into a single pivot structure, motivated by the known benefits of packaging efficiency, controlled kinematics, and improve suspension responsiveness.
Mayer as modified above doesn’t appear to teach “a lower suspension link” and “the upper suspension link and the remaining claim limitations; however,
Lesage in another rear suspension of a two-wheeled vehicle similar to the modified Mayer, teaches that the rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises a lower suspension link (12, [0021])) connected to (via 12a, fig. 1) the bearing element (3) in the area of the crankset mount (bottom bracket 6, [0020]) and connected to the swingarm (7) in the area between (fig. 2) the rear wheel (“rear wheel hub”) mounting and the crankset mount (6); and the swingarm (7) connected to the upper suspension link (13, fig. 2) and the shock absorber (15) which are respectively connected the suspension upper link (13) to the three-arm lever (16, fig. 2 and [0027]) and the shock absorbing member (15) to the support member (3, fig. 1), where the said connections are articulated joints movable in the plane perpendicular to the axis of the rear wheel [ fig. 2 shows the plane perpendicular to the axis of the rear wheel].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ both a lower suspension link and an upper suspension link in connection with a triple-arm lever, as outlined on the claim limitations above as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Mayer above with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously distribute suspension forces, refine kinematics, and achieve a compact, tunable suspension system, as such design motivations were well known in the field of variable-geometry bicycle frame.
Mayer as modified by Chiesa as detailed in the rejection of claim 3 above, includes the remaining limitations that the adjustment part is the fixed between the bearing element and the seat constructional part by articulated joints movable in a plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis, and the adjustment part comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 3 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Claims 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Andrea, in view of Lesage and further in view of Chiesa.
Regarding claim 16, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) extends from the saddle's (22) clamp downwards (see annotated fig. 4 above where 40 extends downward when 42 flex) and then towards the front fork (when 50 moves forward via pivotal 60) mount (27) with the bearing element (26), movably in a plane perpendicular (annotated fig. 4 above shows moving action under perpendicular plan) to a rear wheel axis (AA', annotated fig. 4 above), and the rear wheel suspension set (48, fig. 4), but fails to teach the remaining limitation; however,
Lesage in another rear suspension of a two-wheeled vehicle similar to the modified Mayer teaches that the rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises a lower suspension link (12, [0021]) extending from the connection (via 12a) with the bearing element (3, fig. 1) in the crankset mount area (bracket 6) to a connection to the swingarm (7) in the area between the rear wheel (wheel hub) mount and the crankset mount (6, fig. 1); and the swingarm (7) is connected to the shock absorber (15, fig. 1) and a upper suspension link (13) which are connected to the seat constructional part (2) where said connections are articulated movable (fig. 1) in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel (wheel hub) axis,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed features of claim 16 (including the lower suspension link and the upper suspension link arrangement, or adjustment configuration) into the bicycle frame suspension system as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Myer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the bicycle suspension system, enhancing rider comfort, enabling tunable seat height/suspension response, and optimizing load distribution through multi-link arrangements. Each reference teaches known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions.
Mayer as modified by Chiesa as detailed in the rejection of Claim 3 above, includes the
remaining limitations that the adjustment part is the fixed between the bearing element and the seat constructional part by articulated joints movable in a plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis, and the adjustment part comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 3 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Regarding claim 17, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) extends from the saddle's (22) clamp downwards (see annotated fig. 4 above where 40 extends downward when 42 flex) and then towards the front fork (when 50 moves forward via pivotal 60) mount (27) with the bearing element (26), movably in a plane perpendicular (annotated fig. 4 above shows moving action under perpendicular plan) to a rear wheel axis (AA', annotated fig. 4 above), but fails to teach the remaining limitations; however,
Lesage teaches a rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises a lower suspension link (12, [0021]) extending from the connection (via 12a) with the bearing element (3, fig. 1) in the connecting area (area around bracket 6) of the crankset mount (6. fig. 1) to a connection to the swingarm (21) in the area between the rear wheel (5) mount and the crankset mount (3); and the swingarm (7) is connected to an upper suspension link (13), which is connected by its opposite end to the seat constructional part (2) or the bearing element (3), and the shock absorber (15), is connected to the upper suspension link (13) and the seat constructional part (2), where said connections are articulated connections movable in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the rear wheel (wheel hub).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed features of claim 17 (including the lower suspension link and the upper suspension link arrangement, or adjustment configuration) into the bicycle frame suspension system as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Myer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the bicycle suspension system, enhancing rider comfort, enabling tunable seat height/suspension response, and optimizing load distribution through multi-link arrangements. Each reference teaches known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions.
Mayer as modified by Chiesa as detailed in the rejection of Claim 3 above, includes the
remaining limitations that the adjustment part is the fixed between the bearing element and the seat constructional part by articulated joints movable in a plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis, and the adjustment part comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 3 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Regarding claim 18, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) extends from the saddle's (22) clamp downwards (see annotated fig. 4 above where 40 extends downward when 42 flex) and then towards the front fork (when 50 moves forward via pivotal 60) mount (27) with the bearing element (26), movably in a plane perpendicular (annotated fig. 4 above shows moving action under perpendicular plan) to a rear wheel axis (AA', annotated fig. 4 above), but fails to teach the remaining limitations; however,
Lesage teaches a rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises the swingarm connected to the bearing element (3, fig. 2) in the connecting area of the crankset mount (6) and a lower suspension link (12) connected to the swingarm (7, fig. 2); and an upper suspension link (13) connected to the lower suspension link (12) and the seat constructional part (2) or the bearing element (3) to which the shock absorber (15) is connected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed features of claim 18 (including the lower suspension link and the upper suspension link arrangement, or adjustment configuration) into the bicycle frame suspension system as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Myer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the bicycle suspension system, enhancing rider comfort, enabling tunable seat height/suspension response, and optimizing load distribution through multi-link arrangements. Each reference teaches known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions.
Mayer as modified by Chiesa as detailed in the rejection of Claim 2 above, includes the
remaining limitations that the bearing element to which the shock absorber is connected, which connects to the seat constructional part, where the said connections are articulated joints in the plane perpendicular to the axis of the rear wheel, and the adjustment part is the fixed between the bearing element and the seat constructional part by articulated joints movable in a plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis, and the adjustment part comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 2 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Regarding claim 19, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises (lower end support of 10, fig. 1) extending from the saddle's (22) clamp downwards (see annotated fig. 4 above where 40 extends downward when 42 flex) and then towards the front fork (when 50 moves forward via pivotal 60) mount (27), where it is connected (annotated fig. 4 above) to the bearing element (26, fig. 2) via an upper constructional link (38) and via a lower constructional link (B, annotated fig. 4 of Mayer above), so that the upper constructional link (38) is closer (fig. 3 shows closer) to front fork mount (27) than lower constructional link (B, annotated fig. 4 above), and the axes of the links (axis at 38 and B), formed by drawing lines through the link connection points (annotated fig. 4 above), cross at a point Z (Z; [annotated fig. 4 above]) near a handlebar (18, fig. 1) where said joints ( 38 and B) are movable in the planes perpendicular (annotated fig. 4 above) to the axis of a rear wheel (AA'), but fails to teach the remaining limitations; however,
Lesage teaches a rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises a lower suspension link (12, [0021]) extending from the connection (via 12A) with the bearing element (3, fig. 1) in the crankset mount (bracket 6) area to a connection to the swingarm (7) in the area between the rear wheel (wheel hub) mount and the crankset mount (3); and the swingarm (21) is connected to the shock absorber (15) and a upper suspension link (13) which are connected to the seat constructional part (2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed features of claim 19 (including the lower suspension link and the upper suspension link arrangement, or adjustment configuration) into the bicycle frame suspension system as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Myer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the bicycle suspension system, enhancing rider comfort, enabling tunable seat height/suspension response, and optimizing load distribution through multi-link arrangements. Each reference teaches known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions.
Mayer as modified by Chiesa as detailed in the rejection of Claim 3 above, includes the
limitations that said connections are articulated movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis, and the adjustment part is the fixed between the bearing element and the seat constructional part by articulated joints movable in a plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis, and the adjustment part comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 3 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Regarding claim 20, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises (lower end support of 10, fig. 1) extending from the saddle's (22) clamp downwards (see annotated fig. 4 above where 40 extends downward when 42 flex) and then towards the front fork (when 50 moves forward via pivotal 60) mount (27), where it is connected (annotated fig. 4 above) to the bearing element (26, fig. 2) via an upper constructional link (38) and via a lower constructional link (B, annotated fig. 4 of Mayer above), so that the upper constructional link (38) is closer (fig. 3 shows closer) to front fork mount (27) than lower constructional link (B, annotated fig. 4 above), and the axes of the links (axis at 38 and B), formed by drawing lines through the link connection points (annotated fig. 4 above), cross at a point Z (Z; [annotated fig. 4 above]) near a handlebar (18, fig. 1) where said joints ( 38 and B) are movable in the planes perpendicular (annotated fig. 4 above) to the axis of a rear wheel (AA'), but fails to teach the remaining limitations; however,
Lesage teaches that a rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises a lower suspension link (12, [0021]) extending from the connection (via 12A) with the bearing element (3, fig. 1) in the connecting area ( area around 6, fig.2) of crankset mount (bracket 6) area to a connection to the swingarm (7) in the area between the rear wheel (wheel hub) mount and the crankset mount (3); and the swingarm (21) is connected to the upper suspension link (13) which is connected by its opposite end to the seat constructional part (2) or the bearing element (3) and the shock absorber (15), is connected to the upper suspension link (13) and the seat constructional part (2),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed features of claim 20 (including the lower suspension link and the upper suspension link arrangement, or adjustment configuration) into the bicycle frame suspension system as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Myer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the bicycle suspension system, enhancing rider comfort, enabling tunable seat height/suspension response, and optimizing load distribution through multi-link arrangements. Each reference teaches known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions.
Mayer as modified by Chiesa as detailed in the rejection of Claim 3 above, includes the
limitations that said connections are articulated movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis, and the adjustment part is the fixed between the bearing element and the seat constructional part by articulated joints movable in a plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis, and the adjustment part comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 3 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Regarding claim 21, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises (lower end support of 10, fig. 1) extending from the saddle's (22) clamp downwards (see annotated fig. 4 above where 40 extends downward when 42 flex) and then towards the front fork (when 50 moves forward via pivotal 60) mount (27), where it is connected (annotated fig. 4 above) to the bearing element (26, fig. 2) via an upper constructional link (38) and via a lower constructional link (B, annotated fig. 4 of Mayer above), so that the upper constructional link (38) is closer (fig. 3 shows closer) to front fork mount (27) than lower constructional link (B, annotated fig. 4 above), and the axes of the links (axis at 38 and B), formed by drawing lines through the link connection points (annotated fig. 4 above), cross at a point Z (Z; [annotated fig. 4 above]) near a handlebar (18, fig. 1) where said joints ( 38 and B) are movable in the planes perpendicular (annotated fig. 4 above) to the axis of a rear wheel (AA'), but fails to teach the remaining limitations; however,
Lesage teaches that a rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises a lower suspension link (12, [0021])) connected to (via 12a, fig. 1) the bearing element (3) in the area of the crankset mount (bottom bracket 6, [0020]) and a lower suspension link (12) connected (via 12a) to the swingarm (7); and an upper suspension link (13, fig. 2) connected to the lower suspension link (12, fig. 2) and the seat constructional part (2) or the bearing element (3) to which the shock absorber (15) is connected, which connects to the seat constructional part (2) [ See fig. 1-3], where the said connections are articulated joints (fig. 2) in the plane perpendicular to the axis of the rear wheel (rear wheel hub.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed features of claim 21 (including the lower suspension link and the upper suspension link arrangement, or adjustment configuration) into the bicycle frame suspension system as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Myer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the bicycle suspension system, enhancing rider comfort, enabling tunable seat height/suspension response, and optimizing load distribution through multi-link arrangements. Each reference teaches known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions.
Mayer as modified by Chiesa as detailed in the rejection of Claim 3 above, includes the
remaining limitations that the said connections are articulated movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis, and the adjustment part is the fixed between the bearing element and the seat constructional part by articulated joints movable in a plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis, and the adjustment part comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 3 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Regarding claim 22, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises (lower end support of 10, fig. 1) extending from the saddle's (22) clamp downwards (see annotated fig. 4 above where 40 extends downward when 42 flex) and then towards the front fork (when 50 moves forward via pivotal 60) mount (27), where it is connected (annotated fig. 4 above) to the bearing element (26, fig. 2) via an upper constructional link (38) and via a lower constructional link (B, annotated fig. 4 of Mayer above), so that the upper constructional link (38) is closer (fig. 3 shows closer) to front fork mount (27) than lower constructional link (B, annotated fig. 4 above), and the axes of the links (axis at 38 and B), formed by drawing lines through the link connection points (annotated fig. 4 above), cross at a point Z (Z; [annotated fig. 4 above]) near a handlebar (18, fig. 1) where said joints ( 38 and B) are movable in the planes perpendicular (annotated fig. 4 above) to the axis of a rear wheel (AA'), but fails to teach the remaining limitations; however,
Lesage teaches that the rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises a lower suspension link (12, [0021]) extending from the connection (via 12a) with the bearing element (3, fig. 1) in the crankset mount area (bracket 6) to a connection to the swingarm (7) in the area between the rear wheel (wheel hub) mount and the crankset mount (6, fig. 1); and the swingarm (7) is connected to the shock absorber (15, fig. 1) and a upper suspension link (13) which are connected to the seat constructional part (2) where said connections are articulated movable (fig. 1) in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel (wheel hub) axis,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed features of claim 22 (including the lower suspension link and the upper suspension link arrangement, or adjustment configuration) into the bicycle frame suspension system as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Myer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the bicycle suspension system, enhancing rider comfort, enabling tunable seat height/suspension response, and optimizing load distribution through multi-link arrangements. Each reference teaches known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions.
Mayer as modified above doesn’t appear to teach the remaining limitation of claim22; however,
Chiesa teaches that said connections are articulated movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis (AA', annotated fig. 4 above), the adjustment part (saddle accommodation 11, [0093]) is connected to an element of the seat constructional parts (22, [para. 0093 teaches that the top support member 22 is equipped with the adjustment part 11 for mounting a saddle to the seat post device 2]), next to the connection of the seat constructional part (22, fig. 1-2) and the bearing element (fig. 1), in the area of the front fork mount (fig. 1), and the opposite end being connected to another element of the seat adjustment parts (12, fig. 1), where the said articulated joints are moveable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis [ shown in fig. 1, articulation is performed in X and Y direction simultaneously with a plane perpendicular to the wheel axis], and the adjustment part (11) comprises the adjustment part (saddle accommodation 11, [0093]) comprises a spring or a pneumatic (spring 19 or piston member 5, [0103]) or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position ( via damper 111 articulation during the drive), with a position lock (locking device 3, [0088]), and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter (control 16 attached to the handle bar 108, [0088]) [ para. 0088 teaches that for locking a set saddle position, the bicycle component 1 comprises a locking device 3 disposed in the interior of the seat post device 2, not visible here, or releasing or actuating the locking, an actuating device 6 is provided with a control 16 attached to the handlebar 108.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adjustment part in the form of a spring or pneumatic operating means provided with a position lock, released by a handlebar shifter as taught by Chiesa, thereby allowing the seat post to shift between discrete position (X to Y position) to alter the suspension geometry of the modified Mayer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously provide on-the-fly adjustability of the suspension characteristics, as motivated by the recognized advantages of improved rider control, efficiency, and adaptability to terrain conditions.
Regarding claim 23, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises (lower end support of 10, fig. 1) extending from the saddle's (22) clamp downwards (see annotated fig. 4 above where 40 extends downward when 42 flex) and then towards the front fork (when 50 moves forward via pivotal 60) mount (27), where it is connected (annotated fig. 4 above) to the bearing element (26, fig. 2) via an upper constructional link (38) and via a lower constructional link (B, annotated fig. 4 of Mayer above), so that the upper constructional link (38) is closer (fig. 3 shows closer) to front fork mount (27) than lower constructional link (B, annotated fig. 4 above), and the axes of the links (axis at 38 and B), formed by drawing lines through the link connection points (annotated fig. 4 above), cross at a point Z (Z; [annotated fig. 4 above]) near a handlebar (18, fig. 1) where said joints ( 38 and B) are movable in the planes perpendicular (annotated fig. 4 above) to the axis of a rear wheel (AA'), but fails to teach the remaining limitations; however,
Lesage teaches that the rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises a lower suspension link (12, [0021]) extending from the connection (via 12a) with the bearing element (3, fig. 1) in the crankset mount area (bracket 6) in the connecting area ( area around 6) of the crank mount to a connection to the swingarm (7) in the area between the rear wheel (wheel hub) mount and the crankset mount (6, fig. 1); and the swingarm (7) is connected to an upper suspension link (13), which is connected by its opposite end to the seat constructional part (2) or the bearing element (3), and the shock absorber (15), is connected to the upper suspension link (13) and the seat constructional part (2) [ see fig. 1-2), where said connections are articulated movable (fig. 1) in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel (wheel hub) axis,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed features of claim 23 (including the upper suspension link and seat construction part arrangement, or adjustment configuration) into the bicycle frame suspension system as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Myer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the bicycle suspension system, enhancing rider comfort, enabling tunable seat height/suspension response, and optimizing load distribution through multi-link arrangements. Each reference teaches known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions.
Mayer as modified by Chiesa as detailed in the rejection of Claim 22 above, includes the
limitations that the said connections are articulated connections movable in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the rear wheel, and the adjustment part is connected to an element of the seat constructional parts, next to the connection of the seat constructional part and the bearing element, in the area of the front fork mount, and the opposite end being connected to another element of the seat adjustment parts, where the said articulated joints are moveable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis, and the adjustment part comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 22 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 22 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Regarding claim 24, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises (lower end support of 10, fig. 1) extending from the saddle's (22) clamp downwards (see annotated fig. 4 above where 40 extends downward when 42 flex) and then towards the front fork (when 50 moves forward via pivotal 60) mount (27), where it is connected (annotated fig. 4 above) to the bearing element (26, fig. 2) via an upper constructional link (38) and via a lower constructional link (B, annotated fig. 4 of Mayer above), so that the upper constructional link (38) is closer (fig. 3 shows closer) to front fork mount (27) than lower constructional link (B, annotated fig. 4 above), and the axes of the links (axis at 38 and B), formed by drawing lines through the link connection points (annotated fig. 4 above), cross at a point Z (Z; [annotated fig. 4 above]) near a handlebar (18, fig. 1) where said joints ( 38 and B) are movable in the planes perpendicular (annotated fig. 4 above) to the axis of a rear wheel (AA'), but fails to teach the remaining limitations; however,
Lesage teaches that the rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises the swing arm (7) connected to the bearing element (3) in the area of the crankset mount (area of bottom bracket 6, [0020]) and a lower suspension link (12) connected (via. 12a) to the swingarm (7); and an upper suspension link (13) connected to the lower suspension link (12) and the seat constructional part (2) or the bearing element (3) to which the shock absorber (15, fig. 2) is connected (via 18, 19 and 13b), which connects (fig. 1-2) to the seat constructional part (2), where the said connections are articulated joints movable in the plane perpendicular to the axis of the rear wheel [ fig. 2 shows the plane perpendicular to the axis of the rear wheel].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the rear wheel suspension set comprises the swing arm connected to the bearing element in the area of the crankset mount and a lower suspension link connected to the swingarm; and an upper suspension link connected to the lower suspension link and the seat constructional part or the bearing element to which the shock absorber is connected, which connects to the seat constructional part, where the said connections are articulated joints movable in the plane perpendicular to the axis of the rear wheel as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Mayer in order to advantageously configure variable geometry bicycle frame where each reference teaches known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions.
Mayer as modified by Chiesa as detailed in the rejection of Claim 22 above, includes the
remaining limitations that the adjustment part is the fixed between the bearing element, and is connected to an element of the seat constructional parts, next to the connection of the seat constructional part and the bearing element, in the area of the front fork mount, and the opposite end being connected to another element of the seat adjustment parts, where the said articulated joints are moveable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis, and the adjustment part comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part (7) is released by a handlebar shifter [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 22 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 22 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Regarding claim 25, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises an upper constructional link (38) articulated with the bearing element (26) in the front fork mount (27) area and articulated with the saddle support (lower support of 40, fig. 1) in central part ( central part of bicycle); and the saddle support (40) is vertically oriented (shown in fig. 2, 40 is oriented vertically), with an upper end connected to the saddle (22) and with a lower end connected to a lower constructional link (B via 42, fig. 2) which is connected to the bearing element (26) between the crankset mount (28) and the front fork mount (27), where all joints are movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis (AA'), but fails to teach the remaining limitations; however,
Lesage teaches that the rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises a lower suspension link (12, [0021]) extending from the connection (via 12a) with the bearing element (3, fig. 1) in the crankset mount area (bracket 6) to a connection to the swingarm (7) in the area between the rear wheel (wheel hub) mount and the crankset mount (6, fig. 1); and the swingarm (7) is connected to the shock absorber (15, fig. 1) and a upper suspension link (13) which are connected to the seat constructional part (2) where said connections are articulated movable (fig. 1) in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel (wheel hub) axis,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed features of claim 25 (including the lower suspension link and the upper suspension link arrangement, or adjustment configuration) into the bicycle frame suspension system as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Myer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the bicycle suspension system, enhancing rider comfort, enabling tunable seat height/suspension response, and optimizing load distribution through multi-link arrangements. Each reference teaches known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions.
Mayer as modified by Chiesa as detailed in the rejection of Claim 2 above, includes the
limitations that the adjustment part comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 2 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Regarding claim 26, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises an upper constructional link (38) articulated with the bearing element (26) in the front fork mount (27) area and articulated with the saddle support (lower support of 40, fig. 1) in central part ( central part of bicycle); and the saddle support (40) is vertically oriented (shown in fig. 2, 40 is oriented vertically), with an upper end connected to the saddle (22) and with a lower end connected to a lower constructional link (B via 42, fig. 2) which is connected to the bearing element (26) between the crankset mount (28) and the front fork mount (27), where all joints are movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis (AA'), but fails to teach the remaining limitations; however,
Lesage teaches that a rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises a lower suspension link (12, [0021]) extending from the connection (via 12A) with the bearing element (3, fig. 1) in the connecting area ( area around 6, fig.2) of crankset mount (bracket 6) area to a connection to the swingarm (7) in the area between the rear wheel (wheel hub) mount and the crankset mount (3); and the swingarm (21) is connected to the upper suspension link (13) which is connected by its opposite end to the seat constructional part (2) or the bearing element (3) and the shock absorber (15), is connected to the upper suspension link (13) and the seat constructional part (2), where said connections are articulated connections movable (via 60 and 62) in a plane perpendicular to the axis (AA') of the rear wheel, and the adjustment part (42) is the fixed between the bearing element (26) and the seat constructional part (40) by articulated joints movable in a plane perpendicular ( annotated fig. 4 above) to the rear wheel axis (AA').
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed features of claim 26 (including the lower suspension link and the upper suspension link arrangement, or adjustment configuration) into the bicycle frame suspension system as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Myer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the bicycle suspension system, enhancing rider comfort, enabling tunable seat height/suspension response, and optimizing load distribution through multi-link arrangements. Each reference teaches known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions.
Mayer as modified by Chiesa as detailed in the rejection of Claim 2 above, includes the
limitations that the adjustment part comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 2 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Regarding claim 27, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises an upper constructional link (38) articulated with the bearing element (26) in the front fork mount (27) area and articulated with the saddle support (lower support of 40, fig. 1) in central part ( central part of bicycle); and the saddle support (40) is vertically oriented (shown in fig. 2, 40 is oriented vertically), with an upper end connected to the saddle (22) and with a lower end connected to a lower constructional link (B via 42, fig. 2) which is connected to the bearing element (26) between the crankset mount (28) and the front fork mount (27), where all joints are movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis (AA'), but fails to teach the remaining limitations; however,
Lesage teaches that a rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises the swingarm connected to the bearing element (3, fig. 2) in the connecting area of the crankset mount (6) and a lower suspension link (12) connected to the swingarm (7, fig. 2); and an upper suspension link (13) connected to the lower suspension link (12) and the seat constructional part (2) or the bearing element (3) to which the shock absorber (15) is connected, which connects to the seat constructional part (2), where said connections are articulated in the plane perpendicular to the axis (AA', annotated fig. 4 above rear wheel axis) of the rear wheel, and the adjustment part (42) is the fixed between the bearing element (26) and the seat constructional part (40) by articulated joints movable in a plane perpendicular ( annotated fig. 4 above to the rear wheel axis (AA').
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed features of claim 27 (including the lower suspension link and the upper suspension link arrangement, or adjustment configuration) into the bicycle frame suspension system as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Myer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the bicycle suspension system, enhancing rider comfort, enabling tunable seat height/suspension response, and optimizing load distribution through multi-link arrangements. Each reference teaches known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions.
Mayer as modified by Chiesa as detailed in the rejection of Claim 2 above, includes
the remaining limitations that the adjustment part comprises a spring or a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position, with a position lock, and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter [Note: although this claim is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 2 above, identical/corresponding limitations have been discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Regarding claim 28, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises an upper constructional link (38) articulated with the bearing element (26) in the front fork mount (27) area and articulated with the saddle support (lower support of 40, fig. 1) in central part ( central part of bicycle); and the saddle support (40) is vertically oriented (shown in fig. 2, 40 is oriented vertically), with an upper end connected to the saddle (22) and with a lower end connected to a lower constructional link (B via 42, fig. 2) which is connected to the bearing element (26) between the crankset mount (28) and the front fork mount (27), where all joints are movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis (AA'), but fails to teach the remaining limitations; however,
Lesage teaches a rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises a lower suspension link (12, [0021]) extending from the connection (via 12A) with the bearing element (3, fig. 1) in the crankset mount (bracket 6) area to a connection to the swingarm (7) in the area between the rear wheel (wheel hub) mount and the crankset mount (3); and the swingarm (21) is connected to the shock absorber (15) and a upper suspension link (13) which are connected to the seat constructional part (2) where said connections are articulated (fig. 2 shows articulation) movable in the plane perpendicular (fig. 2 shows perpendicular) to the rear wheel (rear wheel hub) axis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed features of claim 28 (including the lower suspension link and the upper suspension link arrangement, or adjustment configuration) into the bicycle frame suspension system as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Myer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the bicycle suspension system, enhancing rider comfort, enabling tunable seat height/suspension response, and optimizing load distribution through multi-link arrangements. Each reference teaches known elements that perform the same function, and their substitution and combination would have represented a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions.
Mayer as modified above doesn’t appear to teach the remaining limitations of claim 28; however,
Chiesa teaches that the adjustment part is connected to an element of the seat constructional parts (22, fig. 1), next to the connection of the seat constructional part (via 101) and the bearing element (fig. 1), in the area of the front fork mount (front fork of bicycle, fig. 1), and the opposite end being connected to another element (12) of the seat adjustment parts (22) where the said articulated joints are moveable in the plane perpendicular (fig. 1) to the rear wheel (105) axis, and the adjustment part (saddle accommodation 11, [0093]) comprises a spring or a pneumatic (spring 19 or piston member 5, [0103]) or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position ( via damper 111 articulation during the drive), with a position lock (locking device 3, [0088]), and the position lock of the adjustment part is released by a handlebar shifter (control 16 attached to the handle bar 108, [0088]) [ para. 0088 teaches that for locking a set saddle position, the bicycle component 1 comprises a locking device 3 disposed in the interior of the seat post device 2, not visible here, or releasing or actuating the locking, an actuating device 6 is provided with a control 16 attached to the handlebar 108.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an suspension arrangement as disclosed in the limitations of claim 28 where the adjustment part is in the form of a spring or pneumatic operating means provided with a position lock, released a handlebar shifter as taught by Chiesa, thereby allowing the seat post to shift between discrete position (X to Y position) to alter the suspension geometry of the modified Mayer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously provide on-the-fly adjustability of the suspension characteristics, as motivated by the recognized advantages of improved rider control, efficiency, and adaptability to terrain conditions.
Regarding claim 29, Mayer as modified above further teaches that the seat constructional part (40) comprises an upper constructional link (38) articulated with the bearing element (26) in the front fork mount (27) area and articulated with the saddle support (lower support of 40, fig. 1) in central part ( central part of bicycle); and the saddle support (40) is vertically oriented (shown in fig. 2, 40 is oriented vertically), with an upper end connected to the saddle (22) and with a lower end connected to a lower constructional link (B via 42, fig. 2) which is connected to the bearing element (26) between the crankset mount (28) and the front fork mount (27), where all joints are movable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis (AA'), but fails to teach the remaining limitations; however,
Lesage in another rear suspension of a two-wheeled vehicle similar to the modified Mayer, teaches that the rear wheel suspension set (7a, 7b, fig. 4) comprises a lower suspension link (12, [0021]) connected to (via 12a, fig. 1) the bearing element (3) in the area of the crankset mount (bottom bracket 6, [0020]) and connected to the swingarm (7) in the area between (fig. 2) the rear wheel (“rear wheel hub”) mounting and the crankset mount (6); and the swingarm (7) connected to the upper suspension link (13, fig. 2) and the shock absorber (15) which are respectively connected the suspension upper link (13) to the three-arm lever (connecting bar 16, fig. 2 and [0027]) and the shock absorbing member (15) to the support member (frame 1, [0027]), where the said connections are articulated joints movable in the plane perpendicular to the axis of the rear wheel [ fig. 2 shows the plane perpendicular to the axis of the rear wheel].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ both a lower suspension link and an upper suspension link connected to bearing element in the area of the crankset mount and connected to swing arm as outlined on the claim limitations above as taught by Lesage into the invention of the modified Mayer above with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously distribute suspension forces, refine kinematics, and achieve a compact, tunable suspension system, as such design motivations were well known in the field of variable-geometry bicycle frame.
Mayer as modified above doesn’t appear to teach the remaining limitation, such as the adjustment part is connected to an element of the seat constructional part; however,
Chiesa teaches that the adjustment part (saddle accommodation 11, [0093]) is connected to an element of the seat constructional parts (22, [para. 0093 teaches that the top support member 22 is equipped with the adjustment part 11 for mounting a saddle to the seat post device 2]), next to the connection of the seat constructional part (22, fig. 1-2),where the said articulated joints are moveable in the plane perpendicular to the rear wheel axis [ shown in fig. 1, articulation is performed in X and Y direction simultaneously with a plane perpendicular to the wheel axis], and the adjustment part (saddle accommodation 11, [0093]) comprises a spring or a pneumatic (spring 19 or piston member 5, [0103]) or hydraulic cylinder operating within the range from the Y position to the X position ( via damper 111 articulation during the drive), with a position lock (locking device 3, [0088]), and the position lock of the adjustment part is released a handlebar shifter (control 16 attached to the handle bar 108, [0088]) [ para. 0088 teaches that for locking a set saddle position, the bicycle component 1 comprises a locking device 3 disposed in the interior of the seat post device 2, not visible here, or releasing or actuating the locking, an actuating device 6 is provided with a control 16 attached to the handlebar 108.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an suspension arrangement as disclosed in the limitations of claim 29 where the adjustment part is in the form of a spring or pneumatic operating means provided with a position lock, released by a handlebar shifter as taught by Chiesa, thereby allowing the seat post to shift between discrete position (X to Y position) to alter the suspension geometry of the modified Mayer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously provide on-the-fly adjustability of the suspension characteristics, as motivated by the recognized advantages of improved rider control, efficiency, and adaptability to terrain conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 202009008221 U1 to Bernd discloses: device for changing the position of the saddle (9) of a vehicle, preferably a bicycle, having two legs (1) and (2), each rotatably supported at one end on a part (5) integral with the bicycle, e.g. , B. a seat tube of the bicycle frame clamped seat tube, and at its other end to a saddle (9) connected to the part (8) are mounted so that they form approximately two opposite sides of a parallelogram and by a spring element (18) be brought into the position in which the saddle (9) has its highest position.
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 extension fee 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, Neacsu, Valentin 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 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 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611