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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Coaplen et al. (US 2021/0237824 A1) hereinafter, Coaplen.
Regarding claim 1, Coaplen teaches a crown (100) comprising:
a steerer tube boss (101);
a first upper tube boss (102);
a second upper tube boss (103), wherein the first upper tube boss and the second upper tube boss reside on a plane (106), wherein the plane comprises the central axis (107) of the first upper tube boss and the central axis (108) of the second upper tube boss (Figure 4A Annotated), and wherein said plane does not include a central axis of said steerer tube boss (Figures 1 and 5A);
a first arm (104) to connect the first upper tube boss to the steerer tube boss; and
a second arm (105) to connect the second upper tube boss to the steerer tube boss, at least one of the first arm or the second arm comprises at least one bore (630, Figure 6C).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Coaplen (Figure 6) teaches that the at least one bore is covered with a material (620).
Regarding claim 6, Coaplen (Figure 6) teaches that the material is different from the material of the crown.
Regarding claim 7, Coaplen teaches that the material is configured as a plug (620) extended into at least a portion of the bore (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 9, Coaplen teaches Coaplen teaches a crown (100) comprising:
a steerer tube boss (101);
a first upper tube boss (102);
a second upper tube boss (103), wherein the first upper tube boss and the second upper tube boss reside on a plane (106), wherein the plane comprises the central axis (107) of the first upper tube boss and the central axis (108) of the second upper tube boss (Figure 4A Annotated), and wherein said plane does not include a central axis of said steerer tube boss (Figures 1 and 5A);
a first arm (104) to connect the first upper tube boss to the steerer tube boss; and
a second arm (105) to connect the second upper tube boss to the steerer tube boss, at least one of the first arm or the second arm comprises at least one bore (630, Figure 6C), wherein the at least one bore is covered with a material (620).
Regarding claim 13, Coaplen (Figure 6) teaches that the material is different from the material of the crown.
Regarding claim 14, Coaplen teaches that the material is configured as a plug (620) extended into at least a portion of the bore (Figure 6).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 10, 12, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coaplen et al. (US 2021/0237824 A1) in view of Venour (634,043 A).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 10, and 12, Coaplen teaches the crown of claims 1 and 9. However, Coaplen does not teach that the topology of said first arm and said second arm is restructured to have the same or heavier weight and have increased physical characteristics.
Venour teaches that the topology of said first arm and said second arm is restructured to have the same (Col. 1, Line 33-38) or heavier weight (Col. 1, Line 21-28) and have increased physical characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Coaplen’s crown, in view of Venour, first arm and said second arm restructured to have the same or heavier weight, in order to materially strengthen the fork.
Regarding claim 16, Coaplen teaches Coaplen teaches a crown (100) comprising:
a steerer tube boss (101);
a first upper tube boss (102);
a second upper tube boss (103), wherein the first upper tube boss and the second upper tube boss reside on a plane (106), wherein the plane comprises the central axis of the first upper tube boss and the central axis of the second upper tube boss (Figure 4A Annotated), and wherein said plane does not include a central axis of said steerer tube boss (Figures 1 and 5A);
a first arm (104) to connect the first upper tube boss to the steerer tube boss; and
a second arm (105) to connect the second upper tube boss to the steerer tube boss, at least one of the first arm or the second arm comprises at least one bore (630, Figure 6C), wherein the at least one bore is covered with a material (620).
However, Coaplen does not teach that the topology of said first arm and said second arm is restructured to have the same weight and have increased physical characteristics.
Venour teaches that the topology of said first arm and said second arm is restructured to have the same (Col. 1, Line 33-38) weight and have increased physical characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Coaplen’s crown, in view of Venour, first arm and said second arm restructured to have the same weight, in order to materially strengthen the fork.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Coaplen in view of Venour teaches that the material is different from the material of the crown (Coaplen; Figure 6).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Coaplen in view of Venour teaches that the material is configured as a plug (620) extended into at least a portion of the bore (Coaplen; Figure 6).
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coaplen et al. (US 2021/0237824 A1) in view of Allen (6,095,542 A).
Coaplen teaches the crown of claims 1 and 9. However, Coaplen does not teach that the topology of said first arm and said second arm is restructured to have the lighter weight and have increased physical characteristics.
Allen teaches that the topology of said first arm and said second arm is restructured to have the lighter weight and have increased physical characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Coaplen’s crown, in view of Allen, with a lighter weight crown. This optimizes structural strength and stiffness while minimizing weight (Col. 3, Lines 37-38).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coaplen et al. (US 2021/0237824 A1) in view of Achenbach et al. (2015/0291246 A1) hereinafter, Achenbach.
Coaplen teaches the crown of claims 1 and 9. However, Coaplen does not teach that the material is configured as a wrap on an outer surface of the first arm and the second arm.
Achenbach teaches that the material is configured as a wrap on an outer surface of the first arm and the second arm (paragraph [0024] and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Coaplen’s crown, in view of Achenbach, with a wrap material, in order to seal the bores and prevent dirt and foreign materials from entering.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coaplen et al. (US 2021/0237824 A1) in view of Venour (634,043 A) and further in view of Achenbach et al. (2015/0291246 A1).
The combination of Coaplen in view of Venour teaches the crown of claim 16. However, the combination of Coaplen in view of Venour does not teach that the material is configured as a wrap on an outer surface of the first arm and the second arm.
Achenbach teaches that the material is configured as a wrap on an outer surface of the first arm and the second arm (paragraph [0024] and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Coaplen’s crown, in view of Achenbach, with a wrap material, in order to seal the bores and prevent dirt and foreign materials from entering.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See 102 rejection of claims 1 and 9 and 103 rejection of claim 16 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAM SHABARA whose telephone number is (571)272-5495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VALENTIN NEACSU can be reached at (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOSAM SHABARA/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611