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, 4-16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter (US 2014/0091551) in view of Ehrenreich (US 2009/0072520) and Baker (US 2003/0057672).
In re claim 1, Walter discloses a cargo bicycle conversion system for the reversible conversion of a subject bicycle into a cargo bicycle as shown in Figure 39, comprising: a cargo conversion frame (40C) having a nub mount receiver (44) configured for direct engagement with a bottom bracket of a frame of the subject bicycle as shown in Figures 7-8 (pivot adapter 41 is in direct engagement of bottom bracket as shown in annotated Figure 7 below); at least one frame coupling component (41) detachably connecting the cargo conversion frame nub mount receiver to the frame of the subject bicycle (30); and a steering adapter system (50C) functionally coupling a fork (33C) attached to the subject bicycle to a fork (93C) attached to the cargo conversion frame, but does not disclose an inline brake adapter system functionally and reversibly coupling a brake lever cable of the subject bicycle to a brake caliper cable attached to the cargo conversion frame without brake cable rewiring. Ehrenreich, however, does disclose a brake adapter system functionally coupling a brake lever cable (120) of the subject bicycle to a brake caliper cable attached to the cargo conversion frame as shown in Figure 16A. Baker further discloses an inline bicycle adapter (27) to quickly and reversibly couple a brake cable (32) to an adapter brake cable (28) of a conversion frame without rewiring the main bicycle cable (32) as shown in Figure 3 allowing a user to convert the bicycle to a tandem bicycle and back to a normal bicycle without the use of tools (see [0096], [0099], and [0108]). The Examiner notes that the brake adapter 27 is inline at least in Figure 3. 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 cargo bicycle of Walter such that it comprised the brake adapter system of Ehrenreich to the cargo frame wheel with braking capacity to maximize vehicle stopping efficiency and the quick connect cable of Baker to provide a reversible and quick connect brake cable to provide the user with an easily reversible bicycle conversion system.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner-annotated Figure 7
In re claim 4, Walter further discloses wherein the steering adapter system comprises a steering assembly and a fork coupling assembly, wherein the steering assembly and the fork coupling assembly are functionally coupled (gimbal assembly 50C couples steering mechanism 60C to gimbal yoke 80A).
In re claim 5, Walter further discloses wherein the steering assembly comprises a steering arm (63C) having a steering converter flange (55C) and steering linkage, wherein the steering arm and steering linkage are functionally coupled.
In re claim 6, Walter further discloses wherein the fork coupling assembly comprises a fork mount and a fork rake adjuster plate (80C), wherein the fork mount and the fork rake adjuster plate are functionally coupled as shown in Figure 38.
In re claim 7, Walter further discloses wherein the fork coupling assembly is detachably connected to the fork attached to the subject bicycle (via bolt) as shown in Figure 38.
In re claim 8, Walter further discloses wherein the fork coupling assembly comprises at least one of the following connecting mechanisms for detachably connecting the fork attached to the subject bicycle to the steering convertor: quick release skewers, thru axle skewers, straps, a solid axle (bolt) with nuts, fork pinching mechanisms, and combinations and variations thereof as shown in Figure 38.
In re claim 9, Walter further discloses wherein the steering linkage has a proximal end and a distal end, the steering linkage distal end functionally coupled to the fork attached to the cargo conversion frame, and wherein movement of the fork attached to the subject bicycle causes corresponding movement of the fork attached to the cargo conversion system through actuation of the steering convertor and the steering linkage as shown in Figure 37-39.
In re claim 10, Walter further discloses wherein the distal end of the steering linkage is functionally coupled (via bracket 62C) to the fork attached to the cargo conversion frame by at least one of the following mechanisms: nuts, bolts, screws. fasteners, clamps, straps, pins, cotter pins, couplers, plastic clips or joints, lock-and-key mechanisms, thru bolts, quick release skewers, pivot joints, ball-and socket joints, rotational discs, pins, springs, welding and combinations and variations thereof as shown in Figure 37.
In re claim 11, Walter further discloses wherein the steering linkage is configured to extend from the steering convertor flange to the fork of the cargo conversion frame along a path that is substantially adjacent to the cargo conversion frame as shown in Figure 37.
In re claim 12, Walter further discloses wherein the cargo bicycle conversion system further comprises a front wheel (48C) functionally coupled to the fork of the cargo conversion system.
In re claim 13, Walter further discloses wherein the cargo bicycle conversion system further comprises at least one cargo container (70C), the at least one cargo container detachably coupled to the cargo conversion frame as shown in Figure 39.
In re claim 14, Walter further discloses wherein the cargo container is detachably coupled to the cargo conversion frame by at least one of the following mechanisms: nuts, bolts, screws, fasteners, clamps (quick release fasteners, see [0045] and as shown in Figure 39), straps, pins, cotter pins, couplers, plastic clips or joints, lock-and-key mechanisms, thru bolts, quick release skewers, pivot joints, ball-and -socket joints, rotational discs, springs, hook-and-loop mechanisms, buckles, ties, ropes, welding and combinations, and variations thereof.
In re claims 15 and 16, Walter further discloses wherein the cargo container is comprised of grass (bamboo), wood (see [0045]), plastic, paper, metal, metal alloys, polymeric material-carbon fiber or combinations and variations thereof.
In re claim 18, Walter further discloses wherein the cargo conversion frame comprises a substantially linear portion configured to extend a certain distance from an area below the bottom bracket of the subject bicycle to the fork on the cargo conversion frame to accommodate the cargo container as shown in Figure 39.
In re claim 19, Walter further discloses wherein the distal end of the cargo conversion frame is angled upwards to accommodate the fork on the cargo conversion frame as shown in Figure 39.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter, Ehrenreich, and Baker in view of Silvino (BR 102013012530).
In re claim 17, the combination of Walter, Ehrenreich, and Baker discloses the cargo bicycle conversion system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one frame coupling component detachably connects the cargo conversion frame to the portion of the frame of the subject bicycle by mechanism comprising at least one securable thru bolt. Silvino, however, does disclose that the at least one frame coupling component detachably connects the cargo conversion frame to the portion of the frame of the subject bicycle by a mechanism comprising at least one securable thru bolt (17). 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 cargo bicycle of Walter, Ehrenreich, and Baker such that it comprised the thru bolt of Silvino to provide a more secure connection.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter, Ehrenreich, and Baker in view of Donati.
In re claim 32, Walter, Ehrenreich and Baker in combination disclose the cargo bicycle conversion system of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the steering adaptor system is comprised of a steering linkage configured to allow for length adjustment of the linkage. Donati, however, does disclose that the steering adaptor system is comprised of a steering linkage configured to allow for length adjustment of the linkage as shown in Figures 1-4. 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 cargo bicycle of Walter, Ehrenreich, and Baker such that it comprises the adjustable length linkage of Donati to provide a specific vehicle length for specific cargo.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-31 previously allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the at least one frame coupling component of a cargo bicycle conversion system comprises a nub mount assembly configured to be adjustable to multiple widths” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose an adjustable width cargo bicycle conversion system as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Walter does not disclose wherein the nub mount receiver is configured for direct engagement with a bottom bracket of a frame of the subject bicycle. The Examiner, however, notes that the receiver of Walter is in direct engagement of bottom bracket via pivot adapter 41 as shown in Figures 7-8 and now in annotated Figure 7 above. Applicant provides numerous arguments regarding how the brake adapter in the present invention differs, but these features are not claimed. Applicant argues that it is separate and independent aspect of the bike (not welded to frame), that it is an inline integral part of a continuous brake housing independent of the bicycle frame without the use of or need for rigid frame stops, and without the need for exposed cables between cable stops. None of the aspects are claimed however, and the Examiner suggests claiming the brake adapter in more detail (as argued) to distinguish over the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611