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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt of the preliminary amendment filed 12/11/2025 is acknowledged. In view of amendment, the examiner notes that claim 5 has been amended. Claims 3-4, 11, 16-17, 21, 23-26, 28-29 and 33-52 have been cancelled. New claims 53-56 have been added.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 12, line 4: “a leverage ratio” is understood to be a ratio: Shock Stroke / Vertical Wheel Travel.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
In claim 1, line 5, “a first location” is not shown in the figure 1 to 9D.
In claim 1, lines 14-15, “a third link” not shown in the figure 1 to 9D.
In claim 2, lines 8-9, “the another connecting tube” not shown in the figure 1 to 9D.
In claim 5, line 2, “a pair of laterally spaced arms” not shown in the figure 1 to 9D. Those features must be shown, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 7-8 recite: “the first link pivotably connected to the main frame at a first location”. The term “a first location” lacks any objective boundary defining what location constitutes “a first location”. There are multiple linkage and pivotal points which are simultaneously located at several places of the claimed bicycle frame. The term “first location” does not identify a specific component, pivot axis, joint or structure. Drawing and specification does not explicitly clarify to any specific element number with location among several pivotal points, and therefore does not inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty. It is unclear whether “first location” is above or below the suspension components. Because of this clarity issue, the claim is considered as “indefinite.” For the sake of compact prosecution, “a first location” is understood to be “a pivotal point next to the first link and positioned to be in the main frame”
Claim 1, lines 14-15 recite the phrase: “a third link connected to the second link”. The term “a third link” is not shown on the drawing itself. Without knowing the exact link location, a person of ordinary skill in the art can’t determine whether the “third link” is on the first arm or send arm of the forward end of the chain stay or position above the two separate eyes of the suspension body so that it could be connected to second link. Therefore, the scope of the claim can’t be determined with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the term in the claim is indefinite under § 112(b). For the shake of compact prosecution, “a third link” is understood to be a link next to the lower arm of the forward end of the chain stay.
Claim 2, recites the limitation "the another connecting tube" in line 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(b).
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 7, 10, 18-20, 27, 30-32 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain et al (US20190300097; hereinafter, “Chamberlain”) in view of Noda et al. (US Pat 4540193 A; hereinafter, “Noda”).
Regarding claim 1, Chamberlain discloses: a bicycle assembly (12, figs. 1-9D; [0029]) comprising:
a main frame (14, fig. 2) comprising a seat tube (60), a head tube (50) and at least one connecting tube (52) connecting the seat tube (60) and the head tube (50);
a subframe (16, fig. 2) configured to rotate with respect to the main frame (via 72c, fig. 2), the subframe (16) comprising a seat stay (76), a chain stay (70), and
a shock absorber (26) having a first end (26a, fig. 12; [0042]) and a second end (26b), the first end (26a) of the shock absorber (26) mounted on the main frame (14; [para 0042 teaches: “a first or front end 26a of the shock absorber 26 is pivotally connected to the main frame 14”])
As depicted in figs. 1-7, Chamberlain discloses the suspension linkage and their function, but does not expressly teach a first link, second link and third link as required by remaining limitations of claim 1; however,
Noda in another two-wheeled vehicle, such as rear motorcycle fork similar to Chamberlain teaches that a first link (4a, annotated fig. 1 below), the chain stay (12) mounted to the main frame (via 3), the first link (4a) pivotably connected to the main frame (fig. 1) at a first location (A, annotated fig. 1 of Noda below) and pivotably connected (via A) to the seat stay (1), and the seat stay (1) pivotably connected to the chain stay (via 3 or 16, fig. 1);
a second link (5a, fig. 1) having a first end (5c) and a second end (5a'), the first end (5c) of the second link (5a) connected to the second end of the shock absorber (4, fig. 1), and the second link (5a) being pivotable with respect to the main frame [(at 16 and A); also note that the second link (5a) is pivotably mounted to the main frame (fig. 1) between the first end (5c) of the second link (5a) and the second end (5a') of the second link (5a)], and
a third link (5b) connected (via location A and 16) to the second link (5a) and the chain stay (12), wherein the second link (5a) and third link (5b) are configured to transmit force between the shock absorber (4) and the chain stay (12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive to an idea of Noda’s configuration where a first link is pivotably connected to the main frame and a first link having a second end connected to the second end of the shock absorber and furthermore, a third link connected to the second link and chain stay and integrate those similar configuration into the invention of Chamberlain with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the multi-link pivot assembly that controls how the rear triangle moves under load and obtain precise control of suspension kinematics 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Noda
Regarding claim 2, Chamberlain as modified above further teaches that a bottom bracket support member (56, fig. 1 and [0033]), wherein the seat tube (60) extends from the at least one connecting tube (B, annotated fig. 2 of Chamberlain) to the bottom bracket support member; another connecting tube (62, fig. 2) extending from the head tube (50) to the seat tube (60); and wherein the seat tube (60), the at least one connecting tube (B), and the another connecting tube (62) form a generally triangular shape (see annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
461
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2 of Chamberlain.
Regarding claim 5, Chamberlain as modified above further teaches that the seat stay(76 having left and right 76, fig. 5; [0042]) comprises a pair of laterally spaced arms (left 76 and right 76 as depicted in fig. 5), the chain stay (70) comprises a pair of laterally spaced arms (pair of 76), and the seat stay (76) defines a rear wheel hub axis (“hub axis AH, fig. 2 and [0046]).
Regarding claim 6, (similar limitations, but different dependency), Chamberlain as modified above further teaches that the second link (5a) is pivotably mounted to the main frame (fig. 1) between the first end (5c) of the second link (5a) and the second end (5a') of the second link (5a). See claim rejection 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Chamberlain as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that a forward end of the chain stay is pivotably connected to the main frame at a location that is above a pivotable connection between the forward end of the chain stay and the third link; however,
Noda teaches a forward end of the chain stay (at 3 location, fig. 1) is pivotably connected to the main frame (via 3) at a location that is above (fig. 1 shows above) a pivotable connection (at 16) between the forward end (3) of the chain stay (12) and the third link (5b).
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 the modified Chamberlain to incorporate the teaching of Noda and provide a forward end of the chain stay which is pivotably connected to the main frame at a location that is above a pivotable connection between the forward end of the chain stay. Prior art of record teaches the 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.
Regarding claim 10, Chamberlain as modified above further teaches that a rear wheel hub axis (“hub axis AH, fig. 2 and [0046]), wherein the chain stay (70) is pivotable (via 72d, fig. 2) with respect the seat stays (76) about an axis (axis at 72d, fig. 4) that is below (fig. 2 shows axis at 72d is below hub axis AH) the rear wheel hub axis (AH).
Regarding claim 18, Chamberlain teaches that a bicycle assembly (12, figs. 1-7; [0029]) comprising:
a main frame (14, fig. 2) comprising a seat tube (60), a head tube (50) and a connecting tube (52) connecting the seat tube (60) and the head tube (50);
a subframe (16, fig. 2) configured to rotate with respect to the main frame (via 72c, fig. 1), the subframe (16) comprising a seat stay (76), a chain stay (70), and
a shock absorber (26) having a first end (26a, fig. 12; [0042]) and a second end (26b), the first end (26a) of the shock absorber (26) mounted on the main frame (14; [para 0042 teaches: “a first or front end 26a of the shock absorber 26 is pivotally connected to the main frame 14”]); and as depicted in figs. 1-7, Chamberlain discloses the suspension linkage and their function, but does not expressly teach a first link, second link and third link as required by remaining limitations of claim 18; however,
Noda teaches that a first link (4a, annotated fig. 1 above) connected to the main frame (via 3, fig. 1) and the seat stay (1);
a linkage (4a), the linkage comprising at least a second link (5a, fig. 1) connected to the second end (at 5c, fig. 1) of the shock absorber (4, fig. 1) and pivotable with respect to the main frame (at location A and 5a', annotated fig. 1 of Noda above) which cooperates in the transmission of force from the shock absorber (4) to the chain stay (12).
wherein the chain stay (12) is pivotably coupled to the linkage (5b) at a pivot axis (axis at 16, fig. 1) that moves along a path that is not dependent on force exerted on or generated by the shock absorber [ col 1, lines 40-50 teaches that the fourth object of this invention is to provide an integrally molded rear fork arm of approximate U shape 45 with high strength and high stiffness so as to have it able to cope with torsional force generated at the axle mount; thus, the chain stay is pivotably coupled to the linkage at a pivot axis that moves along a path that is not dependent on force exerted on or generated by the shock absorber.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive to an idea of Noda’s configuration where a first link is pivotably connected to the main frame and a first link having a second end connected to the second end of the shock absorber and furthermore, a third link connected to the second link and chain stay and integrate those similar configuration into the invention of Chamberlain with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the multi-link pivot assembly that controls how the rear triangle moves under load and obtain precise control of suspension kinematics 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.
Regarding claim 19, Chamberlain as modified above further teaches that the second link (5a) is pivotably mounted to the main frame (fig. 1) between the first end (5c) of the second link (5a) and the second end (5a') of the second link (5a) [see claim rejection 1 above; note that: although the claims 19 is unrelated dependency-wise to claim 1; however, identical limitations have been noted, including motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.]
Regarding claim 20, Chamberlain as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that the linkage comprises a third link, and wherein a forward end of the chain stay is pivotably connected to the main frame at a location that is above a pivotable connection between the forward end of the chain stay and the third link; however,
Noda teaches the linkage (4a) comprises a third link (5b), and wherein a forward end of the chain stay (at 3 location, fig. 1) is pivotably connected to the main frame (via 3) at a location that is above (fig. 1 shows above) a pivotable connection (at 16) between the forward end of the chain stay (12) and the third link (5b).
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 the modified Chamberlain to incorporate the teaching of Noda and provide a forward end of the chain stay which is pivotably connected to the main frame at a location that is above a pivotable connection between the forward end of the chain stay. Prior art of record teaches the 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.
Regarding claim 27, Chamberlain teaches that a main frame (14) comprising a seat tube (60), a head tube (50) and a connecting tube (52, fig. 2) connecting the seat tube (60) and the head tube (50);
a subframe (16, fig. 2) configured to rotate with respect to the main frame (via 72c, fig. 2), the subframe (16) comprising a pair of separate or integrally formed seat stays (left and right 76, fig. 4), a pair of separate or integrally formed chain stays (pair of 76), but fails to teach that a first link , the chain stays mounted to the main frame and the first link connected to the main frame and the seat stays; a shock absorber having a first end and a second end, the first end of the shock absorber mounted on the main frame; and a linkage, the linkage comprising at least a second link connected to the second end of the shock absorber and pivotable with respect to the main frame which cooperates in the transmission of force from the shock absorber to the chain stays; however,
Noda teaches that a first link (4a, annotated fig. 1 of Noda above), the chain stays (12, fig. 1) mounted to the main frame (at 3) and the first link (4a) connected to the main frame (a first location A, see annotated fig. 1 of Noda above) and the seat stays (left and right 1); a shock absorber having a first end and a second end (fig. 1 of Noda), the first end of the shock absorber mounted on the main frame (fig. 1); and a linkage (at 5c), the linkage comprising at least a second link connected to the second end of the shock absorber (fig. 1 shows 5c connected to shock absorber second end) and pivotable with respect to the main frame (at first position A and 4a', see annotated fig. 1 of Noda above) which cooperates in the transmission of force from the shock absorber (4) to the chain stays (1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive to an idea where a first link is pivotably connected to the main frame and a first link having a second end connected to the second end of the shock absorber and furthermore; a shock absorber having a first end and a second end, the first end of the shock absorber mounted on the main frame and a linkage, the linkage comprising at least a second link connected to the second end of the shock absorber and pivotable with respect to the main frame as taught by Noda’s configuration into the invention of Chamberlain with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the multi-link pivot assembly that controls how the rear triangle moves under load and obtain precise control of suspension kinematics 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.
Regarding claim 30, Chamberlain as modified above further teaches that the subframe (16, fig. 2 of Chamberlain) defines a rear wheel hub axis (“hub axis AH”, fig. 2 of Chamberlain and [0046]), wherein the subframe (16) comprises an upper mechanism (mechanism constituted by 76a, 72c, 74b, 74 and 72b as depicted in fig. 2 of Chamberlain) comprising at least a portion of the seat stays (76, fig. 2) and the first link (first link of Noda), wherein the subframe (16) comprises a lower mechanism (72d, 70b, fig. 2) comprising at least a portion of the seat stays (76, fig. 2) and the chain stays (70), wherein the subframe (16) does not have more than two pivots (76a or 72d) between the hub axis (“hub axis AH”, fig. 2 of Chamberlain and [0046]) and the main frame (14) in the upper mechanism (mechanism constituted by 76a, 72c, 74b, 74 and 72b as depicted in fig. 2 of Chamberlain), and wherein the subframe (16) does not have more than two pivots (72d or 76a or at AH; fig. 2) between the hub axis (AH) and the main frame (14) in the lower mechanism.
Regarding claim 31, Chamberlain as modified above further teaches that the at least a second link (5a of Noda) of the linkage (linkage formed by 5c, 5a and 4a) comprises at least two pivotably coupled links (4a' and at 5c) that transmit force from the shock absorber (4) to the chain stays (12).
Regarding claim 32, Chamberlain as modified above further teaches that the linkage (linkage formed by 5c, 5a and 4a of Noda) does not comprise a link coupled to the first link (4a of Noda) of the subframe (16 of Chamberlain) or a link72c of Chamberlain) coupled to the seat stays (left and right 76 of Chamberlain) of the subframe (16).
Regarding claim 53, Chamberlain as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that the chain stay is configured to pull on the third link during compression to transmit force from the chain stay to the shock absorber; however,
Noda teaches that the chain stay (12) is configured to pull on the third link (5b, fig. 1) during compression to transmit force from the chain stay (12) to the shock absorber (4) [ col 3, lines 35-40 teaches that pivot block construction of this embodiment has a sufficient strength and stiffness against external mechanical forces, such as twisting and bending of the rear fork, which enables the rear fork body to be made thinner in wall thickness for saving as much weight, resulting in a reduction of the unspring weight of the rear cushion; note that: reduction of the unspring weight is only possible by transmitting force from chain stay to the shock absorber; thus, stay is configured to pull on the third link during compression to transmit force from the chain stay to the shock absorber.]
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 the modified Chamberlain to incorporate the teaching of Noda and provide the chain stay that is configured to pull on the third link during compression to transmit force from the chain stay to the shock absorber to reduce the unspring weight of the rear cushion with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the multi-link pivot assembly where transmitted force reduces the unspring weight during compression, improve traction, comfort and control. Each reference teaches the 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.
Regarding claim 54, depending on claim 18, Chamberlain further teaches that the seat stay (76, fig. 2) of the subframe (16) defines a rear wheel hub axis (AH) [see fig. 2].
Regarding claim 55, Chamberlain does not appear to explicitly teach that the chain stay is configured to pull on the linkage during compression to transmit force from the chain stay to the shock absorber; however,
Noda teaches that the chain stay (12) is configured to pull on the linkage (5b, 5c fig. 1) during compression to transmit force from the chain stay (12) to the shock absorber (4) [ col 3. Lines 35-40 teaches that pivot block construction of this embodiment has a sufficient strength and stiffness against external mechanical forces, such as twisting and bending of the rear fork, which enables the rear fork body to be made thinner in wall thickness for saving as much weight, resulting in a reduction of the unspring weight of the rear cushion; note that: reduction of the unspring weight is only possible by transmitting force from chain stay to the shock absorber; thus, stay is configured to pull on the third link during compression to transmit force from the chain stay to the shock absorber.]
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 the modified Chamberlain to incorporate the teaching of Noda and provide the chain stay that is configured to pull on the linkage during compression to transmit force from the chain stay to the shock absorber to reduce the unspring weight of the rear cushion with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the multi-link pivot assembly where transmitted force reduces the unspring weight during compression, improve traction, comfort and control. Each reference teaches the 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.
Regarding claim 56, Chamberlain as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that the chain stay is configured to pull on the linkage during compression to transmit force from the chain stay to the shock absorber; however,
Noda teaches that the chain stay (12) is configured to pull on the linkage (4a, 5b, 5c; annotated fig. 1 of Noda above) during compression to transmit force from the chain stay (12 of Noda) to the shock absorber (4 of Noda) [ col 3. Lines 35-40 teaches that pivot block construction of this embodiment has a sufficient strength and stiffness against external mechanical forces, such as twisting and bending of the rear fork, which enables the rear fork body to be made thinner in wall thickness for saving as much weight, resulting in a reduction of the unspring weight of the rear cushion; note that: reduction of the unspring weight is only possible by transmitting force from chain stay to the shock absorber; thus, stay is configured to pull on the third link during compression to transmit force from the chain stay to the shock absorber.]
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 the modified Chamberlain to incorporate the teaching of Noda and provide the chain stay that is configured to pull on the linkage during compression to transmit force from the chain stay to the shock absorber to reduce the unspring weight of the rear cushion with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the multi-link pivot assembly where transmitted force reduces the unspring weight during compression, improve traction, comfort and control. Each reference teaches the 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.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain in view of Noda and further in view of Rischer Klaus (DE102014106174 A1; hereinafter, “Klaus”).
Regarding claim 8, Chamberlain as modified above does not appear to expressly teach a forward end of the chain stay comprises an upper arm and a lower arm, the upper arm comprising the pivotable connection between the forward end of the chain stay and the main frame, the lower arm comprising the pivotable connection between the forward end of the chain stay and the third link; however,
Klaus in another ‘bicycle frame’ similar to the modified Chamberlain teaches that the forward end (at 20, fig.2) of the chain stay (3, fig. 2) comprises an upper arm (A, annotated fig. 2 of Klaus below) and a lower arm (B, annotated fig. 2 of Klaus below), the upper arm (A) comprising the pivotable connection (at 20) between the forward end (forward end at 20 of the main frame above the crank axis) of the chain stay (3) and the main frame (2 and 6), the lower arm (B) comprising the pivotable connection (at 22, fig. 2) between the forward end (end C near22 below the crank axis, see annotated fig. 2 of Klaus below) of the chain stay (3) and the third link (21).
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 the forward end of the chain stay that comprises an upper arm and a lower arm, the upper arm comprising the pivotable connection between the forward end of the chain stay and the main frame, the lower arm comprising the pivotable connection between the forward end of the chain stay and the third link as taught by Klaus and integrate the similar known configuration into the invention of the modified Chamberlain with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously adopt a new design where the rear wheel can move slightly rearward over bumps, improves traction and bump absorption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the chain stay having two arms in the same manner as shown in reference to Klaus to achieve predictable results using a known technique for a known purpose.
PNG
media_image3.png
408
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2 of Klaus.
Regarding claim 9, Chamberlain as modified above further teaches that the forward end (20) of the chain stay (3) is pivotably connected to the main frame (2 and 6) above a crank axis (see annotated fig. 2 of Klaus above from claim 8), and the forward end (at C) of the chain stay (3) is pivotably connected to the third link (22, fig. 2 of Klaus) below the crank axis (see annotated fig. 2 of Klaus above from claim 8).
Regarding claim 22, Chamberlain as modified above does not appear to teach that the forward end of the chain stay is pivotably connected to the main frame above a crank axis, and the forward end of the chain stay is pivotably connected to the third link below the crank axis; however,
Klaus teaches that the forward end (20) of the chain stay (3) is pivotably connected to the main frame (2 and 6) above a crank axis (see annotated fig. 2 of Klaus above), and the forward end (at C) of the chain stay (3) is pivotably connected to the third link (22, fig. 2 of Klaus) below the crank axis (see annotated fig. 2 of Klaus above).
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 the forward end of the chain stay that is pivotably connected to the main frame above a crank axis, and the forward end of the chain stay is pivotably connected to the third link below the crank axis as taught by Klaus into the invention of the modified Chamberlain with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously adopt a new enhanced design where the compression spring receives the forces on the spring/damper assembly which are produced by the weight force of the rear wheel when the two-wheeler frame is lifted [ para. 0046 of Klaus] in the same manner as shown to achieve predictable results using a known technique for a known purpose.
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain in view of Noda, in view of Domahidy (US Pub. 20110233892 A1) and further in view of O’Conner (US Pub. 20080303242 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Chamberlain as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that for at least 90% of a range of compression stroke between a first position where the bicycle assembly is 000 compressed and a second position where the bicycle assembly is 10000 compressed; however,
Domahidy in another bicycle rear suspension similar to the modified Chamberlain teaches that for at least 90% of a range of compression stroke between a first position where the bicycle assembly is 000 compressed and a second position where the bicycle assembly is 10000 compressed [Para. 0036 teaches that by avoiding chain growth throughout the bump, absorbing portion of compression (i.e., approximately 25% to 100%); see graphical representation as depicted in fig. 6; also ‘brief description of the drawing’ in page 1 discloses: “fig. 6 shows the bicycle frame of fig. 1 in a range of positions from approximately 0% compressed to 100% compressed”; thus, at least 90% of a range of compression stroke between a first position where the bicycle assembly is 000 compressed and a second position where the bicycle assembly is 10000 compressed.]
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 the modified Chamberlain to integrate the teaching of Domahidy and configure the bicycle rear suspension such that at least 90% of the shock compression between a first position and a second position wherein the assembly is fully compressed at the second position because such a variation in configuration routinely control leverage ratios and linkage geometry to manage wheel travel, optimize ride performance and prevent bottoming, and modifying the linkage to achieve this fraction of stroke would have been a straightforward mechanical design choice.
The modified Chamberlain in view of Domahidy does not appear to teach that a leverage ratio of the bicycle assembly as a function of level of compression has a negative slope which has a greater negative magnitude the more the bicycle assembly is compressed; however,
O’Connor in another bicycle rear suspension system similar to the modified Chamberlain teaches that a leverage ratio (see claim interpretation above) of the bicycle assembly as a function of level of compression has a negative slope [0038] which has a greater negative magnitude (fig. 3 has a greater negative magnitude) the more the bicycle assembly is compressed [ see graphical representation of fig. 3 of O’Connor where ratio between wheel vertical travel vs Shock Stroke ratio (leverage ratio) shows a greater negative magnitude when more the bicycle assembly is compressed; also para. 0038 teaches “starting at a higher initial rate and finishing at a lower bottom-out rate”.]
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 the modified Chamberlain above to incorporate the teaching of O’Connor and advantageously configure the bicycle rear suspension such that a leverage ratio of the bicycle assembly as a function of level of compression has a negative slope which has a greater negative magnitude when more the bicycle assembly is compressed and doing so shock opposes or slows the wheel’s motion at higher compression, prevent harsh bottoming on big hits, reduce risk of shock damage and allows for a more unrestrictive movement through the suspension travel, and the higher initial rate allows for a lower air pressure required in the shock-absorber [para. 0038 of O’Connor].
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain in view of Noda, in view of Domahidy, in view of O’Conner and further in view of Dan Roberts (published https://www.pinkbike.com/news/behind-the-numbers-enduro-category-round-up- 03/31/2020; hereinafter, “Roberts”).
Regarding claim 13, Chamberlain as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that a rear brake assembly, wherein the bicycle assembly has anti-rise of less than or equal to 50%, and a graph of the anti-rise as a function of rear wheel travel has a non-negative slope, at least within a range of 5% to 50% of the rear wheel travel; however,
Roberts in another bicycle similar to the modified Chamberlain teaches that a rear brake assembly (“rear brake”, page 11), wherein the bicycle assembly (page 2) has anti-rise of less than or equal to 50% (see graphical representation in page 11), and a graph of the anti-rise as a function of rear wheel travel has a non-negative slope at least within a range of 5% to 50% of the rear wheel travel (fig. in page 11 shows the anti-rise as a function of rear wheel travel has a non-negative slope at least within a range of 5% to 50% of the rear wheel travel and anti- rise of greater than or equal to 40%).
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 the enhanced modified Chamberlain’s suspension configuration by using Robert’s teaching of adjusting anti-rise across the travel range in order to achieve predictable braking response and improved rider control. Such optimization represents no more than the routine design choices available to a skilled artisan seeking to balance pitch behavior and suspension compliance. The resulting configuration would inherently or explicitly produce a non-negative slope of anti-rise over the relevant portion of wheel travel.
Regarding claim 14, Chamberlain as modified above further teaches that the bicycle assembly has anti- rise of greater than or equal to 40% (see fig. in page 11 and claim rejection 13 above for anti- rise of greater than or equal to 40%).
Regarding claim 15, Chamberlain as modified above further teaches that the bicycle assembly (12) is configured such that, when the bicycle assembly (12 of Chamberlain) is in a riding position on a horizontal surface (fig. 1 of Chamberlain), with the subframe (16, fig. 2 of Chamberlain) in a relaxed configuration (fig. 2), the bicycle assembly (12) has at least one of the following: (1) a main shock body (26 of Chamberlain), or (5) all suspension members (26) remain below 1/2 a stack height of the bicycle assembly (see fig. 1 of Chamberlain).
but fails to explicitly teach that the shock absorber positioned lower than the first location where the first link is pivotably connected to the main frame; (2) a first eye of the shock absorber and a second eye of the shock absorber, both being positioned lower than the first location where first link is pivotably connected to the main frame; (3) the main shock body positioned not higher than 220mm above a crank axis defined by a bottom bracket of the main frame; (4) both the front shock eye and rear shock eye being not higher than 220mm above the crank axis defined by the bottom bracket;
Noda teaches the shock absorber positioned lower than the first location (A, annotated fig. 1 of Noda above) where the first link (4a) is pivotably connected to the main frame (fig. 1); (2) a first eye of the shock absorber and a second eye of the shock absorber (fig 1), both being positioned lower than the first location (A) where first link is pivotably connected to the main frame (via 4a).
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 both a first eye of the shock absorber and a second eye of the shock absorber, both being positioned lower than the first location where first link is pivotably connected to the main frame as taught by Noda into the invention of Chamberlain in order to advantageously adjust and accommodate the shock body within its compact main frame body to reduce weight and optimize shock alignment. Such optimization represents no more than the routine design choices available to a skilled artisan with the predictable result.
Chamberlain in view of Noda differs from the claimed invention in the placement of the both the front shock eye and rear shock eye being not higher than 220mm above the crank axis defined by the bottom bracket; however,
Domahidy teaches that the both the front shock eye and rear shock eye (“a top line”; [claim 6]) being not higher than 220mm above the crank axis (“an axis of the bottom bracket shell”) defined by the bottom bracket [claim 6 teaches that a top line extending horizontally 130 mm above an axis of the bottom bracket shell; see para. 0038 and fig. 1; thus, main shock body (body of shock absorbing mechanism, fig. 1) positioned not higher than 220mm above a crank axis defined by a bottom bracket of the main frame.]
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 the front shock eye and rear shock eye being not higher than 220mm above the crank axis defined by the bottom bracket as taught by Domahidy into the suspension configuration of the modified Chamberlain in order to advantageously improve design , reduced frame sway and provide improved balance during jumps and drops. The resulting configurations explicitly produce a predictable results using a known technique for a known purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190283837 A1 to Parry discloses: a bicycle frame includes a front frame assembly and a rear frame assembly pivotably connected to the front frame assembly. The front frame assembly includes a bottom bracket shell, a seat tube extending from the bottom bracket shell toward a saddle support, and a forward shock attachment point statically located on the seat tube between the bottom bracket shell and the saddle support.
US 3948543 A to MacDonald discloses: rear wheel suspension system for a motorcycle having a frame, a rear wheel, a horizontal longitudinally extended swing arm assembly pivoted at its forward end to the frame.
US 10011318 B2 to Mac discloses: “Braking anti-rise” is a measure of the suspension system's response to braking and is defined as a ratio calculated as follows.
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 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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on (571) 272-51095109. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
March 20, 2026