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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 1, 2023, does not include a concise explanation of the relevance of foreign patent document: SIMMONDS (CH-16154-A); a supplemental copy of the document including an English language translation has been placed in the application file by the examiner to correct this. Therefore the above referenced information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 recite the limitations "the upper bearing element" and "the lower bearing element", respectively, but neither “an upper” nor “a lower” bearing element has previously been introduced. For the purpose of examination they will be interpreted as “{an upper of the two bearing elements}” and “{a lower of the two bearing elements}”, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 14 and 15 both refer to the limitation “the steering stabilization means”, but they both depend on claim 12 which does not include this limitation. For the purpose of examination they will be interpreted as depending on claim 13, where the limitation is first introduced. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is: “steering stabilization means” first introduced in claim 13, which further recites the structure of “a spring element” to perform the recited function.
Because this claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "stop surfaces of the first stop element have an angle of at least 180°, preferably at least 220°, with respect to each other". The phrase “at least 180°, preferably at least 220°” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the angle is limited to being greater than 220° or if an angle falling between 180° and 220°, for example 200°, would read on the claimed limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the top tube". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by FUKUI (US-20070108723-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, FUKUI teaches a steering system for bicycle handlebars (Handlebar 17, Fig. 1; and the assembly illustrated by Fig. 2) comprising
a steer tube (Steerer Tube 13b, Fig. 2) pivotably supported in a head tube (Head Tube 12b, Fig. 2) of a bicycle frame (Bicycle 10 and frame, Fig. 1) via two bearing elements (Bearings 23a & 23b, Fig. 2),
a first stop element (Fork Rotation Limiter 41, Fig. 3) with two stops (the two instances of Second Limiters 48b, Fig. 3), said element (41) being adapted to be fixed on the steer tube (13b) of a bicycle fork (Front Fork 13, Fig. 1), and
a second stop element (Limiting Projection 47, Fig. 3) adapted to be fixed on the bicycle frame (Limiting Projection 47 being fixed to Head Tube 12b of the frame of Bicycle 10 as illustrated in Figs. 1-3), in particular the head tube (12b), and cooperating with the first stop element (Para. [0039] and Fig. 3 teach Limiting Projection 47 being configured to contact- i.e. cooperate with- the two instances of Second Limiters 48b),
wherein
a first stop element (48b) is arranged between the two bearing elements (the two instances of Second Limiters 48b being arranged between Bearings 23a & 23b as illustrated in Figs. 2 & 3).
Regarding Claim 2, FUKUI further teaches that the first stop element (41) is fixed to the steer tube (13b) in a force-locked manner, in particular in a clamping manner (Fork Rotation Limiter 41 being fastened to Steerer Tube 13b by Attachment Bolts 45 and Screw Fastening Parts 42a and 42b of Guide Member 40, as taught in Para. [0034] and Figs. 2-7; the Attachment Bolts 45 and Guide Member 40 being configured such that they are considered to clamp Fork Rotation Limiter 41 to Steerer Tube 13b).
Regarding Claim 3, FUKUI further teaches that the first stop element (Fork Rotation Limiter 41) is of annular design (Fork Rotation Limiter 41 being considered of annular design in that it at least partially forms a ring shape, and is conformed to the complete ring or annulus formed by Steerer Tube 13b as illustrated in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, FUKUI further teaches that the first stop element (41) comprises a clamping element (40 & 45) for the clamping fixation on the steer tube (Fork Rotation Limiter 41 being comprising the clamping elements of Attachment Bolts 45 and Guide Member 40 and being considered clamped to Steerer Tube 13b as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding Claim 5, FUKUI further teaches that the steer tube (13b) has a cylindrical portion (Steerer Tube 13b forming as cylinder as illustrated in Fig. 2) between the two bearing elements (23a & 23b), in which the first stop element (41) is arranged (Fork Rotation Limiter 41 being arranged between Bearings 23a & 23b along the cylinder formed by Steerer Tube 13b).
Regarding Claim 6, FUKUI further teaches that {an upper of the two bearing elements} (Bearing 23a) is also arranged in the cylindrical portion (as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, FUKUI further teaches that the stops (48b) have stop surfaces (Second Limiters 48b being formed by surfaces as illustrated in Fig. 7 and taught in Para. [0038]) for limiting a left or right steering lock (Para. [0037] and Figs. 2-3 teach Second Limiters 48b acting with Limiting Projection 47 to form a left and right steering stop- i.e. lock).
Regarding Claim 11, FUKUI further teaches that the second stop element (Limiting Projection 47) is adapted to be arranged in a recess in the bicycle frame, in particular in the head tube (12b) of the bicycle frame (Limiting Projection 47 being arranged inside of Head Tube 12b as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, FUKUI further teaches that the recess is arranged in a front side (left, Figs. 1 & 2) of the head tube (12b) facing to the traveling direction (Limiting Projection 47 being arranged in the front/ left side of Head Tube 12b as illustrated in Fig. 2, which faces a conventionally forward travelling direction as illustrated in Fig. 1).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUKUI in view of ROSE (DE-202021104508-U1).
Regarding Claim 7, FUKUI does not teach a conical portion.
ROSE teaches, in another steering system for bicycle handlebars (Abstract), a cylindrical portion (an upper portion going through Upper Pivot Bearing 9, Fig. 1) of a steering tube (Shaft Tube 2, Fig. 1) which is adjoined by a conical portion (a lower portion going through Lower Pivot Bearing 4, Fig. 1) that widens towards a lower of two bearing elements (Lower Pivot Bearing 4, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of FUKUI and ROSE in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify FUKUI’s steering system to include a conical portion of the steer tube as suggested by ROSE. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a stronger lower portion of a steer tube to accommodate higher local forces that would beneficially make a more robust steering system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUKUI in view of Ehrhard (US-20140084563-A1).
Regarding Claim 8, FUKUI does not teach that the stop surfaces have an angle of at least 180° with respect to each other, as FUKUI teaches the angle to be approximately 160° (Para. [0044]).
Ehrhard teaches, in another steering system for bicycle handlebars (Abstract), stop surfaces (Stop Surfaces 32 & 34, Fig. 1) that have an angle (“ANG”, Fig. 1 Annotated) of at least 180° with respect to each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
730
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the specific angle between the stop surfaces is directly correlated to a maximum steering angle, which is a desirable characteristic of the steering system (as a “result effective variable”, per MPEP 2143 and 2144.05-II-B). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to modify FUKUI’s steering system such that the specific angle between the stop surfaces is at least 180°, or even at least 220°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUKUI.
Regarding Claim 10, FUKUI does not teach that the second stop element is an integral component of the head tube.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the separate parts of the second stop element and the head tube of FUKUI’s steering system integral, since it has been held that making separate parts of an invention integral involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 and MPEP 2144.04(V)(B). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUKUI in view of SIMMONDS (CH-16154-A).
Regarding Claim 13, FUKUI does not teach a steering stabilization means.
SIMMONDS teaches, in another steering system for bicycle handlebars (Para. [0007]), a steering stabilization means (Para. [0008] and Figs. 1-2 teach a device for maintaining a steering position- i.e. stabilizing the steering- of a velocipede/ bicycle) which comprises a spring element (Coil Spring C, Fig. 2).
The steering stabilization means of SIMMONDS is arranged on a top tube of a bicycle frame (as illustrated in Fig. 1) (note: these limitations relate to claim 14 as discussed below).
The steering stabilization means of SIMMONDS comprises two band-shaped stabilization elements (Rope D, Figs. 1-2; a rope being considered band shaped in that it is a flexible and elongate member) (note: these limitations relate to claim 15 as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of FUKUI and SIMMONDS in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify FUKUI’s INVE_TION to include ELE_MENT as suggested by SIMMONDS. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of ADVN_TAGE that would beneficially BEN_EFIT. It is further noted that when combining the steering stabilization means of SIMMONDS with the steering system of FUKUI, the steering stabilization means would be connected to the first stop element (41) by virtue of the steering stabilization means of SIMMONDS and the first stop element of FUKUI both being connected to a handlebar (Handlebar 17b, SIMMONDS Fig. 1; Steering Rod H, FUKUI Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, FUKUI, as modified by SIMMONDS, teaches that the steering stabilization means is arranged on a top tube of a bicycle (as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 13 above) but does not teach that it is arranged in the top tube.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the steering stabilization means of the steering system of FUKUI, as modified by SIMMONDS, such that the steering stabilization means is at least partly arranged in a top tube of the bicycle frame, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 15, FUKUI, as modified by SIMMONDS, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 13 above for the teachings of SIMMONDS and motivation to combine them with the steering system of FUKUI).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611