DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
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, the “first and second bearings and ‘the mounting feature’, as claimed in claim 1, the limitation of “… wherein said second bearing bottoms out on said axle and not said mounting feature. As claimed in claims 3,13,22,24, the “sleeve” as claimed in claims 21,24 must be identified numerically 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3,13,21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3,13,22,24 the limitation of “ … wherein said second bearing bottoms out on said axle and not said mounting feature…” is not understood from the drawings and specification. Where exactly is this shown?
Regarding claims 21,24 it is unclear where the “sleeve” is shown in the drawings or described in the spec.
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) 1,6,9-12,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weagle 11,208,172 in view of LYU U.S. 2023/0227119.
Regarding claims 1,11,12 Weagle shows in figures 1,2 and 13-16 and 21,22 examples of pivot connections 150 that may be used to connect a shock assembly 26 to the frame of a bicycle.
For instance in figures 13,14 note the first and second bearings at 196 and the “axle” at 122. The ‘mounting feature’ as broadly claimed could be considered to be elements 186,190. See also figures 15,16 and 21,22.
It may said that lacking in Weagle is a specific showing of an ‘axle’ per se at 122 since Weagle refers to this element as a ‘control rod’.
However in col 6 lines 51+ Weagle indicates that the embodiments shown may be only exemplary and take on other forms:
A pivot, as used herein, includes any connection structure that may be used to operatively connect one element to another element, and that allows relative movement between the connected elements. An operative connection may allow for one component to move in relation to another while constraining movement in one or more degrees of freedom. For example, the one degree of freedom may be pivoting about an axis. In one embodiment, a pivot may be formed from a journal or through hole in one component and an axle in another component. In other examples, pivots may include ball and socket joints. Yet other examples of pivots include, but are not limited to singular embodiments and combinations of, compliant mounts, sandwich style mounts, post mounts, bushings, bearings, ball bearings, plain bearings, flexible couplings, flexure pivots, journals, holes, pins, bolts, and other fasteners. Also, as used herein, a fixed pivot is defined as a pivotable structure that does not change position relative to the first arm 32. As used herein, a floating pivot is defined as a pivot that is movable (or changes position) relative to another element, for example movable relative to first arm 32.
Weagle makes other similar statements throughout the document. Please see the reference in its entirety.
Nevertheless the reference to Lyu shows a bearing hardware assembly in figure 7 similar in structure and purpose to that of Weagle. Note the ‘axle’ at 45 and the bolt at 46. The bearings are shown at 43.
Due to the similar construction of the bearing hardware assemblies in Weagle and Lyu, and given the statements of alternative constructions made in col 6 lines 51+ of Weagle one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would realize that element 122 of Weagle could either function as, or be replaced with, an axle assembly as taught by Lyu.
Regarding claims 6,19 as readily apparent from the drawings these limitations are met.
Regarding claims 9,10,20 given the statements about the obvious choice of bearing assemblies made by Weagle in col 6 lines 51+ these limitations are considered to be fairly suggested.
Claim(s) 2,3,13,15,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weagle/Lyu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tseng 7,374,191.
Regarding claims 2,15 Weagle lacks specifically showing a ‘bearing cover’ for the bearings.
The reference to Tseng shows a bicycle frame assembly with a bearing assembly shown in figure 3 having a similar construction to the aforementioned references. Note the bearing cover assembly at 226,227.
In light of the statements made in col 6 lines 51+ of Weagle it would have been obvious to have used a cover assembly for the bearings 196 (in at least one of the embodiments), as taught by Tseng, simply to adapt the assembly to a different fastening arrangement as applications warrant.
Regarding claims 3, 13 , subject to the 112 1st and drawing rejections above, (and as best understood) these limitations appear to be met by Weagle as modified above.
Regarding claim 21, subject to the 112 1st and drawing rejections above (and as best understood) Weagle, as modified, lacks specifically showing the first and second bearings are housed into a sleeve.
Tseng shows such an arrangement at 221 in figures 2 and 3.
In light of the statements made in col 6 lines 51+ of Weagle it would have been obvious to have used a sleeve for the first and second bearings, as taught by Tseng at 221, simply dependent upon the obvious choice of bearing utilized as applications warrant or to provide better protection against the ingress of dirt/debris/water.
Claim(s) 7,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weagle/Lyu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2019518641 A.
Regarding claims 7,14 Weagle as modified lacks specifically indicating that:
coupling said axle with a clearance fit to said mounting feature; coupling said axle with a slip fit to an inner diameter (ID) of said first bearing and said second bearing; and coupling said axle with a tight clearance fit to a shock bolt that passes through said axle.
However the reference to JP ‘641 shows a bearing assembly for a bicycle in figures 3 and 6 and states:
By adopting an "interference fit" between the wheel axle and the wheel axle mounting hole of the wheel fork, rattle does not occur between the two. Also, a "slip fit" may be employed between the two bearings and the bushing and the wheel axle, and similarly a "slip fit" may be employed between the drum (insertion member) and the bearing. This can simplify the assembly of the wheel axle assembly.
Given the statements made throughout Weagle (see this document in its entirety) it would have been obvious to have provided the axle with the clearance and slip fits as claimed simply to adapt the bearing hardware assembly to a different application and/or bicycle frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,5,8,16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 22-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
1/18/26