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 § 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 3, 5-11, and 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 9 recite the limitation "the base element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 5, 7-8, and 11 recite the limitation "the main axis". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the additional axis". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the thickening". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (note that parent claim 15 recites “at least one thickening”).
Claims 5-8 are also rejected as indefinite, since they depend from rejected parent claims (see above).
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moechnig (US 20200346708) in view of Dainelli (US 20190055744).
Regarding claim 1, Moechnig teaches a bicycle storage compartment comprising: a storage compartment arranged inside a bicycle frame tube ([0002], Figs. 2A-2C), in particular a down tube 215 ([0009], Fig. 2A),
a cover element 205 ([0022], Fig. 2B) closing the storage compartment, and
a fixing element for releasably fixing the cover element to the bicycle frame tube 215, wherein,
the fixing element comprises a lever 245 element fastened to the bicycle frame tube 215 or the cover element 205 ([0025], Fig. 2B).
Moechnig does not teach the fixing element cooperating with a lug provided on the cover element or the bicycle frame tube.
However, Dainelli teaches a lever lock system wherein a fixing element 16 cooperates with a lug 24 to lock two components 5, 6 together ([0048], [0057], Fig. 5 of Dainelli).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fixing element system of Dainelli in place of the fixing element of Moechnig and the results would have been predictable and provided the advantage of reversibly coupling the cover element to the bicycle frame tube ([0058] of Dainelli).
Regarding claim 2, Moechnig does not teach the claimed orientation of the lever element and a base element.
However, Dainelli teaches the lever element 16 is fastened via a base element 19 ([0055] of Dainelli) firmly fastened to one of the two 5, 6 components it is connecting ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fixing element system of Dainelli in place of the fixing element of Moechnig and the results would have been predictable and provided the advantage of reversibly coupling the cover element to the bicycle frame tube ([0058] of Dainelli).
While Moechnig on its own does not teach the lever element being fastened by a base element, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the storage compartment of Moechnig having the substituted lever element (16 of Dainelli) and base element (19 of Dainelli) firmly fastened to the bicycle frame tube or the cover element (215 or 205 of Moechnig).
Regarding claim 3, Moechnig does not teach a deflection lever.
However, Dainelli teaches wherein the lever element 16 is fastened via a deflection lever 17 ([0054] of Dainelli).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fixing element system with the base member and the deflection lever of Dainelli in place of the fixing element of Moechnig and the results would have been predictable and provided the advantage of reversibly coupling the cover element to the bicycle frame tube ([0058] of Dainelli).
While Moechnig does not teach the claimed deflection lever, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the substituted lever element and deflection lever of Dainelli being fastened to the bicycle frame tube or to the cover element, preferably to the base element (Fig. 5 of Dainelli; the deflection lever 17 is mounted to the base element 19; See claim 2 rejection above for a discussion on the base element being mounted to the bicycle frame tube or the cover element).
Regarding claim 4, Moechnig as modified teaches wherein the lever element is pivotable about a main axis (Fig. 5 of Dainelli; the lever element 16 pivots about the axis of the connection point where it mounts to deflection lever 17).
Regarding claim 5, Moechnig as modified teaches wherein the deflection lever is pivotable about the main axis (Fig. 5 of Dainelli; the deflection lever 17 is shown pivoting [relative to lever element 16] about the axis of its connection point to lever element 16).
Regarding claim 6, Moechnig as modified teaches wherein the deflection lever is pivotably connected to the base element via an additional axis (Fig. 5 of Dainelli; the deflection lever 17 is shown pivoting about the axis of its connection point to base element 19).
Regarding claim 7, Moechnig as modified teaches wherein the additional axis is parallel to the main axis (Fig. 5 of Dainelli).
Regarding claim 8, Moechnig as modified teaches wherein the additional axis and the main axis are arranged in such a way that the fixing element remains closed by self-locking in the closed state ([0058, Fig. 5 of Dainelli; the arm and plate are dimensioned so as to remain locked unless an outside force [the tooth] is used to reverse the locking of the joint connection).
Regarding claim 11, Moechnig as modified teaches wherein the lug extends parallel to the main axis ([0038], Figs. 5-6 of Dainelli; the lug is shown with a cross section, thus a dimension that extends in the same direction as the main axis; Fig. 6 shows the fixing member having a substantial dimension in the same direction as the main axis, indicating a similarly dimensioned lug to latch on to).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moechnig in view of Dainelli, and further in view of Specialized Bicycle Components, “How I use Specialized Swat,” published by YouTube, July 20, 2020, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K2dUBfCL-U&t=55s (hereinafter “Specialized”).
Regarding claim 9, Moechnig as modified does not expressly teach the fixing element arranged on a side wall of the bicycle tube.
However, Specialized teaches a bicycle storage compartment with fixing element wherein the fixing element is arranged on a side wall of the bicycle frame tube (Specialized 00:52-00:56 depicts a fixing element being pivoted off of a lug on a removable plate for a bicycle storage compartment, and the fixing element being mounted on the side wall of the bicycle tube).
There is a recognizable need in the art for selecting a mounting location of the lug and fixing element on the bicycle frame and plate in order to secure the components together. One of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose from a finite number of mounting positions for the fixing element and lug: the lug mounted on the cover and the fixing element mounted on the bicycle side wall, or the lug mounted on the side wall and the fixing element mounted on the cover. Specialized teaches the former of the two options. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential options to mount the fixing element on the bicycle side wall with a reasonable expectation of success.
While Specialized does not expressly teach the base element being arranged on a side wall of the bicycle frame tube, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the fixing element of Dainelli being substituted into the bicycle storage system of Moechnig, oriented in the manner taught by Specialized so that it and its base element connect to the bicycle side wall.
Additionally, and in the alternative, Moechnig as modified discloses the claimed invention except for “the fixing element… is arranged on a side wall of the bicycle frame tube”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mount the fixing element on the bicycle frame tube, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 10, Moechnig as modified does not expressly teach wherein the main axis and/or the additional axis extend substantially in the longitudinal direction of the bicycle frame tube.
However, Specialized teaches a bicycle storage compartment with a fixing element that is pivotable about a main axis, and the main axis and extends substantially in the longitudinal direction of the bicycle frame tube (Specialized 00:52-00:56 depicts a pivotal movement of a fixing element about an axis which extends in the longitudinal direction of the bicycle frame tube).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified bicycle of Moechnig/Dainelli to mount the fixing element so that the pivotal axes are oriented in the longitudinal direction of the bicycle frame in order to advantageously provide a fixing element which is easy for a user to access from the side.
While Specialized does not teach an additional axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the bicycle frame tube, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the modified main and additional axis of Dainelli being substituted into the bicycle of Moechnig and oriented in the direction of Specialized so that both axes extend in a longitudinal direction of the bicycle frame tube.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moechnig in view of Dainelli, and further in view of DE 202022100556 (henceforth DE-556).
Regarding claim 12, Moechnig as modified does not teach the cover element comprising a retainer.
However, DE-556 teaches a bicycle storage system wherein the cover element 100 comprises a retaining element 102 (Paragraph 76 of DE-556) on a side opposite the fixing element 103 (Paragraphs 23 and 87 of DE-556).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified bicycle storage system of Moechnig/Dainelli to have a retaining element opposite the fixing element as DE-556 teaches in order to advantageously grip under the bicycle frame tube so that the plate does not fly off (Paragraph 76 of DE-556).
Regarding claim 13, Moechnig as modified does not teach a groove as claimed.
However, DE-556 teaches wherein the retaining element 102 comprises a groove 111 in which a projection engages (Paragraph 98 of DE-556; the projection is the outer edge of the bicycle tube frame which is inserted in the groove 111 between the cover 100 and the retaining element 102), wherein the groove 111 is preferably disposed in the cover element 100 and the projection is formed by the bicycle frame tube (Paragraph 98, Figs. 6a and 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified bicycle storage system of Moechnig/Dainelli to have a retaining element and groove of DE-556 in order to advantageously grip under and over the bicycle frame tube so that the plate does not fly off (Paragraph 76 of DE-556).
Regarding claim 14, Moechnig as modified does not teach a circumferential seal.
However, DE-556 teaches wherein an in particular circumferential seal is provided on an inner side of the cover element 100 facing toward the bicycle frame tube (Paragraphs 33-35 of DE-556).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified bicycle storage system of Moechnig/Dainelli to have the circumferential seal of DE-556 in order to advantageously prevent moisture from getting inside the internal storage (Paragraph 35 of DE-556).
Regarding claim 15, Moechnig as modified does not teach the cover comprising an inner thickening for receiving a holder.
However, DE-556 teaches a bicycle storage compartment and cover 100 wherein the cover element 100 comprises at least one thickening (see annotated Fig. 6b of DE-556 below) for receiving at least one holder 200 (Paragraphs 66 and 68, Figs. 6a-6b of DE-556).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified bicycle storage system of Moechnig/Dainelli to have the thickening of DE-556 in order to advantageously provide a bicycle storage compartment which can mount accessories inside (Abstract of DE-556).
Regarding claim 16, Moechnig as modified teaches wherein the thickening is formed on the inner side of the cover element, in particular in the form of a bead (See annotated Fig. 6b of DE-556 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified bicycle storage system of Moechnig/Dainelli to have the thickening of DE-556 in order to advantageously provide a bicycle storage compartment which can mount accessories inside (Abstract of DE-556).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DE 102008017447 teaches a lever and hook system with self-locking capabilities.
US 20210016850 teaches a bicycle internal storage system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 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, 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611