DETAILED ACTION Status of Submission Applicant’s amendments filed on March 5, 2026 have been entered with the exception of the proposed replacement drawing sheets. T he proposed replacement drawing sheets filed on March 5, 2026 have been disapproved by the examiner and will not be entered because: They fail to place Fig. 1 into compliance with 37 CFR 1.84( m ). They fail to place Fig. 1 into compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(q). Changing the lead line for reference number 220 to a dashed line does not correct the error because the steering tube 220 is not illustrated/visible in Fig. 1. They fail to place Figs. 4 and 5 into compliance with 37 CFR 1.84( h)(3 ). The Arabic n umerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view should be placed at the ends of the broken line used to identify the location of the cross section. They fail to overcome the objections to Figs. 9 and 17. Objection to Amendments The amendments to the specification filed on March 5, 2026 are objected to because: They fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)( i ) because they fail to include a n instruction, which unambiguously identifies the location of each amended paragraph. The specification amendments identify paragraphs by paragraph numbers, but applicant’s specification filed on May 3, 2023 does not include paragraph numbers. Thus, the locations of the amended paragraphs must be identified by page and line numbers. They fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(i i ) because they lack the required markings to show all the changes relative to the previous version of each amended paragraph. Each of the amended paragraphs filed on March 5, 2026 change “Figure” to “FIG.”, but the changes are not shown with the required strikethrough and underlining. The amendments to the specification must be placed into compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b ) in response to this Office action. Claims Subject to Examination Claims 1- 3 and 5- 18 of this application are subject to examination. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claim Construction in Examination During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq. An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV. Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 , or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC , 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ( en banc ), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite ( i ) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Examiner’s Claim Construction The following claim limitations are construed by the examiner to aid in examination: Claim Limitation : grippable element (claim s 1 , 17 and 18 ) Examiner’s Construction: a portion of a handlebar that is capable of being gripped by a user’s hand Examiner’s Explanation: The term “ element ” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claim s do not recite ( i ) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure identified in the specification is a portion of a handlebar that is capable and/or intended of being gripped by a user’s hand. Claim Limitation : mounting arrangement (claims 1 and 18) Examiner’s Construction: a group of components interrelated in a particular way (i.e., an arrangement) in order to mount one element or object to another element or object, wherein such group of components includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a mounting plate Examiner’s Explanation: The term “ arrangement ” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claim s define the mounting arrangement as comprising a mounting plate. However, the claims fail to specifically define the other elements or components of the mounting arrangement. Thus, the claims do not recite ( i ) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Like the claims, the specification describes the mounting arrangement as comprising a mounting plate , but it fail s to specifically define the other elements or components of the mounting arrangement. Thus, the corresponding structure is not fully identified in the specification. While the specification discusses other components (i.e., a fastener, a removable cap) having a mounting function, the specification fails to identify whether these other components are part of (or separate from) the claimed “mounting arrangement”. Claim Limitation: at least partially accessible (claims 1 and 18) Examiner’s Construction: at least partly capable of being reached, or at least partly capable of being used or seen Examiner’s Explanation: The term s “accessible” and “partially accessible” are not defined in the specification. Thus, they are broadly construed based on their ordinary and customary meanings. Claim Limitation: accessible (claims 1 and 18) Examiner’s Construction: capable of being reached, or capable of being used or seen Examiner’s Explanation: The term “accessible” is not defined in the specification. Thus, it is broadly construed based on its ordinary and customary meaning. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation 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. GROUND 1 A : Claims 1- 3 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the claims recite new matter for the following reasons. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “through which the fastener is insertable to mount the attachment in the transverse support or the first gr i ppable element” (ll. 15-16). According to the specification, the attachment is mounted “to” the handlebar. There is no support in the original disclosure for the attachment being mounted “in” the handlebar. The examiner suggests changing “in” (l. 15) to “to”. Dependent claims are included in the rejection because of their dependencies. GROUND 1 B : Claims 1- 3 and 5- 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which cause the claimed invention to achieve the desired results . Claim 1 recite s “ wherein the mounting arrangement comprises a mounting plate arranged to at least partially abut a surface of the transverse support or the first grippable element, the mounting plate having a first face, wherein the first face includes a hole for receiving a fastener for mounting an attachment, wherein the mounting plate is at least partially located within a cavity formed in the transverse support or the first grippable element, wherein the first face is at least partially accessible via an opening in an external surface of the transverse support or the first grippable element , through which the fastener is insertable to mount the attachment in the transverse support or the first gr i ppable element , wherein the transverse support or the first grippable element comprises a cavity entrance spaced from the opening, the cavity entrance leading to the cavity, wherein the mounting plate is accessible via the cavity entrance by one or more fingers of a user , and wherein the cavity entrance is located substantially on an opposite side of the transverse support or the first grippable element to the opening ” (ll. 8- 21 ; emphasis added). Claim 18 recites “wherein the mounting arrangement comprises a mounting plate arranged to at least partially abut a surface of the transverse support or the first grippable element, the mounting plate having a first face, wherein the first face includes a hole for receiving a fastener for mounting an attachment, wherein the mounting plate is at least partially located within a cavity formed in the transverse support or the first grippable element, wherein the first face is at least partially accessible via an opening in an external surface of the transverse support or the first grippable element, through which the fastener is insertable to mount the attachment, wherein the transverse support or the first grippable element comprises a cavity entrance spaced from the opening, the cavity entrance leading to the cavity, wherein the mounting plate is accessible via the cavity entrance by one or more fingers of a user, wherein the cavity entrance is located substantially on an opposite side of the transverse support or the first grippable element to the opening” (ll. 8-2 0 ; emphasis added). At p. 18, ll. 17-25, t he specification states that: In alternative embodiments (not shown), the transverse support 102 (e.g. the first transverse portion 110a or the mounting portion 108) may include the first mounting arrangement 126a. In such embodiments, the mounting plate 128 is arranged to at least partially abut a surface of the transverse support 102. The mounting plate 128 may at least partially be located within a cavity formed in the transverse support 102. The first face 130 of the mounting plate 128 may at least partially be accessible via an opening in an external surface of the transverse support 102. In such embodiments, the first mounting arrangement may share any of the features described regarding the first mounting arrangement 126a located on the first grippable element 104a. This general description does not satisfy the written description requirement for the alternative embodiments in which the transverse support includes the mounting arrangement. For these alternative embodiments, there is no explanation of the specific structural elements of the mounting arrangement, the interrelationships of such structural elements, how such elements are distinctly adapted for incorporation into the transverse support, or how such elements operate in relation to and/or in cooperation with the transverse support. The drawings also fail to show these alternative embodiments. For these reasons, the specification fails to adequately explain how the embodiments encompassed by claim s 1 and 18 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention. Claim 13 recites “ the external surface of the transverse support or the first grippable element comprising the opening has a curved profile ” (emphasis added). The specification fails to provide an adequate written description of this subject matter for the same reasons given above with respect to claims 1 and 18. Claim 14 recites “an attachment secured to the mounting arrangement, optionally, wherein the attachment is chosen from one of: a brake mechanism; a gear shift mechanism; a combined brake and gear shift mechanism; a bell; or a cyclocomputer ” (emphasis added). At col. 1 4, ll. 1- 2 , the specification states “ For example, the attachment could be: a brake mechanism; a gear shift mechanism; a combined brake and gear shift mechanism; a bell; or a cyclocomputer . ” This general description does not satisfy the written description requirement for the embodiments in which the attachment is a bell or a cyclocomputer . For these embodiments, there is no explanation of the specific structural elements of the attachment, the interrelationships of such structural elements, how such elements are distinctly adapted for connection to the claimed mounting arrangement, or how such elements operate in relation to and/or in cooperation with the mounting arrangement. The drawings also fail to show these embodiments. For these reasons, the specification fails to adequately explain how the embodiments encompassed by claim 14 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention. Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies. 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. GROUND 2 : Claims 1 - 3 and 5- 18 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. As explained more fully in GROUND 1, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claim s 1 , 13, 14 and 18 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Absent such supporting disclosure, the scope of claims 1 , 13, 14 and 18 cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is unclear what subject matter is encompassed by the claim s , and what is excluded therefrom. Claims 1 and 18 recite “ a mounting arrangement for mounting an attachment to the handlebar ” (l. 7). As explained in the Examiner’s C laim Construction section above: ( i ) this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f); and (ii) the corresponding structure is not fully identified in the specification. Absent a clear identification of the corresponding structure, the scope of claims 1 and 18 cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is unclear what subject matter is encompassed by the claims, and what is excluded therefrom. Claim 7 recites both the broader limitation “a portion of the first face is arranged to abut a contact surface of the cavity, wherein the contact surface is adjacent the opening, and wherein the first face and the contact surface have corresponding curved profiles”, and the narrower limitation “ wherein the first face and the contact surface have arcuate profiles .” A broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite when, as here, there is a question or doubt as to whether the narrow limitation is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 13 recites both the broader limitation “the external surface of the transverse support or the first grippable element comprising the opening has a curved profile”, and the narrower limitation “ wherein said external surface has an arcuate profile. ” A broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite when, as here, there is a question or doubt as to whether the narrow limitation is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 15 re-introduces the term “a fastener” (l. 2). Previous claim 1 introduces “a fastener” (l. 10) and refers to “the fastener” (l. 15). It is unclear what the relationship is between the fastener introduced in claim 15 and the fastener introduced and referred to in claim 1. The re-introduction of a fastener in claim 15 inaccurately suggests that the fastener of claim 15 is a different fastener than the fastener of claim 1. Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies. Listing of Prior Art The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference for each document (listed alphabetically) : “ Burrow et al. ” US Patent No. 12 , 296 , 913 B2 “ Clarkson ” US Patent No. 6 , 122 , 991 “ Cross ” GB Publication No. 2502599 A “ Gastaldello ” IT Publication No. 2018 00005850 A1 (with translation) “ Kinoshita ” DE Publication No. 10 3 26 093 A1 (with translation) “ Schrom ” DE Publication No. 10 2018 111 869 A1 (with translation) “Sch umann ” DE Publication No. 10 20 05 052 215 A1 (with translation) “ Smallwood et al. ” US Patent No. 11 , 420 , 705 B2 “ Yang et al. ” US P ublication No. 2017/0166280 A 1 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 10 2 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. GROUND 3 : Claims 1 - 3, 5- 8, 10-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Schrom . With respect to claim s 1 , 14, 17 and 18 , Schrom discloses a handlebar for controlling a travelling direction of a bicycle. See ¶¶ 0001, 0006. The handlebar 1 compris es : A transverse support for mounting to a vehicle, the transverse support having sections 3, 14, 14’ extending substantially along a first axial direction . See Figs. 1, 3-4 and 11-13; ¶¶ 00 34 , 0046-0047 . F irst and second grippable element s 13, 13’ extending from first and second end s of the transverse support sections 14, 14’, the grippable elements 13, 13’ being mirror images of one another about a plane normal to the first axial direction, and the first grippable element s 13, 13’ including a lower section 13b having a free end . See Figs. 1, 3-4 and 11-13; ¶¶ 00 46-0048 . A cavity 5 formed in the transverse support section 3, with the transverse support section 3 having sidewalls 36, 36’ defining a cavity entrance that leads to the cavity 5 . See Figs. 2 -2b and 5-8 ; ¶¶ 00 34, 0038 . A mounting arrangement 4 for mounting an attachment 2 to the handlebar 1 , wherein the mounting arrangement comprises a mounting plate 6a . See Figs. 1-8 ; ¶ 00 34 . The mounting plate 6a i s at least partially located within the cavity 5 and has a first face (i.e., a concave surface) arranged to at least partially abut a surface (or surface area) 8 of the transverse support section 3 . See Figs. 2-2b and 5-8; ¶¶ 00 34, 0037 . The first face (i.e., concave surface) of the mounting plate 6a includes a hole for receiving a fastener 27 for mounting the attachment 2 , wherein the first face is at least partially accessible via an opening 38 in an external surface 9 of the transverse support section 3, and the opening 38 is spaced from the entrance of the cavity 5 , and wherein the fastener 27 is insertable through the opening 38 to mount the attachment 2 to the transverse support section 3 . See Figs. 2-2b , 4 and 6 -8; ¶¶ 00 34, 0037, 0040 . T he mounting plate 6a is accessible via the entrance of the cavity 5 by one or more fingers of a user. See Figs. 1-2b and 5-8 ; ¶¶ 00 34, 0038 , 0041-0042 . T he entrance of the cavity 5 is located substantially on an opposite side of the transverse support section 3 to the portion of the opening 38 that opens to the opposite side of the handle bar 1. See Figs. 4-6 ¶¶ 0034, 0037-0038. With respect to claim 2, the mounting plate 6a includes a second face opposite to the first face (i.e., concave surface) , wherein the second face is accessible via the entrance of the cavity 5, and wherein the hole for the fastener 27 extends through the second face. See Figs. 2-2b and 6-8 ; ¶ 00 34 . With respect to claim 3, the mounting plate 6a is removable from the cavity 5 via the cavity entrance. See Fig. 6 ; ¶¶ 0034, 0041- 00 42 . With respect to claim 5, the first face (i.e., c oncave surface) of the mounting plate 6a has at least one spatial dimension which is greater than at least one spatial dimension of the opening 38 , such that the mounting plate 6a may be prevented from passing through the opening 38 , wherein an area of the first face is greater than an area of the opening 38 . See Fig. 6. With respect to claim 6, a width and length of the first face (i.e., concave surface) of the mounting plate 6a are greater than a width and length of the opening 38 respectively. See Fig. 6. With respect to claim 7, a portion of the first face (i.e., concave surface) of the mounting plate 6a is arranged to abut the contact surface 8 of the cavity 5 , wherein the contact surface 8 is adjacent the opening 38 , and wherein the first face (i.e., concave surface) and the contact surface 8 have corresponding curved /arcuate profiles. See Figs. 2-2b and 5-8 ; ¶¶ 0037, 0039 . With respect to claim 8, a first tunnel opening 1 2 is adjacent the mounting arrangement 4 , a second tunnel opening 1 6 is formed in the transverse support section 3 and is spaced from the first tunnel opening 1 2 , wherein the first tunnel opening 1 2 and the second tunnel opening 1 6 are in communication with a tunnel formed within the transverse support sections 3, 14 for receiving a cable therethrough. See Figs. 3-6 ; ¶ 00 49 . With respect to claim 10, the transverse support comprises a mounting portion /section 3 for mounting to a vehicle, and the second tunnel opening 16 is formed in or adjacent to said mounting portion /section 3 . See Figs. 1 and 4 -6; ¶¶ 0034, 00 49-0050 . With respect to claim 11, a removable cap 7 is arranged to close the entrance of the cavity 5. See Figs. 6 -8, 11 and 13 ; ¶¶ 00 35-0036 . With respect to claim 12, a position of the hole for the fastener 27 relative to a perimeter of the opening 38 is adjustable in at least one direction . See Figs. 2-2b and 6-8 ; ¶¶ 00 34, 0038, 0041 . With respect to claim 13, the external surface 9 of the transverse support section 3 has a curved/arcuate profile. See Figs. 2-2b and 4-6; ¶ 0037. With respect to claim 15, the attachment 2 comprises an attachment mount 26 including a hole, and wherein the fastener 27 passes through the hole in the attachment mount and the hole in the mounting plate 6a such that the attachment 2 is secured to the mounting plate 6a . See Figs. 2-2b and 6 -10 ; ¶¶ 00 34, 0041-0043 . GROUND 4 : Claims 1 - 3, 5 , 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schumann . With respect to claims 1, 14 and 17, Schumann discloses a handlebar for controlling a travelling direction of a vehicle such as a motorcycle. See ¶ 0001. The handlebar compris es : A transverse support 2 for mounting to a vehicle, the transverse support 2 extending substantially along a first axial direction . See Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 00 10-0011 . F irst and second grippable element s 3 extending from first and second end s of the transverse support 2 , the grippable elements 3 being mirror images of one another about a plane normal to the first axial direction, and the first grippable element s 3 having free end s . See Fig. 1; ¶ 00 10 . A stepped elongated hole 6 defining a cavity formed in the transverse support 2 on a side of the transverse support 2 opposite to an attachment 1, with the stepped elongated hole 6 defining a cavity entrance that leads to the cavity. See Figs. 1-2 ; ¶ 00 11 . A mounting arrangement for mounting the attachment 1 to the handlebar, wherein the mounting arrangement comprises a T-shaped mounting plate 9 . See Figs. 1- 2 ; ¶ 00 11 . The mounting plate 9 i s at least partially located within the cavity defined by the stepped elongated hole 6, and the mounting plate 9 has a first face ( facing toward the attachment 1 ) arranged to at least partially abut a surface (within the cavity) of the transverse support 2 . See Figs. 1-2 ; ¶¶ 00 11, 0014 . The first face of the mounting plate 9 includes a hole for receiving a fastener 11 for mounting the attachment 1 , wherein the first face is at least partially accessible via an opening defined by the stepped elongated hole 6 in an external surface of the transverse support 2 adjacent to the attachment 1 , and the opening (in the external surface adjacent to the attachment 1) is spaced from the cavity entrance (in the side opposite to the attachment 1) , and wherein the fastener 11 is insertable through the opening (in the external surface adjacent to the attachment 1) to mount the attachment 1 to the transverse support 2 . . See Figs. 1-2 ; ¶¶ 00 11-0014 . T he mounting plate 9 is accessible via the cavity entrance by one or more fingers of a user. See Figs. 1-2 ; ¶¶ 00 11-0012 . T he cavity entrance (in the side opposite to the attachment 1) is located substantially on an opposite side of the transverse support 2 to the portion of the opening (in the external surface adjacent to the attachment 1) that opens to the opposite side of the handle bar. See Figs. 1-2. With respect to claim 2, the mounting plate 9 includes a second face opposite to the first face, wherein the second face is accessible via the cavity entrance (in the side opposite to the attachment 1) , and wherein the hole (in the mounting plate 9) for the fastener 11 extends through the second face. See Figs. 1-2 ; ¶¶ 00 11-0012 . With respect to claim 3, the mounting plate 9 is removable from the cavity via the cavity entrance (in the side opposite to the attachment 1) . See Fig s . 1-2 ; ¶¶ 00 11-0012 . With respect to claim 5, the first face of the mounting plate 9 has at least one spatial dimension which is greater than at least one spatial dimension of the opening (in the external surface adjacent to the attachment 1) , such that the mounting plate 9 may be prevented from passing through the opening , wherein an area of the first face is greater than an area of the opening. See Fig s . 1-2; ¶¶ 00 11-0012, 0014 . With respect to claim 11, a removable cap 14 is arranged to close the cavity entrance (in the side opposite to the attachment 1) . See Fig. 1 ; ¶ 00 12 . With respect to claim 12, a position of the hole (in the mounting plate 9) for the fastener 11 relative to a perimeter of the opening (in the external surface adjacent to the attachment 1) is adjustable in at least one direction . See Figs. 1-2 ; ¶¶ 00 1 4 -0015 . With respect to claim 15, the attachment 1 comprises an attachment mount including a hole 5 , and wherein the fastener 11 passes through the hole 5 in the attachment mount and the hole in the mounting plate 9 such that the attachment 1 is secured to the mounting plate 9 . See Figs. 1-2 ; ¶¶ 00 11-0014 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). GROUND 5 : C laim s 1- 3 and 5- 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1- 30 of Smallwood et al. ( U.S. Patent No. 11, 420 , 705 B2 ) in view of Schrom . Claims 1- 3 and 5- 18 of the instant application are directed to essentially the same handlebar as claims 1-30 of Smallwood et al. While some limitations are arranged differently in claims 1- 3 and 5- 18 of the instant application compared to that of claims 1-30 of Smallwood et al. , a modification involving a mere rearrangement of limitations is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, while claims 1-30 of Smallwood et al. may be narrower in some respect than the claims of the instant application, a modification involving the mere elimination of an element with the consequent loss of its function recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Claims 1- 3 and 5- 18 of the instant application and claims 1-30 of Smallwood et al. both require that the mounting plate is accessible via the cavity entrance, but claims 1- 3 and 5- 18 of the instant application add s the limitation “by one or more fingers of a user”. See the detailed discussion of Schrom in GROUND 3. As explained above, Schrom teaches a mounting plate 6a that is accessible via an entrance of a cavity 5 by one or more fingers of a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claims 1-30 of Smallwood et al. by adding the accessibility by one or more user fingers taught by Schrom in order to facilitate assembly and adjustment of the handlebar. GROUND 6 : Claims 1- 3 and 5- 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Burrow et al. ( U.S. Patent No. 12,296,913 B2) in view of Schrom . Claims 1- 3 and 5- 18 of the instant application are directed to essentially the same handlebar as claims 1-20 of Burrow et al. While some limitations are arranged differently in claims 1- 3 and 5- 18 of the instant application compared to that of claims 1-20 of Burrow et al. , a modification involving a mere rearrangement of limitations is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, while claims 1-20 of Burrow et al. may be narrower in some respect than the claims of the instant application, a modification involving the mere elimination of an element with the consequent loss of its function recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Claims 1- 3 and 5- 18 of the instant application differ from claims 1-20 of Burrow et al. by requiring that the first face of the mounting plate is partially accessible via an opening in an external surface of the transverse support, and that the mounting plate is accessible via the cavity entrance by one or more fingers of a user. See the detailed discussion of Schrom in GROUND 3. As explained above, Schrom teaches a mounting plate 6a that is accessible via an entrance of a cavity 5 by one or more fingers of a user, and a first face (i.e., concave surface) of the mounting plate 6a is at least partially accessible via an opening 38 in an external surface 9 of a transverse support section 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claims 1-20 of Burrow et al. by adding the accessibility features taught by Schrom in order to facilitate assembly and adjustment of the handlebar. Overcoming Double Patenting Rejection A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Pertinent Prior Art The following prior art is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim. Clarkson teaches a handlebar 10 comprising a mounting member 20 located within a hollow portion of the handlebar 10, with fasteners 13 extending through enlarged holes 35, 36 in the handlebar 10 and into threaded holes 21, 22 in the mounting member 20 to provide an adjustable mounting for the handlebar 10. Cross teaches a handlebar having grippable elements 20 extending from a transverse support 16, wherein the transverse support 16 and the grippable elements 20 have aerofoil-shaped profiles. Gastaldello teaches a handlebar comprising mounting members 43, 44 received in respective cavities 27, 28 formed in a transverse support 11, wherein the mounting members 43, 44 have respective holes 52, 53 receiving fasteners 29 for mounting respective attachments 12, 13, and wherein the mounting members 43, 44 are accessible via respective upper and lower openings/entrances 50, 51 in the transverse support 11. Kinoshita teaches a handlebar assembly 10 including a member 6 provided with a cavity 1 that receives a mounting plate 4c, the mounting plate 4c having a hole for a spring 13, the mounting plate 4c being accessible via an opening/entrance in an upper portion 15 of the member 6 (when a cover/cap 4a is removed), and the member 6 having an opening/entrance 14 in a lower portion 16 by which a user has access to the mounting plate 4c and a case 5 releasably secured to the mounting plate 4c. Yang et al. teaches a handlebar 46 comprising a blind opening 76 defining an entrance to a cavity, a first connector 92 that is adjustably mounted within a groove 80 in the cavity, a second connector 96 pivotally coupled to the first connector 92, and a fastener 72 extending from an attachment 50 and received in the second connector 96 for adjusting the position of the attachment 50 relative to the handlebar 46. Specification Objections The specification is object ed to because: At p. 9, ll. 6-7, “push bicycle” appears to be inaccurate since the bicycle is illustrated with a pedal mechanism. At p. 10, l. 31, “element 104a, 104b” should read “elements 104a, 104b”. Drawing Objections The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed below must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. “wherein the mounting arrangement comprises a mounting plate arranged to at least partially abut a surface of the transverse support or the first grippable element, the mounting plate having a first face, wherein the first face includes a hole for receiving a fastener for mounting an attachment, wherein the mounting plate is at least partially located within a cavity formed in the transverse support or the first grippable element, wherein the first face is at least partially accessible via an opening in an external surface of the transverse support or the first grippable element, through which the fastener is insertable to mount the attachment in the transverse support or the first grippable element, wherein the transverse support or the first grippable element comprises a cavity entrance spaced from the opening, the cavity entrance leading to the cavity, wherein the mounting plate is accessible via the cavity entrance by one or more fingers of a user, and wherein the cavity entrance is located substantially on an opposite side of the transverse support or the first grippable element to the opening” ( claim 1, ll. 8-21; emphasis added). “ the external surface of the transverse support or the first grippable element comprising the opening has a curved profile” ( claim 13; emphasis added). “ an attachment secured to the mounting arrangement, optionally, wherein the attachment is chosen from one of: a brake mechanism; a gear shift mechanism; a combined brake and gear shift mechanism; a bell; or a cyclocomputer ” ( claim 14; emphasis added). “wherein the mounting arrangement comprises a mounting plate arranged to at least partially abut a surface of the transverse support or the first grippable element, the mounting plate having a first face, wherein the first face includes a hole for receiving a fastener for mounting an attachment, wherein the mounting plate is at least partially located within a cavity formed in the transverse support or the first grippable element, wherein the first face is at least partially accessible via an opening in an external surface of the transverse support or the first grippable element, through which the fastener is insertable to mount the attachment, wherein the transverse support or the first grippable element comprises a cavity entrance spaced from the opening, the cavity entrance leading to the cavity, wherein the mounting plate is accessible via the cavity entrance by one or more fingers of a user, wherein the cavity entrance is located substantially on an opposite side of the transverse support or the first grippable element to the opening” ( claim 18, ll. 8-20; emphasis added). The drawings are also objected to because: Fig. 1 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q). The lead lines for reference numbers 220, 222 are both directed to the head tube 222. The steering tube 220 is not visible in the figure. Fig. 1 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m). The shading in the figure reduces legibility. In Fig. 4, section line B-B fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. In Fig. 4, section line C-C fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). In Fig. 5, section line A-A fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). In Fig. 9, the lead line for reference number 136 should be a dashed line since the corresponding feature is illustrated in phantom and hidden from view. In Fig. 15, reference number 126 should be changed to 128. See Figs. 8-13; p. 17, l. 29. In Fig. 17, the illustration of the attachment mount 164 does not correspond to the illustration of this feature in Fig. 15. Thus, it appears that Fig. 17 is inaccurate. In Fig. 17, the illustration of the first tunnel opening 174 is inconsistent with the illustration of this element in Fig. 9. Note that first tunnel opening 174 is at the rear of the handlebar in Fig, 9, but it is at the front in Fig. 17. Thus, it appears that Fig. 17 is inaccurate. In Fig. 17, the illustration of the frame 175 (not labeled, but shown) in Fig. 17 is inconsistent with the illustration of this element in Fig. 8. Thus, it appears that Fig. 17 is inaccurate. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed on March 5, 2026 have been considered. Applicant argues that “ grippable element” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f). The examiner disagrees for the reasons detailed above. No specific structure is denoted by the generic term “element”. Applicant argues that “ mounting arrangement ” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f). The examiner disagrees for the reasons detailed above. No specific structure is denoted by the generic term “arrangement”. Further, an “arrangement”, by definition, includes plural elements or components. While the claims define the mounting arrangement as comprising a mounting plate , they do not define the mounting arrangement as comprising plural elements or components. Thus, while some structure is claimed, the claims do not recite sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions. With respect to GROUND 1B, applicant argues that the alternative embodiment (in which the attachment is mounted to the transverse support) is adequately supported by the general description of such an embodiment coupled with a direction incorporation of the detailed structural and functional disclosure of the embodiment in which the attachment is mounted to the grippable element. The examiner disagrees for the reasons detailed above. Mounting the attachment to the transverse support would necessarily require adaptation of the transverse support to include a mounting cavity and associated mounting opening, and would necessarily require some adaptation of the mounting plate to accommodate its mounting within the transverse support. However, no explanation is given as to how applicant achieves this intended result. Thus, the disclosure fails to set forth a sufficient written description to establish possession of the claimed invention. With respect to GROUND 1B, applicant argues that it is not necessary to describe any specifics of the claimed bell or cyclometer. The examiner disagrees for the reasons detailed above. Applicant’s specification fails to describe the structure of the bell or the cyclometer, including the manner in which the bell or cyclometer is structured so as to provide for attachment to the disclosed mounting plate. Thus, the disclosure fails to set forth a sufficient written description to establish possession of the claimed invention. With respect to GROUND 2, a pplicant argues that “mounting arrangement” does not invoke 35 USC 112(f). This argument is addressed above. Applicant further argues that the claims recite structures and interrelationships, not purely functional recital. This argument is not persuasive because, when claims are drafted to invoke 35 USC 112(f), the specification must clearly identify the corresponding structure. In this case, the specification fails to clearly define what structure constitutes the claimed “mounting arrangement”. While numerous structures are disclosed, there is no clear definition of which of the disclosed structures are part of the “mounting arrangement” and which are not. With respect to GROUND 3, applicant argues that claims 1 and 18 are not anticipated by Schrom . The examiner disagrees. GROUND 3 explains how each of the claimed features are met by Schrom . Applicant argues that Schrom lacks an opening through which the fastener is insertable, which opening is on a side opposite the cavity entrance. This argument fails because Schrom’s fastener 27 is insertable through the opening 38, and the opening 38 is on a side of the transverse support section 3 opposite the entrance to the cavity 5. With respect to GROUND 4 , applicant argues that claims 1 and 18 are not anticipated by Schumann . The examiner disagrees. GROUND 4 explains how each of the claimed features are met by Schumann . Applicant argu es that Schumann lacks an opening through which the fastener is insertable, which opening is on a side opposite the cavity entrance. This argument fails because Schumann ’s fastener 11 is insertable through the opening (in the external surface adjacent to the attachment 1) , and the opening is on a side of the transverse support 2 opposite the entrance to the cavity (defined by the stepped elongated hole 6) . With respect to GROUND S 5 and 6 , applicant argues that certain claimed features are not taught by Schrom . The examiner disagrees. GROUND 3 explains how each of the claimed features are met by Schrom . Further, GROUNDS 5 and 6 do not rely upon Schrom to teach all of the claimed features; rather, Schrom is relied upon as a teaching reference in these rejections. Thus, attacking Schrom individually does not constitute a persuasive argument. With respect to the drawing objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a) , applicant argues that it is not necessary to show alternative embodiments. This argument fails because the rule requires applicant to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. In this case, the claims require mounting to a transverse support, but such a mounting is not shown in the drawings. With respect to the objection to Fig. 17 of the drawings, applicant argues that Figs. 15 and 17 depict the attachment mount 174 from different viewpoints and with different levels of schematic detail. However, this explanation fails to account for the contradictory illustration in Fig. 17, which does not agree with the illustration in Figs. 8, 9 and 15 or correspond with the specification’s explanation of the attachment mount 164 and its mounting to the grippable element 104a. Final Action Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP 706.07(a). Response Period A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Filing and Contact Information All correspondence relating to this application should be directed: By Patent Center : Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ By Mail to: Commissioner for Patents United States Patent & Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 By FAX to: (571) 273-8300 By hand: Customer Service Window Knox Building 5 01 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6671 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST) . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928 . /PETER C ENGLISH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993