DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt of the preliminary amendment filed 10/15/2024 is acknowledged. This amendment cancelled claims 1-19 and claims 20 through 38 have been newly added.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 23, line 2, “trough hole” should read “through hole.”
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.
Claim 38 is 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.
Claim 38 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Claim 38 currently depends from claim 18, which has been cancelled. As a result, the scope of claim 38 is unclear as its dependency is inconsistent with the logical claim structure and renders the metes and bounds of the claim ambiguous.
See related discussion under 35 USC 112d, below. For the purpose of further prosecuting the claims, claim 38 is being interpretated as depending from claim 37, consistent with dependency as presented for original claim 19 depending from original claim 18.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 38 currently depends from claim 18, which has been cancelled. Therefore, claim 38 is an improper dependent, since it does not refer back to a claim that provides proper antecedent basis for the subject matter recited.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 20-26, 29-33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaiser Michael (EP2298634 A1; hereinafter “Michael”).
Regarding claim 20, Michael discloses: a part of a cycle frame (10; fig. 1-6 and ‘Abstract’) or of a cycle fork (“bicycle fork”, [0001]), said part having the shape of a tube (“tubular bicycle frame”, [0001]) or of a gutter and comprises a core (42, fig. 6), a first shell (left 38, fig. 6) and a second shell (right 38, fig. 6) surrounding (fig. 6) the core (42), wherein the first shell (left 38) and the second shell (right 38) are fixed respectively to opposite lateral sides 9” stiffening fibers are provided in lateral areas (32), [claim 14]) of the core (42) and wherein the first shell is linked (left 38) to the second shell (right 38) exclusively through the core (42), wherein a first edge (A, annotated fig. 6 below) of the first shell (left 38) is facing a first edge (A', annotated fig. 6 below) of the second shell (right 38) and/or wherein a second edge (B, annotated fig. 6 below) of the first shell (left 38) is facing a second edge (B', annotated fig. 6 below) of the second shell (right 38), wherein the core (42) is fixed to only a first portion of an inner surface (C, annotated fig. 6 below) of the first shell (left 38), and wherein the core (42) is fixed to only a second portion of an inner surface (D, annotated fig. 6 below) of the second shell (right 38).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 6 of Michael
Regarding claim 21, Michael further discloses that said first portion of the inner surface (C, annotated fig. 6 above) of the first shell (left 38) is located at or around a longitudinal border (see fig. 6; [‘Abstract discloses: “the fibers include bending fibers, which are formed with certain angle at the longitudinal direction (18) of the tubular bicycle frame”]) of the first shell (left 38) and wherein the second said portion (D, annotated fig. 6 above) of the inner surface of the second shell (right 38) is located at or around a longitudinal border of the second shell (right 38) [ para. 0004 discloses: “a portion of the carbon fibers is arranged essentially in the longitudinal direction or parallel to the central axis of the tube; thus, the inner surface of the second shell (right 38) is located at or around a longitudinal border of the second shell].
Regarding claim 22, Michael further discloses that a volume ( constituted by fibers 12, 14, 16, [claim 1]) comprised between the inner surface (C, annotated fig. 6 above) of the first shell (left 38) and the inner surface (D, annotated fig. 6 above) of the second shell (right 38) is only partially filled by the core [see annotated fig. 6 above where C and D occupied or filled partially by the core].
Regarding claim 23, Michael further discloses that the core comprises a longitudinal
Regarding claim 24, Michael further discloses that a cross- section of the core is continuous [ see annotated fig. 6 above showing continuous core].
Regarding claim 25, Michael further discloses that the said part has the shape of a tube [ para. 0014 discloses: “in this preferred embodiment the bending fibers, with respect to the direction of travel, are only provided at the front and rear of the fork tubes”] and wherein the core has the shape of an "I" or of a "Z", or of an "O", or of an "X", or of a "Y" [ fig. 6 shows core 42 is the round “O” shaped structural tube.]
Regarding claim 26, Michael further discloses that the core (42) is fixed to the inner surface (C) of the first shell (left 38) and to the inner surface (D) of the second shell (right 38) respectively through the distal extremities (at 28 and 30) of the "I", or of the "Z", or of the "O", or of the "X", or of the "Y" [ “O” shaped structure as depicted in fig. 4; also para. 0024 discloses: “28 bending fibers are arranged in the front area and in the rear area”; thus, the inner surface (C) of the first shell (left 38) and to the inner surface (D) of the second shell (right 38) respectively through the distal extremities.]
Regarding claim 29, Michael further discloses that the core (42) at least partially fills a gap (less than 80 GPa; [claim 4; note that <80GPa has lower stiffness fiber; thus, partially fills a gap]) between the first edge of the first shell (left 38) and the first edge of the second shell (right 38) [Claim 4 teaches :” the bending fibers (12) have a fiber stiffness of less than 100 GPa, in particular less than 80 GPa; note that: fiber materials with stiffness below 150 GPa are considered lower-stiffness options. When frame stiffness is preserved through structural design, this creates a mechanical gap between the first edge and the corresponding edge of the second shell. The fibers serve to bridge this gap, compensating for the reduced material stiffness while maintaining overall structural integrity; thus, partially fills a gap.]
Regarding claim 30, Michael further discloses that the core is flush with an outer surface of the first shell (left 38) and with an outer surface of the second shell (right 38) at the said gap [ para. 0029 discloses that a single continuous prepreg (flush with an outer surface) with continuous fibers is used, which thus extends from one dropout (gap) of a first fork leg to the other dropout (another gap). On an outer side 48 of the fork leg, strip-shaped prepregs are preferably arranged, which can extend into the area of an outer side 50 of a fork stem 52; thus, flush with an outer surface of the first shell and with an outer surface of the second shell at the said gap.]
Regarding claim 31, Michael further discloses that the core is made of a first material (plastic,[ claim 1]) wherein the first shell (at 32, fig. 6) is made of a second material (fiber mat in the lateral area 32, [0029]), different from the first material (plastic), and wherein the second shell (at 38) is made of the second material (strip-shaped prepregs at 38, [0029]), or made of a third material (carbon fiber composite, [0002]) different from the first material (plastic) and different from the second material (fiber mat or prepregs).
Regarding claim 32, Michael further discloses that the first material is a plastic material (‘plastic’[claim1]), preferably a thermoplastic material preferably reinforced with natural, glass or carbon fibers, and wherein the second material is an organosheet (fiber mat, [0029]) or a metal, preferably aluminum, steel or magnesium, and wherein the third material (strip-shaped prepregs, [0029]), is an organosheet or a metal, preferably aluminum, steel or magnesium.
Regarding claim 33, Michael further discloses that the first shell and the second shell are glued and/or welded to the core [ para. 0002 discloses: “they are manufactured by layering and
laminating several individual layers”; note that: ‘laminating’ is equivalent to ‘gluing’ if it bonds the core to shells and provides structural integrity].
Regarding claim 36, Michael further discloses that the cycle is a unicycle, a bicycle, a tricycle or a quadricycle [‘Abstract discloses – “bicycle’].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
13. 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.
14. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4.Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
15. Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michael (EP2298634 A1; hereinafter “Michael”) and in the alterative, under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Michael in view of Brown (CH310121 A).
Regarding claim 27, Michael further teaches that the said part (10, fig. 4) has the shape of a gutter (fig. 4 shows shape of a gutter) and wherein the first edge (downside of the apex line 28, fig. 4) of the first shell (left 38) is facing the first edge (upper side of the apex line 28. Fig. 4) of the second shell (right 38) at an apex of the gutter (see the apex line as depicted in fig. 4 at the apex of the gutter).
Therefore, Michael anticipates the claimed invention.
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that gutter shape of fig. 4 is intended to convey a different definition of the shape, which Michael’s figure might not meet, then Brown in another manufacturing process for bicycle frame components similar to Michael teaches that the said part (10, fig. 4) has the shape of a gutter (‘Description’, [page1, line 13-16]) and wherein the first edge of the first shell is facing the first edge of the second shell at an apex (“edge to edge” ;‘Description’, [page1, line 13-16]) of the gutter [ ‘Description’, page 1, line 13-20 teaches that the two stamped pieces are placed edge to edge, their concaves facing each other, they are joined by welding thus obtaining a piece composed of a main tubular part and at least two lateral tubular parts].
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 dual-shell structure of Michael to form the shells in a gutter shaped configuration with their facing edges meeting at a apex as taught by Brown in to the invention of Michael with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to advantageously change a well-known design configuration where the modification merely represents a predictable variation in cross-sectional geometry to achieve equivalent stiffness and material efficiency, and therefore does not involve an inventive step.
Regarding claim 28, Michael as modified above further teaches that the core (42 of Michael) has the shape of a tuning fork (fig. 5 of Michael shows tunning fork shaped core) and is fixed to the inner surface (C, annotated fig. 6 above) of the first shell (left 38) and to the inner surface (D, annotated fi. 6 above) of the second shell (right 38) through the top portions of its tines (an outer side 50 of a fork stem 52, fig. 5 and [0029]) and through its base (a bottom side 44 of the fork bridge 46; fig 5 and [0029]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 34-35 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael in view of Michel et al. (US Pat. 4548422 A; hereinafter “Michel”).
Regarding claim 34, Michael discloses the part of a cycle frame or a cycle fork, but fails to explicitly teach that the core comprises a plurality of individual core parts connected one to another at their distal portions by adjustable connection means; however,
Michel in another bicycle frame having an assembled-unit shell structure similar to Michael teaches that the core comprises a plurality of individual core parts (51, 52, 61, 62, fig. 5-6) connected one to another their distal portions by adjustable connection means (see fig. 5-6 for connection one to another their distal portions by adjustable connection means.). Also see annotated figs. 5 and 6 of Michel 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 have a plurality of individual core parts connected one to another at their distal portions by adjustable connection means as taught by Michel into the invention of Michael with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously configure optimized design configuration to apply the known modular core connection approach to the cycle frame structure of Michael, as such combination involves routine design choice and yields predictable structural benefits without producing any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 35, Michael as modified above further discloses that the first shell and the second shell cover the said distal portions and adjustable connection means [ para. 0015 of Michael discloses that the stiffening fibers preferably extend to the two dropouts (connection means) of the fork legs. The stiffening fibers provided on the outside preferably extend across the fork bridge into the fork steerer tube; it should be understood that two dropouts are being interpretated as “adjustable connection means” from where the stiffening fibers are guided into the fork bridge.]
Regarding claim 37, Michael discloses a method to assemble a cycle frame or a part of a cycle frame or a cycle fork or a part of a cycle fork, comprising the steps of:
c. providing a first shell (left 38),
d. providing a second shell (right 38),
e. fixing the first shell by its inner surface (C, annotated fig. 6 of Michael above) to a first lateral side (fig. 6 of Michael) of the core (42),
f. fixing the second shell (right 38) by its inner surface (D, annotated fig. 6 of Michael above) to a second lateral side (fig. 6 of Michael) that is opposite (fig. 6 shows opposite) to the first lateral side (side of C) of the core (42), and
g. refraining from fixing the first shell directly to the second shell (see fig. 6).
Michael does not appear to teach that
a. plurality of individual core parts equipped at their distal portions with adjustable connection means,
b. connecting the individual core parts together and adjusting their relative positions until a core of pre-defined dimensions is formed; however,
Michel teaches that plurality of individual core parts (51, 52, 61, 62; [fig. 5 and 6]) equipped at their distal portions (fig. 5-6 shows at distal portion) with adjustable connection means (rivets 52, [ col. 3, line 40-45]), connecting the individual core parts (61 and 62, fig. 6) together and adjusting their relative positions ( fig. 5 shows one adjustment while fig. 6 shows another adjustment) until a core of pre-defined dimensions is formed [Col 3, line 35-45 teaches that depending on the size of the section to be assembled and the significance of the mechanical stresses it undergoes during use of the bicycle]. Also see annotated figs. 5 and 6 of Michel 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 have a plurality of individual core parts equipped at their distal portions with adjustable connection means and connecting the individual core parts together and adjusting their relative positions until a core of pre-defined dimensions is formed as taught by Michel and incorporate the known composite frame to the innovation of Michael with the reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously configure optimized design where bonding opposing shells to a core structure would have been routine engineering judgement to assemble such components by sequentially connecting modular core parts, adjusting alignment and bonding the shells – steps well recognized for improving manufacturing accuracy, adaptability, and ease of assembly; thus, yielding no unexpected result.
PNG
media_image2.png
430
974
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 and 6 of Michel
Regarding claim 38, Michael as modified above further discloses that the method according to claim [treatment [ ‘Abstract of Michael teaches that the tubular bicycle frame member (10) comprises a variety of fibers, which are embedded in a plastic material; thus, undergoes a surface treatment].
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 103894501 A to Wu discloses: A tubing with a sandwich layer made of fiber reinforced polymer composite material and a method for manufacturing same. The method comprises the step of providing a first metallic billet pipe, a second metallic billet pipe, of which the outer diameter is smaller than or equal to the inner diameter of the first metallic billet pipe.
US 20170021888 A1 of Hastie discloses: the described bicycle has a frame made of a composite material and defining a monocoque shell which is monolithic, entirely formed of the composite material.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neacsu Valentin can be reached on (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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611