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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Shirai (US-20150137478).
Regarding claim 1, Shirai discloses a telescopic fork main body (12) having a vehicle body side tube and an axle side tube (12/34/36, figs 2-3), the telescopic fork main body being extendable, a cap (53) placed in a vehicle body side end of the vehicle body side tube (at least figs 3 and 11); a cylinder (24/26) provided inside the axle side tube (fig 3); a rod (at least 60/90, figs 4 and 9) inserted into the cylinder so as to be movable in an axial direction (at least movable member 60), the rod having one end coupled to the cap (at least through 94, the coupling being similar to Applicant’s rod adapter 13); an electric device (62/66) mounted inside the cylinder (fig 4); an electric wire (160) connected to the electric device ([0081]); a suspension spring (at least 50, fig 9) mounted inside the fork main body (fig 3), the suspension spring (at least 50, fig 9) biasing the fork main body in an extending direction (figs 3, 9, and, [0047] wherein spring 50 has been interpreted to contribute to the suspension of the fork and also figs 9 and 12-13 wherein 46 is fixed to 52 and 50 extends 46 away from 48 ); and an adjuster (at least adjustment structure 54) capable of adjusting a support position (P1 or P2) of a spring seat (figs 12 and 13 at least 46 and when movable member 60 is positioned, the support position of 50 at 46 changes) by which the suspension spring is supported (fig 4, [0052], and [0082]), wherein the electric wire (160) is drawn from the cap at a position misaligned from an axial center line of the fork main body to an outside of the fork main body (fig 11), and an operational portion (at least 148 or 66, or 64) of the adjuster (54) is provided in the cap (53) at a position that is misaligned from the axial center line of the fork main body and that is apart from the electric wire (at least figs 4, 5, and 11, and wherein at least a portion of adjustment structure 54 has been interpreted to be within 53 and axially offset from 160).
Regarding claim 2, Shirai discloses wherein the rod has a tubular shape, and the electric wire is drawn to an outside of the cylinder through an interior of the rod (at least figs 4, 9 and 11).
Regarding claim 3, Shirai discloses wherein the cap (53) includes a lid having a disc shape (at least figs 4 and 11), a cylindrical portion that protrudes from a fork side end of the lid toward an interior of the fork main body and that has a center aligned with the axial center line (figs 4 and 11), and an electric wire hole (53b) leading from an opposite fork main body side end of the lid to the interior of the cylindrical portion (fig 11), a center of an opening at an opposite fork side end of the lid being misaligned from the axial center line (fig 11), the cap is provided with a guide (at least connecter 162) having an annular shape (fig 11), the guide being mounted inside the electric wire hole, the guide having an inner circumference along which the electric wire is passed (fig 11), and the electric wire is inserted into and passed in a bent shape through interiors of the cylindrical portion and the guide (fig 11).
Regarding claim 4, Shirai discloses an outer circumferential seal ring ([0081] and fig 11, at least the truncated sealing portion of 162) that seals a gap between an outer circumference of the guide and the cap; and annular packing that is stacked on the guide and seals a gap between the guide and the electric wire ([0081] and fig 11, at least the portion of 162 attached to 160).
Regarding claim 6, Shirai discloses wherein the guide (162) has a tapered portion on the inner circumference on a fork main body side thereof, the tapered portion having a diameter increasing toward the fork main body side (fig 11, tapered shape of 162).
Regarding claim 7, Shirai discloses a stopper on the outer circumference of the electric wire, the stopper facing a fork main body side end of the cylindrical portion (fig 11, at least structure attached to 160 has been interpreted as a stropper).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (US-20150137478) in view of Mochizuki (US-20100294605).
Regarding claim 5, Shirai discloses wherein wire 160 is connected to guide 162 but is not specific to a seal between the wire and guide. Mochizuki teaches a front fork suspension assembly wherein a wire (104) is sealed to a guide (111) in a cap (112) (Mochizuki [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to seal the connection of a wire and a wire guide at least to prevent outside contaminants, such as water, from entering (Mochizuki [0083]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art of record lacks “a suspension spring mounted inside the fork main body, the suspension spring biasing the fork main body in an extending direction; and an adjuster capable of adjusting a support position of a spring seat by which the suspension spring is supported”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First Applicant has argued that spring 50 cannot be interpreted as the suspension spring because the bicycle body of Shirai is suspended primarily by the air spring. While Examiner notes the difference between Applicant’s spring (10) and spring (50) of Shirai, as noted above, it has been interpreted that spring 50 contributes to the suspension of the bicycle ([0047]) wherein “the coil spring 50 is compressed between the piston 46 and the lower sealing structure 48 in an initial state where weight of the bicycle frame 14 or other bicycle components is applied to the bicycle suspension 12”. Next, Applicant argues that Shirai element (54) cannot be interpreted as the adjuster capable of adjusting a support position of a spring seat. As set forth above, it has been interpreted that at least when movable member 60 is positioned (figs 12-13, when 60 axially translates) via adjustment structure 54, the support position of 46 at 50 changes. With regards to the suspension spring and adjuster, it appears that the arguments are more specific than the limitation set b the claims.
Applicant also argues the limitation of claim 1 pertaining to the limitation “an operational portion of the adjuster is provided in the cap at a position that is misaligned from the axial center line of the fork main body and that is apart from the electric wire”. As set forth above, it has been interpreted that at least 148 or 66, or 64 (any or all elements of 54) of the adjuster (54) are provided within the cap (53) at a position that is misaligned from the axial center line of the fork main body and that is apart from the electric wire shown in at least figs 4, 5, and 11, wherein at least a portion of adjustment structure 54 has been interpreted to be within 53 and axially offset from 160.
Applicant has also argued an interpretation wherein connecting part (88) has been interpreted as the adjuster. Examiner has not taken said position therefore the arguments have respectfully been considered a moot point.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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, Robert 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.
/J.K.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616