DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 1/20/26 has been entered
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.
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(s) 1-2, 13-19, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being rejected by over Voss et al (US Patent No. 5,743,547) in view of Kuwabara et al (US PG Pub No. 2018/0244336)
Regarding claim 1, Voss teaches
A front fork for a bicycle, the front fork comprising:
an upper fork (column 6 line 1-10 half fork assembly) including a first leg (16L figure 4 and 5) and a second leg; (16R figure 4 and 5)
a single-piece lower fork having a top end and a bottom end opposite the top end, the bottom end including a wheel attachment portion; (front moving fork figure 4 and 5 column 6 line 10-25 single piece U construction)
the single-piece lower fork including:
a third leg disposed along the first leg; (17L figure 4 and 5)
a fourth leg disposed along the second leg; (17 R figure 4 and 5)
a bridge extending between the third leg and the fourth leg; (figure 4 column 6 line 10-20 single piece U construction)
a plurality of openings (21L and 21R DL figure 4 column 6 line 20-35 and 45-55) for receiving a first set of links (21L) and a second set of links (21R), the first set of links and the second set of links for connecting the upper fork to the single-piece lower fork, the plurality of openings extending in a first direction; and at least one other hole in the lower fork, the (examiner interprets first direction to be arrow going into page)
at least one other hole closer to the bottom end than the top end of the lower fork and extending in a second direction that is different from the first direction of the plurality of openings (20L and 20R figure 4 axle holes examiner interprets second direction to be arrow going out of page).
Voss does not explicitly teach however Kuwabara teaches wherein the at least one other hole is configured for mounting a disc brake caliper behind the lower fork in the direction of travel. (64 figure 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voss based on the teachings of Kuwbara to teach wherein the at least one other hole is configured for mounting a disc brake caliper behind the lower fork in the direction of travel. The motivation would be for better packaging
Regarding claim 2, Voss teaches wherein the plurality of openings are on the top end of the lower fork (DL figure 4).
Regarding claim 13, Voss does not explicitly teach however Kuwabara teaches wherein the at least one other hole includes a first hole and a second hole for mounting the disc brake caliper. (64 mounting holes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voss based on the teachings of Kuwabara to teach wherein the at least one other hole includes a first hole and a second hole for mounting the disc brake caliper. The motivation would be for better packaging.
Regarding claim 14, Voss teaches wherein the first leg (16L) is parallel to the third leg (17L) and the second leg (16R) is parallel to the fourth leg (17R).
Regarding claim 15, Voss teaches wherein the first set (21L) of links and the second set (21R) of links remain parallel to each other.
Regarding claim 16, Voss teaches A front fork for a bicycle, the front fork comprising:
an upper fork including a first leg and a second leg;
a single-piece lower fork having a top end and a bottom end opposite the top end, the bottom end including a wheel attachment portion;
the single-piece lower fork including:
a third leg disposed behind the first leg in a direction of travel;
a fourth leg disposed behind the second leg in the direction of travel;
a bridge extending between the third leg and the fourth leg;
a plurality of openings for receiving a first set of links and a second set of links, the first set of links and the second set of links for connecting the upper fork to the single-piece lower fork, the plurality of openings extending in a first direction; and (see claim 1)
Voss does not explicitly teach however Kuwabara teaches at least one other hole in the lower fork, the at least one other hole closer to the bottom end than the top end of the lower fork and extending in a second direction that is parallel relative to a center plane of a front wheel of the bicycle. (64 figure 3 mounting holes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voss based on the teachings of Kuwabara to teach at least one other hole in the lower fork, the at least one other hole closer to the bottom end than the top end of the lower fork and extending in a second direction that is parallel relative to a center plane of a front wheel of the bicycle. The motivation would be for better packaging.
Regarding claim 17, Voss does not explicitly teach however Kuwabara teaches wherein the at least one other hole is configured for mounting a disc brake caliper behind the lower fork in the direction of travel (64 figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voss based on the teachings of Kuwabara to teach wherein the at least one other hole is configured for mounting a disc brake caliper behind the lower fork in the direction of travel. The motivation would be for better packaging.
Regarding claim 18, Voss does not explicitly teach however Kuwabara teaches wherein the at least one other hole includes a first hole and a second hole for mounting the disc brake caliper. (see claim 13)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voss based on the teachings of Kuwabara to teach wherein the at least one other hole includes a first hole and a second hole for mounting the disc brake caliper. The motivation would be for better packaging.
Regarding claim 19, Voss teaches wherein the first direction of the plurality of openings (21L and 21R) extend perpendicularly relative to the center plane of the front wheel of the bicycle (claim 1).
Regarding claim 21-23, see the rejection of claims 2, 14-15 as the limitation are substantially similar.
Regarding claim 24, Voss teaches wherein a travel path of the wheel attachment portion is curved such that the travel path moves more rearward in the direction of travel at a beginning of a compression than at a mid-way point of the compression. (column 6 line 20-35)
Claim(s) 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voss et al (US Patent No. 5,743,547) and Kuwabara et al (US PG Pub No. 2018/0244336) in view of Southall (US PG Pub No. 2022/0153382)
Regarding claim 3, Voss does not explicitly teach however Southall teaches wherein the second direction of the at least one other hole extends perpendicularly relative to the first direction of the plurality of openings extending in the first direction (attachment point of caliper 14 figure 3 paragraph 32 direction of travel of bicycle is indicated by arrow 60 and air 80 examiner states that holes in fork are obvious see 64 figure 3 (US PG Pub No. 2018/0244336))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voss based on the teachings of Southall to teach wherein the second direction of the at least one other hole extends perpendicularly relative to the first direction of the plurality of openings extending in the first direction. The motivation would be for maximum cooling of brakes (Southall abstract)
Regarding claim 4, Voss does not explicitly teach however Southall teaches wherein the first direction of the plurality of openings extend perpendicularly relative to a center plane of a front wheel of the bicycle (attachment point of caliper 14 figure 3 paragraph 32 direction of travel of bicycle is indicated by arrow 60 and air 80 examiner states that holes in fork are obvious see 64 figure 3 (US PG Pub No. 2018/0244336)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voss based on the teachings of Southhall to teach wherein the first direction of the plurality of openings extend perpendicularly relative to a center plane of a front wheel of the bicycle. The motivation would be for maximum cooling of brakes (Southall abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Voss does not explicitly teach however Southall teaches wherein the at least one other hole is on the fourth leg (attachment point of caliper 14 figure 3 paragraph 32 direction of travel of bicycle is indicated by arrow 60 and air 80 examiner states that holes in fork are obvious see 64 figure 3 (US PG Pub No. 2018/0244336)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voss based on the teachings of Southall to teach wherein the at least one other hole is on the fourth leg. The motivation would be for maximum cooling of brakes (Southall abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Voss does not explicitly teach however Southall teaches wherein the at least one other hole is threaded and the at least one other hole is configured to mount a disc brake caliper (attachment point of caliper 14 figure 3 paragraph 32 direction of travel of bicycle is indicated by arrow 60 and air 80 examiner states that holes in fork are obvious see 64 figure 3 (US PG Pub No. 2018/0244336)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voss based on the teachings of Southall to teach wherein the at least one other hole is threaded and the at least one other hole is configured to mount a disc brake caliper. The motivation would be for maximum cooling of brakes (Southall abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Voss does not explicitly teach however Southall teaches wherein the second direction of the at least one other hole extends parallel relative to a center plane of a front wheel of the bicycle ((attachment point of caliper 14 figure 3 paragraph 32 direction of travel of bicycle is indicated by arrow 60 and air 80 examiner states that holes in fork are obvious see 64 figure 3 (US PG Pub No. 2018/0244336)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voss based on the teachings of Southall to teach wherein the second direction of the at least one other hole extends perpendicularly relative to a center plane of a front wheel of the bicycle. The motivation would be for maximum cooling of brakes (Southall abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Voss teaches wherein the at least one other hole is a through-hole configured to attach an axle of the front wheel of the bicycle (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Voss teaches wherein the second direction of the at least one other hole extends perpendicular to the first direction of the plurality of openings. (see claim3 )
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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). 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 GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747