DETAILED ACTION
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. US 20180370594 A1 in view of Kimmel et al. US 20190367115 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Foley et al. discloses [a bicycle frame set 202, comprising: a head tube 230;] (Fig. 5-6; Paragraph 0062) [a front fork 220 rotatably coupled to the head tube,] (Fig. 5-6; Paragraph 0068; Foley et al. discloses that the front fork 220 can be rotatable connected to the head tube 230.) [the front fork comprising a right fork leg and a left fork leg;] (Fig. 12C; As shown in Fig. 12C, Foley et al. illustrates the front fork 220 comprising a right and left fork leg.) [a main tube 232 connected to the head tube;] (Fig. 5-6; Paragraph 0067) [a seat tube 212 connected to the main tube,] (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0061; As shown in Fig. 2, Foley et al. illustrates a seat tube 212 indirectly connected to the main tube 232 through the chain stay 234.) [the seat tube being configured to connect to a seat post 210;] (Fig. 2; As shown in Fig. 2, Foley et al. illustrates the seat tube 212 being configured to connect to a seat post 210.) and [a seat stay comprising a first portion connected to the seat tube at a front end of the first portion of the seat stay,] (Annotation of Fig 6; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 6 below, Foley et al. illustrates a first portion of a seat stay that is connected to the seat tube at a front end of the first portion of the seat stay.)
PNG
media_image1.png
619
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Foley et al.
Foley et al. does not disclose wherein when a rear wheel and a front wheel are mounted to the bicycle frame set, the first portion of the seat stay extends in a horizontal direction substantially parallel with respect to a ground plane supporting the rear wheel and the front wheel; wherein a ratio of a first vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the front end of the first portion of the seat stay to a second vertical distance from the center of the rear wheel to a rear end of the first portion of the seat stay is within a range of 0.9 to 1.1.
Kimmel et al. teaches wherein [when a rear wheel 24 and a front wheel 22 are mounted to the bicycle frame set, the first portion of the seat stay extends in a horizontal direction substantially parallel with respect to a ground plane supporting the rear wheel and the front wheel.] (Annotation of Fig. 1; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 1 below, Kimmel illustrates a first portion of the seat stay being substantially parallel to a ground surface when the frame is supporting front and rear wheels 22, 24.); [wherein a ratio of a first vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the front end of the first portion of the seat stay to a second vertical distance from the center of the rear wheel to a rear end of the first portion of the seat stay is within a range of 0.9 to 1.1.] (Second annotation of Fig. 1 of Kimmel et al.; As shown in the second annotation of Fig. 1 below, Kimmel et al. illustrates wherein a ratio of a first vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the front end of the first portion of the seat stay to a second vertical distance from the center of the rear wheel to a rear end of the first portion of the seat stay is within a range of 0.9 to 1.1.)
PNG
media_image2.png
394
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Kimmel et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
421
493
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Second Annotated Fig. 1 of Kimmel et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the horizontal seat stay portion of Kimmel et al. with the bicycle frame set of Foley et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved structural alignment and rider stability, thus resulting in a bicycle frame with enhanced load distribution and predictable handling performance.
Regarding claim 2, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the seat stay further comprises a second portion, the second portion being connected to a rear end of the first portion of the seat stay and a chain stay 234 of the bicycle frame set 202.] (Annotated Fig. 6 of Foley et al.; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 6 above, Foley et al. illustrates wherein the seat stay further comprises a second portion, the second portion being connected to a rear end of the first portion of the seat stay and a chain stay 234 of the bicycle frame set 202.)
Regarding claim 3, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a length of the first portion of the seat stay is greater than a length of the second portion of the seat stay.] (Fig. 6 of Foley et al.; As shown in Fig. 6, Foley et al. illustrates wherein a length of the first portion of the seat stay is greater than a length of the second portion of the seat stay.)
Regarding claim 4, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein an angle between the first portion of the seat stay and the second portion of the seat stay is greater than 90 degrees.] (Annotated Fig. 6 of Foley et al.; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 6 above, Foley et al. illustrates wherein an angle between the first portion of the seat stay and the second portion of the seat stay is greater than 90 degrees.)
Regarding claim 5, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a ratio of a length of the first portion of the seat stay to a distance between a center of a bottom bracket (BB) and a center of a rear wheel is greater than 0.3.] (Second annotation of Fig. 6 of Foley et al.; As shown in the second annotation of Fig. 6 below, Foley et al. illustrates wherein a ratio of a length of the first portion of the seat stay to a distance between a center of a bottom bracket and a center of a rear wheel is greater than 0.3.)
PNG
media_image4.png
585
778
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Second Annotated Fig. 6 of Foley et al.
Regarding claim 6, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a ratio of the length of the first portion of the seat stay to a distance between a center of a bottom bracket (BB) and a center of the rear wheel is greater than 0.5.] (Second annotation of Fig. 6 of Foley et al.; As shown in the second annotation of Fig. 6 above, Foley et al. illustrates wherein a ratio of a length of the first portion of the seat stay to a distance between a center of a bottom bracket and a center of a rear wheel is greater than 0.5.)
Regarding claim 7, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a ratio of a length of the first portion of the seat stay to a horizontal distance between a center of a bottom bracket (BB) and a center of a rear wheel is greater than 0.3.] (Third annotation of Fig. 6 of Foley et al.; As shown in the third annotation of Fig. 6 below, Foley et al. illustrates wherein a ratio of a length of the first portion of the seat stay to a horizontal distance between a center of a bottom bracket and a center of a rear wheel is greater than 0.3.)
PNG
media_image5.png
585
778
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Third Annotated Fig. 6 of Foley et al.
Regarding claim 8, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a ratio of a length of the first portion of the seat stay to a horizontal distance between a center of a bottom bracket (BB) and a center of a rear wheel is greater than 0.5.] (Third annotation of Fig. 6 of Foley et al.; As shown in the third annotation of Fig. 6 above, Foley et al. illustrates wherein a ratio of a length of the first portion of the seat stay to a horizontal distance between a center of a bottom bracket and a center of a rear wheel is greater than 0.5.)
Regarding claim 9, Foley et al., as modified, does not explicitly teach that the first vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the front end of the first portion of the seat stay is less than 150 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vertical distance, as taught by Foley et al., to use a distance with a range of less than 150 mm, so as to achieve an optimal balance between rider comfort and frame stiffness, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, Foley et al., as modified, does not explicitly teach that the first vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the front end of the first portion of the seat stay is less than 130 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vertical distance, as taught by Foley et al., to use a distance with a range of less than 130 mm, so as to achieve an optimal balance between rider comfort and frame stiffness, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a ratio of a first vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the front end of the first portion of the seat stay to a second vertical distance from the center of the rear wheel to a rear end of the first portion of the seat stay is within a range of 0.95 to 1.05.] (Fourth annotation of Fig. 6 of Foley et al.; As shown in the fourth annotation of Fig. 6 above, Foley et al. illustrates wherein a ratio of a first vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the front end of the first portion of the seat stay to a second vertical distance from the center of the rear wheel to a rear end of the first portion of the seat stay is within a range of 0.95 to 1.05.)
Regarding claim 13, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a ratio of a first vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the front end of the first portion of the seat stay to a length of the first portion of the seat stay is greater than 0.55.] (Fourth annotation of Fig. 6 of Foley et al.; As shown in the fourth annotation of Fig. 6 below, Foley et al. illustrates wherein a ratio of a first vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the front end of the first portion of the seat stay to a length of the first portion of the seat stay is greater than 0.55.)
PNG
media_image6.png
585
778
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fourth Annotated Fig. 6 of Foley et al.
Regarding claim 14, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a ratio of a first vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the front end of the first portion of the seat stay to a length of the first portion of the seat stay is within a range of 0.7 to 1.3.] (Fourth annotation of Fig. 6 of Foley et al.; As shown in the fourth annotation of Fig. 6 above, Foley et al. illustrates wherein a ratio of a first vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the front end of the first portion of the seat stay to a length of the first portion of the seat stay is within a range of 0.7 to 1.3.)
Regarding claim 15, Foley et al., as modified, does not explicitly teach that the second vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the rear end of the first portion of the seat stay is less than 150 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vertical distance, as taught by Foley et al., to use a distance with a range of less than 150 mm, so as to achieve an optimal balance between rider comfort and frame stiffness, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 16, Foley et al., as modified, does not explicitly teach that the second vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the rear end of the first portion of the seat stay is less than 130 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vertical distance, as taught by Foley et al., to use a distance with a range of less than 130 mm, so as to achieve an optimal balance between rider comfort and frame stiffness, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a length of the first portion is greater than 120 mm.] (Fifth annotation of Fig. 6 of Foley et al.; Paragraph 0065; As shown in the fifth annotation of Fig. 6 below, Foley et al. illustrates wherein a length of the first portion is greater than 120 mm.)
PNG
media_image7.png
683
973
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fifth Annotated Fig. 6 of Foley et al.
Regarding claim 18, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a length of the first portion is greater than 150 mm.] (Fifth annotation of Fig. 6 of Foley et al.; Paragraph 0065; As shown in the fifth annotation of Fig. 6 above, Foley et al. illustrates wherein a length of the first portion is greater than 150 mm.)
Regarding claim 19, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a ratio of a height of the first portion of the seat stay to a width of the first portion of the seat stay is greater than 2.] (Fig. 20 of Foley et al.; As shown in Fig. 20, Foley et al. illustrates wherein a ratio of a height of the first portion of the seat stay to a width of the first portion of the seat stay is greater than 2.)
Regarding claim 20, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the right fork leg of the front fork 220 and the left fork leg of the front fork are substantially parallel to each other.] (Fig. 12C of Foley et al.; As shown in Fig. 12C, Foley et al. illustrates wherein the right fork leg of the front fork 220 and the left fork leg of the front fork are substantially parallel to each other.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (on Page 2, lines 9-18) that the office action improperly relied on an annotated version of Kimmel’s Fig.1 to support the limitation of “a ratio of a first vertical distance from a center of a rear wheel to the front end of the first portion of the seat stay to a second vertical distance from the center of the rear wheel to a rear end of the first portion of the seat stay is within a range of 0.9 to 1.1,” asserting that the annotation is not part of Kimmel’s disclosure and therefore cannot be relied upon as evidence. This argument is not persuasive. The annotation was included only as an illustrative aid to highlight the positional relationship between elements already shown in Kimmel’s figure. The rejection relies on the structural relationship reasonably conveyed by the drawing, not on the annotation itself. Patent drawings may be relied upon for what they reasonably disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art, including the relative orientation and arrangement of structural components.
Applicant further argues that Kimmel does not expressly disclose the claimed ratio or any numerical range corresponding to the ratio recited in amended claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. Kimmel clearly illustrates a seat stay portion that extends substantially horizontally relative to the ground when the bicycle supports the wheels. When a structural member extends substantially horizontally, the vertical distances from the wheel center to the opposite ends of that portion would naturally be substantially the same, resulting in a ration approximately equal to one. The claimed range of 0.9 to 1.1 merely represents a tolerance around equality of these distances and therefore expresses a predictable result of the configuration taught by Kimmel.
Applicant also argues that reliance on measurements from Kimmel’s drawings is improper because the drawings are not stated to be scale and cites MPEP 21525 and Hockerson-Halberstadt v. Avia Group Int’l. This argument is not persuasive. While patent drawings may not be relied upon to determine precise measurements, they may properly be relied upon to demonstrate relative positions, orientations, and structural relationships of elements. The office action does not rely on exact measurements from the drawings, but rather on the fact that Kimmel clearly depicts the seat stay portion as extending substantially horizontally relative to the ground surface. From this configuration, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the vertical distances to the ends of that portion would be substantially equal, resulting in the claimed ratio range.
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 Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611