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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/24/2026 has been entered.
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 12-22 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 and Spangler US 5221102 A.
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.) [wherein the front end of the first portion of the seat stay is located at a rear surface of the seat tube,] (Annotation of Fig. 6; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 6 below, Foley et al. illustrates wherein the front end of the first portion of the seat stay is located at a rear surface of the seat tube.) and [the first portion has a cross-sectional area configured to reduce aerodynamic drag force created during use of a bicycle have the bicycle frame set.]
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.
Foley et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the first portion has a cross-sectional area configured to reduce aerodynamic drag force created during use of a bicycle having the bicycle frame set.
Spangler teaches [wherein the first portion has a cross-sectional area configured to reduce aerodynamic drag force created during use of a bicycle having the bicycle frame set.] (Fig. 2; Col. 2, lines 53-61)
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 aerodynamic cross-sectional shape of Spangler with the bicycle frame set of Foley et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for reduced aerodynamic drag during operation of the bicycle thus improving the aerodynamic efficiency of the bicycle.
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
Annotated Fig. 2 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.] (Annotation of Fig. 2 of Foley et al.; Paragraph 0065; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 2 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.)
Regarding claim 21, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the first portion of the seat stay has a measurable length, the measurable length being measured from a front end located at a connection between the first portion of the seat stay and the seat tube to the rear end of the first portion of the seat stay.] Annotation of Fig. 2 of Foley et al.; Paragraph 0065; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 2 above, Foley et al. illustrates wherein the first portion of the seat stay has a measurable length, the measurable length being measured from a front end located at a connection between the first portion of the seat stay and the seat tube to the rear end of the first portion of the seat stay.)
Regarding claim 22, Foley et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the front end of the first portion of the seat stay does not overlap with a rear surface of the seat tube.] (First Annotation of Fig. 6 of Foley et al.; As shown in the first annotation of Fig. 6 above, Foley et al. illustrates wherein the front end of the first portion of the seat stay does not overlap with a rear surface of the seat tube.)
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see page 8, lines 15-16 on Remarks, filed 08/24/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Spangler US 5221102 A.
Applicants’ arguments (Pages 7-12 on Remarks) filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Pages 7-8 on Remarks) that Kimmel et al. does not disclose a seat stay, and that the Examiner’s annotations of Kimmel et al. are improper, is not persuasive. The rejection does not solely rely on the Examiner’s labels in the annotated figure. Foley et al. teaches a bicycle frame having a seat tube and a seat stay, including a first portion of the seat stay. Kimmel et al. is relied upon for teaching a frame member extending rearwardly from the seat tube in a substantially horizontal direction when the bicycle wheels are mounted. The Examiner’s annotations merely identify the corresponding structure and relative orientation in Kimmel et al. for purposes of explaining the rejection and do not constitute a new disclosure attributed to Kimmel et al. Accordingly, Applicant’s characterization of the Examiner’s annotations does not overcome the teachings of the cited references.
Applicant further argues that Kimmel et al., even if considered to disclose the annotated structure, does not teach the “front end of the first portion of the seat stay” being located at a rear surface of the seat tube, is not persuasive. As discussed above, this limitation is taught by Foley et al., which discloses the front end of the first portion of the seat stay located at the rear surface of the seat tube. Thus, the rejection does not require Kimmel et al. to independently disclose this particular relationship. Kimmel et al. is relied upon to modify the seat-stay arrangement of Foley et al. to provide the substantially horizontal rearward extension, while Foley et al. continues to provide the claimed connection between the seat stay and the rear surface of the seat tube.
Applicant argues that there is no reason to modify Foley et al. to provide a substantially horizontal seat stay, and that doing so would require an impermissible change to the frame geometry based on hindsight, is not persuasive. Kimmel et al. provides a substantially horizontal rearward frame-member arrangement that can be used in the bicycle frame of Foley et al. to provide a different known frame geometry. Further, the modified does not require reconstruction of the entire bicycle frame, but rather involves applying the known horizontal arrangement of Kimmel et al. to the corresponding seat-stay structure of Foley et al.
Applicant further argues that Kimmel et al. is directed to a hydration system rather than a bicycle frame and therefore provides no teaching or purpose associated with the alleged seat stay is likewise not persuasive. A reference does not need to be directed to the same specific purpose as the claimed invention to be properly considered in an obviousness analysis. Here, Kimmel et al. provides the sustainably horizontal rearward frame-member arrangement, Foley et al. provides the bicycle frame and seat-stay structure including the claimed seat-tube relationship, and Spangler et al. provides the aerodynamic cross-sectional configuration. The teachings are directed to compatible bicycle structures and may be predictably combined without requiring the reference to have the same stated purpose.
Conclusion
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
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights