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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 35 USC 102 in view of Kimmel 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Kimmel and Sword (US 3770295).
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimmel (US 2019/0367115) in view of Sword (US 3770295).
Regarding Claim 1, Kimmel et al teaches a bicycle frame set 26 (Fig 1) , comprising:
a head tube 38 (Fig 1);
a front fork 28 (Fig 1) rotatably coupled to the head tube, [the front fork comprising a right fork leg and a left fork leg, the right fork leg being substantially parallel to the left fork leg] (Annotated Fig 10 below shows a rear view of a front fork of the bicycle having a left and right fork leg that are parallel to one another) ;
a main tube 36 (Fig 1) connected to the head tube 38 (Fig 1);
a seat tube 34 (Fig 1) connected to the main tube 36 (Fig 1 shows the main tube 36, the seat tube 34 and a top tub 32 form a triangular shape to support one another) , [the seat tube being configured to be connected to a seat post] (“An upper end 40 of the seat tube 34 includes a seatpost opening dimensioned to receive a seatpost 42 for supporting a saddle 44” para 0021); and
[a seat stay extending from the seat tube] (para 0021- See annotated figure 7 below, also Fig. 1, etc.).
PNG
media_image1.png
710
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kimmel Figure 10 shows the left and right forks that are substantially parallel to one another.
PNG
media_image2.png
434
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kimmel Figure 7 shows the seatstay extending from the seat tube in a rearward direction to support the rear wheel.
Kimmel further teaches the bicycle comprising:
a pair of [rest handlebars 52 (Fig 1, para 0021) including a right rest handlebar 52 (Fig 1) and a left rest 52 (Fig 1) handlebar] (Annotated Kimmel Fig 7 below shows the rest handlebars) , wherein [an upper portion of the right fork leg of the front fork connects to the right rest handlebar and an upper portion of the left fork leg of the front fork connects to the left rest handlebar] (Kimmel annotated Figure 10 below shows a rear view of the front fork wherein the right side of the fork has a right handlebar and the left side of the front fork has a left rest handlebar, further “The fork assembly 28 includes a riser 50 that supports handlebars 52.”, para 0021).
PNG
media_image3.png
415
597
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kimmel Figure 7 shows the rest handlebars and handlebars positioned above the front fork.
PNG
media_image4.png
681
443
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kimmel figure 10 shows the positioning of the front fork providing support for the left and right rest handlebars.
Kimmel further teaches a pair of handlebars (See annotated Figure 1 Kimmel below) [including a right handlebar and a left handlebar, wherein the upper portion of the right fork leg of the front fork connects to the right handlebar at a position lower than the right rest handlebar, and the upper portion of the left fork leg of the front fork connects to the left handlebar at a position lower than the left rest handlebar] (Kimmel annotated Figure 1 below shows the handlebar being positioned lower than the rest handlebars 52).
PNG
media_image5.png
421
547
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kimmel annotated Figure 1 showing the handlebars positioned below the rest handlebars and attached to the front fork via the riser 50.
Kimmel further teaches the front fork further comprises:
an upper crown 50 (Fig 11 shows a flat connector at the bottom of element 50 connecting the left and right sides of the fork, “The illustrated riser 50 is hollow and provides a substantially vertical opening 100 through which the hose 58 can pass until the hose 58 exits the fork assembly 28 at a top surface of the fork assembly 28.” para 0030) [connecting the right fork leg and the left fork leg] (Kimmel Figure 11 shows the left and right forks connected together) ; and a lower crown 96 (Figs 9- 11) [connecting the right fork leg and the left fork leg, the lower crown being parallel to the upper crown] (“ The nose piece 98 is a detachable part that provides an aerodynamic and cosmetic cover to the front of the fork assembly 28” para 0029).
PNG
media_image6.png
726
425
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kimmel Annotated Figure 10 above shows the top crown element supporting the handlebars and the bottom crown element supporting the left and right fork elements being substantially parallel to one another.
Kimmel further teaches a cover 98 (Figs 9 and 11) [attached to the front fork and connected to the upper crown and the lower crown] (“the hose 58 extends toward a front of the fork assembly 28 and upward into a space between the headset bearings 30 and a nose piece 98.”, para 0029 ).
Kimmel also teaches a hose 58 (Fig 10) for [a hydration system] (para 0022) arranged within the main tube 36 (Fig 7, “The rear opening 90 provides access to an internal hydration conduit 92 in the main frame 26”, para 0026 and “The conduit 92 passes through the down tube 36 and toward the lower headset bearing 30 where it terminates at a front opening 94” para 0027) [and extending through the head tube and a space between the upper crown and the lower crown] (Fig 11, “The illustrated riser 50 is hollow and provides a substantially vertical opening 100 through which the hose 58 can pass until the hose 58 exits the fork assembly 28 at a top surface of the fork assembly 28.” Para 0030 ).
Kimmel additionally teaches the right fork leg of the front fork and the left fork leg of the front fork each include a first portion above the lower crown and a second portion below the lower crown (See Annotated Kimmel Figure 10 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
726
433
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kimmel Figure 10 shows a first and second portion of each left and right fork that sit above and below the lower crown. Each first and second portion share a central axis.
Kimmel does not teach wherein the right fork leg of the front fork comprises a first protrusion and the left fork leg of the front fork includes a second protrusion, the first protrusion extending vertically from the right fork leg and the second protrusion extends vertically from the left fork leg.
Sword teaches an equivalent front fork assembly 23 (Fig 2) wherein the right fork leg 53 (Fig 2) of the front fork 23 (Fig 2) comprises a first protrusion 71 (Fig 2 and Fig 7) and the left fork leg 51 (Fig 2) of the front fork includes a second protrusion 69 (Fig 2 and Fig 7), the first protrusion 71 (Fig 2) [extending vertically from the right fork leg] (Fig 2 shows the spacer protrusion element 71 extending vertically along the length of the right fork leg) [and the second protrusion extends vertically from the left fork leg] (Fig 2 shows the spacer protrusion element 69 extending vertically along the length of the left fork leg). (“The spacer blocks 69 and 71 are preferably formed in their outer extremities with semi-circular cutouts 81 (FIG. 7) for receipt of the respective wide spaced tines 51 and 53…” Col 2 lines 63-66 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the protrusions of Sword with the bicycle frame set of Kimmel with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for additional support along the length of the fork tines with additional material. By including a protrusion that extends along the length of the fork tine, the fork tine has additional material to support the tine in an axial length and can strengthen the tine along the length of the protrusion to prevent fracturing due to external forces applied to the fork tine.
Regarding claim 2, Kimmel and Sword fully teach the bicycle frame set further comprising:
a pair of rest handlebars including a right rest handlebar and a left rest handlebar, wherein an upper portion of the right fork leg of the front fork connects to the right rest handlebar and an upper portion of the left fork leg of the front fork connects to the left rest handlebar (See modification of Kimmel in view of Sword in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Kimmel and Sword fully teach the bicycle frame set further comprising:
a pair of handlebars including a right handlebar and a left handlebar, wherein the upper portion of the right fork leg of the front fork connects to the right handlebar at a position lower than the right rest handlebar, and the upper portion of the left fork leg of the front fork connects to the left handlebar at a position lower than the left rest handlebar (See modification of Kimmel in view of Sword in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Kimmel and Sword fully teach the front fork further comprising: an upper crown connecting the right fork leg and the left fork leg; and a lower crown connecting the right fork leg and the left fork leg, the lower crown being parallel to the upper crown (See modification of Kimmel in view of Sword in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Kimmel and Sword fully teach the bicycle frame set further comprising a cover attached to the front fork and connected to the upper crown and the lower crown (See modification of Kimmel in view of Sword in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Kimmel and Sword fully teach the frame set further comprising a hose for a hydration system arranged within the main tube and extending through the head tube and a space between the upper crown and the lower crown (See modification of Kimmel in view of Sword in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Kimmel and Sword fully teach the bicycle frame set wherein the right fork leg of the front fork and the left fork leg of the front fork each include a first portion above the lower crown and a second portion below the lower crown (See modification of Kimmel in view of Sword in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, Kimmel teaches the bicycle frame of claim 1.
Kimmel does not teach the bicycle frame has protrusions.
Sword teaches an equivalent bicycle frame wherein each of [the first 71 (Fig 2 and Fig 7) and second 69 (Figs 2 and 7) protrusions extend inwardly towards each other] (Fig 2 shows the protrusions 71 and 69 protruding towards one another, “The spacer blocks 69 and 71 are preferably formed in their outer extremities with semi-circular cutouts 81 (FIG. 7) for receipt of the respective wide spaced tines 51 and 53 and are formed in their opposite extremities with respective axial threaded bores 83 for receipt of respective mounting studs 85,” Col 2 lines 63-68). The first and second protrusions 69 and 71 [being configured to connect to a front hub] (The protrusions 69 and 71 are connected to fork tines 51 and 53 (See Figs 2 and 7),” The spacer blocks 69 and 71 are preferably formed in their outer extremities with semi-circular cutouts 81 (FIG. 7) for receipt of the respective wide spaced tines 51 and 53” Col 2 lines 63-66, and the fork tines 51 and 53 are then connected to front wheel hub 107 via mounting studs 33 and 35, “The tines are formed in their lower extremities with respective downwardly opening slots which form bosses 54 for receipt of the mounting studs 33 and 35. A pair of wing nuts 56 and 58 (FIG. 5) are provided for screwing onto the mounting studs 33 and 35 to hold the fork on the axle 29 or 31 selected.” Col 2 lines 38-45—thus, the spacer blocks are configured to connect (indirectly) to the front wheel hub) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally have the protrusions of Sword connect with the bicycle wheel hub of Kimmel with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide additional structural strength along the fork tines and into the connection of the wheel hub. By including a protrusion that extends along the length of the fork tine that is connected to the wheel hub, the fork tine has additional material to support the tine in an axial length and can strengthen the tine along the length of the protrusion to prevent fracturing due to external forces applied to the fork tine.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimmel and Sword in view of Kawasaki (DE 102020125226 Machine Translation and Original Patent Provided).
Regarding claim 8, Kimmel and Sword teach the bicycle frame assembly of claim 7, wherein the left fork first portion and left fork second portion share a central axis (See Kimmel Annotated Figure 10 in the modification of Kimmel and Sword in claim 1 above). Kimmel appears to teach a ratio between the distance of the central axis of the left first portion and right first portion to the central axis of the left second portion and right second portion to be within the same order of magnitude and approximately close to a ratio of 1.0.
Kimmel and Sword do not explicitly teach a ratio of a first distance between a center of the first portion of the right fork leg of the front fork and a center of the first portion of the left fork leg of the front fork to a second distance between a center of the second portion of the right fork leg of the front fork and a center of the second portion of the left fork leg of the front fork is within a range of 0.9 to 1.2.
Kawasaki teaches a ratio of a first distance between a center of the first portion of the right fork leg of the front fork and a center of the first portion of the left fork leg of the front fork to a second distance between a center of the second portion of the right fork leg of the front fork and a center of the second portion of the left fork leg of the front fork is substantially close to 1.0 (Annotated Kawasaki Figure 3 shows an axis wherein the left and right forks extend. Figure 3 also shows that D1 and D2 are substantially the same at a ratio of 1.0) . Kawasaki further discloses that the front fork 12 has left and right fork tubes 61 and “Each of the left and right fork tubes 61 is a telescopic type damper including an outer tube 66 having a tubular shape and an inner tube 67 having a tubular shape, the inner tube 67 being slidably inserted into the outer tube 66 from below and fitting into the outer tube 66.” (para 0052 having the tubes of Fig 3 be telescopic allows the tubes to share an axis to one another making the ratio of the upper portions (element 61) and the lower portion (element 66) substantially the same).
However, Kawasaki does not expressly disclose the ratio is within a range of 0.9 to 1.2 as required by claim 8.
The ratio of the distance between the upper portion to the lower portion of the front fork would need to be optimized so that there is increased strength and rigidity along the length of the front fork elements as explained in Kawasaki para 0005.
Therefore, 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 ratio of the upper and lower forks of Kawasaki with the bicycle frame assembly of Kimmel and Sword with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a shared axis to balance the loading applied to the bicycle and provide additional rigidity and strength along the front fork. By making the fork ends spaced out from one another such that the upper and lower fork ends share an axis, the loading of the bicycle can be more easily distributed along the shared axis of the upper and lower tubes and is less likely to form stress concentrations along the fork ends.
Additionally, 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 Kimmel and Sword to use Kawasaki such that the ratio of the front fork upper and lower portions are within a range of 0.9 to 1.2, so as to achieve an optimal spacing between the front forks 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.
PNG
media_image8.png
514
644
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kawasaki Figure 3 showing the ratio of the upper left and right forks to the lower right and left forks are substantially the same and have a ratio of 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Kimmel/Sword and Kawasaki fully teach the limitation of claim 9, wherein the ratio of the first distance (“D1” in the annotated Kawasaki Figure 3 above) to the second distance (“D2” in the annotated Kawasaki Figure 3 above) is within a range of 0.9 to 1.1 (Kawasaki teaches the ratio of “D1” to “D2” is 1.0 as shown in Annotated Figure 3 above). Similar considerations apply as discussed in the related rejection of parent claim 8, (see above).
Regarding Claim 10, Kimmel/Sword and Kawasaki further teach the limitation wherein the ratio of “D1” to “D2” (See annotated Kawasaki Figure 3 above) is within the range of 0.95 to 1.05. Similar considerations apply as discussed in the related rejection of parent claim 8, (see above).
Claims 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimmel and Sword in view of Nagakubo (US 2013/0341885).
Regarding Claim 11, Kimmel and Sword teach a bicycle frame of claim 7.
Kimmel and Sword do not teach a disc mount assembly mounted on the left fork leg of the front fork;
wherein a ratio of a first distance between a center of the first portion of the right fork leg of the front fork and a center of the first portion of the left fork leg of the front fork to a third distance between the disc mount and the right fork leg of the front fork is greater than 1.
Nagakubo teaches a disc mount assembly 11 (Figs 1-7) [mounted on the left fork leg of the front fork] (“a front brake caliper (called as a brake caliper, hereinafter) 11 attached to the lower portion of the left front fork 3L;” para 0028, see also Figure 2);
wherein a ratio of [a first distance between a center of the first portion of the right fork leg of the front fork and a center of the first portion of the left fork leg of the front fork] (Labeled “D1” in the annotated Nagakubo Figure 2 below) to a [third distance between the disc mount and the right fork leg of the front fork] (Labeled “D3” in the annotated Nagakubo Figure 2 below) is greater than 1 (See annotated Nagakubo Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
728
708
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Nagakubo Fig 2 showing the ratio of the distance between the front fork elements and the disc brake element and right fork element being greater than 1.
Nagakubo teaches a ratio is formed between the distance of the front fork legs and the distance between the front left leg and the disc mount assembly to improve the balance of the bicycle (See further, Nagakubo paras 0010 and 0017). The ratio is applied so that the overall width of the vehicle front fork remains closer to the center of the vehicle to improve the balance of the vehicle (See Nagakubo para 0017).
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 ratio of the fork distance and brake disc distance of Nagakubo with the bicycle frame assembly of Kimmel and Sword with a reasonable expectation of success because by having a ratio greater than 1, the brake disc is aligned closer to the wheel and is supported by the axle and wheel. By having a ratio of D1/D3 greater than 1, the brake disc is closer to the wheel and is aligned more closely with the center of the bicycle front fork, thus allowing the user to have a more improved riding experience wherein the brake location does not drastically change the center of gravity of the bicycle.
Additionally, 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 Kimmel and Sword to use Nagakubo such that the ratio of fork leg to disc brake mount distances are greater than 1, so as to achieve an optimal spacing between the front fork leg and the disc brake mount to improve the center of gravity of the bicycle so there is no extra effort needed by the user to balance the bicycle. 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, Kimmel and Sword as modified by Nagakubo teach that the distances between the front forks and the brake disc mount are greater than a ratio of 1.2, with respect to the central axis. Similar considerations apply as discussed in the related rejection of parent claim 11, (see above).
Regarding Claim 20, Kimmel and Sword teach the bicycle frame set of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the right fork leg of the front fork extends along a first straight axis from a first end of the right fork leg of the front fork to a second end of the right fork leg of the front fork, and the left fork leg of the front fork extends along a second straight axis from a first end of the left fork leg of the front fork to a second end of the left fork leg of the front fork.
Nagakubo teaches an equivalent vehicle frame (Figs 1 and 2) wherein the left 3L (Fig 2) and right 3R (Fig 2) fork legs extend along a straight axis C1 (Fig 2, “…a sign C1 shows a center axis (a sliding axis) that is parallel to a head pipe 5a in the right and left front forks 3L, 3R,” para 0027- and “As shown in FIGS. 1-3, the outer tube 32 of the right and left front forks 3L, 3R has a cylindrical shape straightly extending along the axis C1,” para 0041).
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 axis of the left and right fork legs of Nagakubo with the bicycle frame assembly of Kimmel and Sword with a reasonable expectation of success because by having the fork legs extend along an axis, there is a continuous force applied along the entire length of the legs. By including the central axis of each fork leg, the legs are less likely to form stress concentrations and can provide additional support to the bicycle frame along the entire length of the axis.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimmel and Sword in view of Mcainish (US 2020/0039601).
Regarding Claim 13, Kimmel and Sword teach the bicycle of frame 7 but are silent regarding the width of the front fork.
Mcainish teaches a similar bicycle wherein [a first distance between the first portion of the right fork leg of the front fork and the first portion of the left fork leg of the front fork] (Distance W, Figure 3, “The arms 33 of the fork 32 can also be located at a suitable distance W, so that the air can advantageously flow into the spaces 43,” para 0090) [is greater than 100 mm] (“The distance W that divides the two arms 33 can vary between 110 and 150 mm”, para 0091).
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 width of the front fork as described by Mcainish with the bicycle frame assembly of Kimmel and Sword with a reasonable expectation of success because it would improve the aerodynamic performance of the bicycle and allow sufficient air to pass between the forks and prevent the bicycle fork from hindering the overall aerodynamic performance of the bicycle.
Regarding Claim 14, Kimmel Sword and Mcainish fully teach a bicycle wherein the first distance is greater than 110 mm (“The distance W that divides the two arms 33 can vary between 110 and 150 mm.” Mcainish para 0091).
Claims 15,16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimmel and Sword in view of D1 (Machine Translation and Original Patent of DE 202004010575 U1 provided).
Regarding Claim 15, Kimmel and Sword teach the bicycle frame of claim 1.
Kimmel does not teach a ratio of a first distance between the first portion of the right fork leg of the front fork and the first portion of the left fork leg of the front fork to a fourth distance between a first dropout end of a right seat stay and a second dropout end of a left seat stay is within a range of 0.8 to 1.2.
D1 teaches a ratio of a [first distance between the first portion of the right fork leg of the front fork and the first portion of the left fork leg of the front fork] (Labeled D1 in Annotated D1 Figure 7a below) to [a fourth distance between a first dropout end of a right seat stay and a second dropout end of a left seat stay] (Labeled D4 in Figure 7a below) is within a range of 0.8 to 1.2.
PNG
media_image10.png
346
560
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Annotated D1 Fig 7a showing the ratio of the front fork to the rear seat stay distance.
D1 teaches a ratio is formed between the distance of the front fork legs and the distance between the rear chainstay to improve the stability and performance of the bicycle and allow rapid repairs (See further, D1 pg 2 paras 4 and 7). The ratio is applied so that the overall width of the vehicle front fork remains closer to the center of the vehicle to improve the balance of the vehicle and overall stability.
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 ratio of “D1” and “D4” of D1 with the bicycle frame assembly of Kimmel and Sword with a reasonable expectation of success because by having a ratio of D1 to D4 being greater than 1.0 but less than 1.2, the bicycle will remain balanced along the central axis and have improved performance while in operation. By using the ratio of D1 to D4 in the bicycle frame of Kimmel and Sword, the bicycle’s center of gravity remains near the central axis of the bicycle and the user will not have to compensate with additional weight being added to one or the other side of the bicycle frame.
Additionally, 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 Kimmel and Sword to use the ratio introduced in D1 so that the ratio of fork leg to rear chainstay distances are between 0.8 to 1.2, so as to achieve an optimal spacing between the front fork legs and the rear chainstay dropout length to improve the center of gravity of the bicycle so there is no extra effort needed by the user to balance the bicycle. Further, 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, Kimmel and Sword as modified by D1 teach that the ratio of the distances between the front forks and rear chainstay mount are between 0.9 to 1.1, with respect to the central axis. Similar considerations apply as discussed in the related rejection of parent claim 15, (see above).
Regarding Claim 19, Kimmel and Sword teach the bicycle frame of claim 1.
Kimmel and Sword do not teach a distance between a center of the right fork leg of the front fork and a center of the left fork leg of the front fork is substantially equal to a distance between a first dropout end of the right seat stay and a second dropout end of the left seat stay.
D1 teaches a ratio of a [first distance between the first portion of the right fork leg of the front fork and the first portion of the left fork leg of the front fork] (Labeled D1 in Annotated D1 Figure 7a below) to [a fourth distance between a first dropout end of a right seat stay and a second dropout end of a left seat stay] (Labeled D4 in Figure 7a below) is greater than 1.0.
PNG
media_image11.png
545
883
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Annotated D1 Fig 7a showing the ratio of the front fork to the rear seat stay distance.
D1 teaches a ratio is formed between the distance of the front fork legs and the distance between the rear chainstay to improve the stability and performance of the bicycle and allow rapid repairs (See further, D1 pg 2 paras 4 and 7). The ratio is applied so that the overall width of the vehicle front fork remains closer to the center of the vehicle to improve the balance of the vehicle and overall stability.
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 ratio of “D1” and “D4” of D1 with the bicycle frame assembly of Kimmel and Sword with a reasonable expectation of success because by having a ratio of D1 to D4 being sustainably close to 1.0, the bicycle will remain balanced along the central axis and have improved performance while in operation. By using the ratio of D1 to D4 in the bicycle frame of Kimmel and Sword, the bicycle’s center of gravity remains near the central axis of the bicycle and the user will not have to compensate with additional weight being added to one or the other side of the bicycle frame.
Additionally, 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 Kimmel and Sword to use the ratio introduced in D1 so that the ratio of fork leg to rear chainstay distances are sustainably the same, so as to achieve an optimal spacing between the front fork legs and the rear chainstay dropout length to improve the center of gravity of the bicycle so there is no extra effort needed by the user to balance the bicycle. Further, 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.
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 MORGAN M KNAUF whose telephone number is (703)756-4532. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -4:30 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.
/M.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611