DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after Aug 16, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/07/26 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 4 and 17-20 have been amended and claims 1-3, 8-16 have been withdrawn, while all other claims are maintained as previously presented in the application. In view of amendment, all the drawing objections and rejections under 112(a) and 112(b) previously presented have been withdrawn. Applicants’ amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejections are made under 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 (details below) and claims 4-7 and 17-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments - see (‘Remarks’ filed 07/07/2026, pages 7-12) and in light of amendment, the applicant contends that the 35 USC § 102 rejection made for claims 4 and 17 are deficient and that the claimed features are not taught or aligned or suggested, or applied in a manner that attempted to make up for addressing the deficiency of claims 4 and 17 have been fully considered, but were not found persuasive for this reason:
In view of argument [ ‘Remarks’, page 8], the applicant argues that the prior art of record – such as Canfield fails to anticipate, especially the requirement of “the rear axle motion path during suspension actuation is substantially parallel to the front axle motion path.” The examiner disagreed. Canfield anticipates claim 4 and 17 because the prior art discloses, either expressly or inherently, every structural and functional limitation as required by the claims. The reference teaches a bicycle frame supporting a wheel-assembly that rotates on at least one front axle; at least one rear wheel that rotates on at least one rear axle; a front frame with front suspension and front wheel along a front axle motion path, suspension linkages and rear axle motion path etc., as depicted in fig. 11a; satisfying the requirement that rear axle motion path are shown substantially parallel to each other over time and in motion. Canfield expressly teaches this feature, in particular, fig. 11a and fig. 12 [ limitation 1206] depicts the front and rear axle paths as being “substantially parallel” and upward and fig. 12; 1206 expressly discloses that “the rear suspension system to define a different wheel path as a rear wheel of the rear suspension system travels from an extended position to a compressed position.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI),” the term “substantially” encompasses arrangement that are “largely,” “essentially,” or “approximately” parallel, consistent with MPEP §2111 and case law such as In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997), which affirms that terms of degree are definite when the specification or prior art provides context. Canfield’s depiction in fig. 11a provides clear guidance as to what constitutes “substantially parallel,” and therefore the prior art anticipates the claim requirement.
Furthermore, Applicant’s own specification [para. 0008] states that “the rear wheel motion path during suspension articulation is between 45 and 90 degrees from the horizontal in order to also provide effective damping of vertical forces from landing jumps and drops,” but does not identify any particular point in the travel at which the axle paths must be evaluated nor provide a definition of “substantially parallel”. In contrast, Canfield explicitly illustrates the relative axle motion paths throughout the suspension stroke, thereby supplying the very context applicant’s disclosure lacks. It should be understood that: the range 45 to 90 degrees at any point of time during any terrain condition with motion can produce upward or downward “substantially parallel” rear axle motion path with the front axle motion path and that has disclosed in the cited references. Canfield and Bikechecker alone or in combination teach the claimed features as required by claims 4 and 17. Accordingly, rejection under §102 is maintained.
Regarding applicant’s argument, pages 9-11 that the prior art of reference, such as Bikechecker failed to show “"the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path having relative horizontal deviation of specific ranges at a same vertical distance of travel” as required by claims 5-7 and 18-20, the examiner agrees; however, in view of further consideration, Bikechecker in another graphical representation, specific to the “rear and front axle path” depicts the horizontal deviation of specific ranges at a same vertical distance of travel. See claim rejection 35 USC §103 for more details below.
Therefore, regarding rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but in light of amendment, all the limitations from the arguments are moot because a new ground of rejection (under 35 USC § 103 over Canfield in view of Bikechecker, in an another figure - “magnified axle path”) does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a2) as being anticipated by Canfield (US Pub. 20210380195 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Canfield discloses: a vehicle (bicycle; figs 1-12), comprising:
at least one front wheel (“front wheel”; [0027]) that rotates on at least one front axle (“wheel axles”, [0028]);
at least one rear wheel (“rear wheel”) that rotates on at least one rear axle (“rear axle” 117, [0029]);
a front frame (100 includes head tube 104 and 106, fig. 1; [0027]) with front suspension (“front suspension”, [0027]) that allows travel of the at least one front wheel along a front axle motion path (“wheel axle/paths”; [0028]);
suspension linkages (120, 116, 117, fig. 1); and
a rear frame member (115), including the at least one rear axle (“rear axle” 117, [0029]) movably coupled to the front frame (106) by the suspension linkages (120), the rear frame member (114, 115) allows travel of the at least one rear wheel (“rear wheel”) along a rear axle motion path [ para. 0004 discloses: “the rear suspension system to define a different wheel path as a rear wheel of the rear suspension system travels from an extended position to a compressed position”], the rear axle motion path during suspension actuation is substantially parallel to the front axle motion path [see fig. 3 where the rear axle motion path during suspension actuation is substantially parallel to the front axle motion path].
Regarding claim 17, Canfield discloses: a bicycle (bicycle; figs 1-12) comprising:
at least one front wheel (“front wheel”; [0027]) that rotates on at least one front axle (“wheel axles”, [0028]);
at least one rear wheel (“rear wheel”) that rotates on at least one rear axle (“rear axle” 117, [0029]);
a front frame (100 includes head tube 104 and 106, fig. 1; [0027]) with front suspension (“front suspension”, [0027]) that allows travel of the at least one front wheel along a front axle motion path (“wheel axle/paths”; [0028]);
suspension linkages (120, 116, 117, fig. 1); and
a rear frame member (115), including the at least one rear axle (117), movably coupled to the front frame (106) by the suspension linkages (120), the rear frame member (114 or 115) allows travel of the at least one rear wheel (“rear wheel”) along a rear axle motion path [ para. 0004 discloses: “the rear suspension system to define a different wheel path as a rear wheel of the rear suspension system travels from an extended position to a compressed position”], the rear axle motion path during suspension actuation is substantially parallel to the front axle motion path [see fig. 3 where the rear axle motion path during suspension actuation is substantially parallel to the front axle motion path].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or no obviousness.
9. Claim(s) 5-7 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canfield in view of Bikechecker (The Wayback Machine - https://www.bikechecker.com/intro.php; [ Linkage: Suspension Bike Simulation and Design Software - Introduction]; hereinafter, “Bikechecker”).
Regarding claim 5, Canfield further teaches the vehicle of claim 4 wherein the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation [see fig. 11a of Canfield where the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation] at a same vertical distance of travel (fig. 3 and 11a), but Canfield does not appear to explicitly teach that the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation between negative 20 mm and positive 20 mm; however,
Bikechecker in another bicycle similar to Canfield teaches that the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation between negative 20 mm and positive 20 mm (see annotated figure “magnified axle path” of Bikechecker below that shows the range up to negative 20mm and positive 20 mm) at a same vertical distance of travel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the bicycle-suspension configuration in which the front-and rear- axle motion paths share a generally horizontal relative deviation, as taught by Canfield, and to further include a deviation in the range of -20mm and +20mm, as taught by Bikechecker, at a corresponding vertical position. Axle-path deviations within approximately -20mm and +20mm are well known in the field of suspension design and represent routine optimization of kinematic behavior. Such numerical ranges merely reflect predictable variations that do not, by themselves, impart patentable distinction.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed deviation range value of -20mm and +20mm, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, arriving at the claimed arrangement of deviation range value would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
PNG
media_image1.png
805
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. “magnified axle path” of Bikechecker
Regarding claim 6, Canfield further teaches that the vehicle of claim 4 wherein the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation [see fig. 11a where the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation] at a same vertical distance of travel (figs. 3 and 11), but Canfield does not appear to explicitly teach that the horizontal deviation between negative 15 mm and positive 15 mm; however,
Bikechecker in another bicycle similar to Canfield teaches that the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation between negative 15 mm and positive 15 mm (see annotated figure “magnified axle path” of Bikechecker above that shows the range up to negative 15 mm and positive 15mm) at a same vertical distance of travel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the bicycle-suspension configuration in which the front-and rear- axle motion paths share a generally horizontal relative deviation, as taught by Canfield, and to further include a deviation in the range of -15mm and +15mm, as taught by Bikechecker, at a corresponding vertical position. Axle-path deviations within approximately -15mm and +15mm are well known in the field of suspension design and represent routine optimization of kinematic behavior. Such numerical ranges merely reflect predictable variations that do not, by themselves, impart patentable distinction.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed deviation range value of -15mm and +15mm, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, arriving at the claimed arrangement of deviation range value would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claims 7, Canfield further teaches that the vehicle of claim 4 wherein the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation [see fig. 11a where the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation] at a same vertical distance of travel (figs. 3 and 11a), but Canfield does not appear to explicitly teach that the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation between negative 10mm and positive 10 mm; however,
Bikechecker in another bicycle similar to Canfield teaches that the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation between negative 10 mm and positive 10 mm (see annotated figure “magnified axle path” of Bikechecker above that shows the range up to negative 15mm and positive 15 mm) at a same vertical distance of travel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the bicycle-suspension configuration in which the front-and rear- axle motion paths share a generally horizontal relative deviation, as taught by Canfield, and to further include a deviation in the range of -10mm and +10mm, as taught by Bikechecker, at a corresponding vertical position. Axle-path deviations within approximately -10mm and +10mm are well known in the field of suspension design and represent routine optimization of kinematic behavior. Such numerical ranges merely reflect predictable variations that do not, by themselves, impart patentable distinction.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed deviation range value of -10mm and +10mm, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, arriving at the claimed arrangement of deviation range value would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 18, Canfield further teaches that the bicycle of claim 17 wherein the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation [see fig. 11a of Canfield where the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation] at a same vertical distance of travel (figs. 3 and 11a), but Canfield does not appear to explicitly teach that the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation between negative 20 mm and positive 20 mm; however,
Bikechecker in another bicycle similar to Canfield teaches that the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation between negative 20 mm and positive 20 mm (annotated figure “magnified axle path” of Bikechecker above that shows the range up and negative 20mm and positive 20 mm) at a same vertical distance of travel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the bicycle-suspension configuration in which the front-and rear- axle motion paths share a generally horizontal relative deviation, as taught by Canfield, and to further include a deviation in the range of -20mm and +20mm, as taught by Bikechecker, at a corresponding vertical position. Axle-path deviations within approximately -20mm and +20mm are well known in the field of suspension design and represent routine optimization of kinematic behavior. Such numerical ranges merely reflect predictable variations that do not, by themselves, impart patentable distinction.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed deviation range value of -20mm and +20mm, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, arriving at the claimed arrangement of deviation range value would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 19, Canfield further teaches that the bicycle of claim 17 wherein the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation [see fig. 11a where the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation] at a same vertical distance of travel (figs. 3 and 11), but Canfield does not appear to explicitly teach that the horizontal deviation between negative 15 mm and positive 15 mm; however,
Bikechecker in another bicycle similar to Canfield teaches that the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation between negative 15 mm and positive 15 mm (see annotated figure “magnified axle path” of Bikechecker above that shows the range up to negative 15mm and positive 15 mm) at a same vertical distance of travel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the bicycle-suspension configuration in which the front-and rear- axle motion paths share a generally horizontal relative deviation, as taught by Canfield, and to further include a deviation in the range of -15mm and +15mm, as taught by Bikechecker, at a corresponding vertical position. Axle-path deviations within approximately -15mm and +15mm are well known in the field of suspension design and represent routine optimization of kinematic behavior. Such numerical ranges merely reflect predictable variations that do not, by themselves, impart patentable distinction.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed deviation range value of -15mm and +15mm, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, arriving at the claimed arrangement of deviation range value would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claims 20, Canfield further teaches that the bicycle of claim 17 wherein the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation [see fig. 11a where the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation] at a same vertical distance of travel (figs. 3 and 11a), but Canfield does not appear to explicitly teach that the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation between negative 10mm and positive 10mm; however,
Bikechecker in another bicycle similar to Canfield teaches that the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation between negative 10 mm and positive 10 mm (see annotated figure “magnified axle path” of Bikechecker above that shows the range up to negative 10mm and positive 10 mm) at a same vertical distance of travel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the bicycle-suspension configuration in which the front-and rear- axle motion paths share a generally horizontal relative deviation, as taught by Canfield, and to further include a deviation in the range of -10mm and +10mm, as taught by Bikechecker, at a corresponding vertical position. Axle-path deviations within approximately -10mm and +10mm are well known in the field of suspension design and represent routine optimization of kinematic behavior. Such numerical ranges merely reflect predictable variations that do not, by themselves, impart patentable distinction.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed deviation range value of -10mm and +10mm, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, arriving at the claimed arrangement of deviation range value would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CA2572642 A1 to Ammanuel discloses: [See figure 2] the bicycle features a compressible rear suspension and a chain drive comprising a drive chainring operated by means of pedals and a rear wheel hub, said drive.
US20010015540 A1 to Lawwill discloses: a rear suspension bicycle having a rear wheel with an axle, a frame including a seat tube and a downtube having a top and bottom ends, a pair of drop link members, one for either side of the rear wheel, each having a top attachment point and a bottom attachment point, and an axle attachment point for receiving the axle.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying 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 extension fee 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 NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicants are 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, VIVEK D KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571-272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
September 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights