DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt of the preliminary amendment filed 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. In view of amendment, the examiner notes that claims 17-20 are newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-3 and 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected sub combination drawn to "rear linkage system" (structural configuration), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and claims 1-3 and 8-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
In claim 17, line 1, “a device” is not shown on the figure 1 to 12A. Those features must be shown, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites: “a device”. The specification dated 07/24/2023 constantly recites “a bicycle frame” with front and rear wheels. At no point does the disclosure provide written description support for a particular another device that comprises bicycle. The figures likewise illustrate only one such a frame. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the inventor to have been in possession of an embodiment (“a device”) that includes whole bicycle frame, as no text, drawings, or enabling detail is provided for that configuration. Accordingly, the specification fails to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for claim language requiring “a device” as required by claim 17.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The preamble of claim 17 recites “a device”. The specification dated 07/24/2023 teaches only “a bicycle frame” that includes front and rear axle and suspension linkage which constitute front and rear axle motion path. If the claim were to recite “a device” while relying on this specification, the scope would be ambiguous. It is unclear whether “a device” representing something bigger which comprises bicycle or a separate device “front and rear suspension” and if “front and rear suspension” appeared to be “a device”, then it does not comprise bicycle, but it is a part of the whole bicycle frame as described in the specification. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine whether “a device” is intended to encompass (i) the singular tubular member with front and rear frame, or (ii) two physically distinct tubular members, or (iii) front and rear suspension system or (iv) something other device distinct from the bicycle frame. Because the specification does not resolve this ambiguity, the claim scope would be indefinite under §112(b). For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation “a device” as recited in claim 17 is understood to be a “front and rear suspension system” which appeared to be a part of the bicycle frame.
Any claim not specifically addressed under §112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under §112(b).
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 1, 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);
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 device [see claim rejection 35 USC §112(b) above] comprising:
a bicycle (bicycle; figs 1-12) including:
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 the 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-7 and18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canfield in view of Bikechecker (The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20230119182308/https://bikechecker.com/; hereinafter, “Bikechecker”).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, (similar limitations, but different dependency), Canfield further teaches that the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation [see fig. 3 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), but Canfield does not appear to explicitly teaches 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 (page 4, fig. 1 of Bikechecker shows the range up to 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 0mm to 20mm, as taught by Bikechecker, at a corresponding vertical position. Axle-path deviations within approximately -20mm to +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 to +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 claims 6 and 19, (similar limitations, but different dependency), Canfield further teaches that the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation [see fig. 3 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), but Canfield does not appear to explicitly teaches 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 (page 4, fig. 1 of Bikechecker shows the range up to 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 0mm to 15mm, as taught by Bikechecker, at a corresponding vertical position. Axle-path deviations within approximately -15mm to +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 to +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 and 20, (similar limitations, but different dependency), Canfield further teaches that the rear axle motion path and the front axle motion path have a relative horizontal deviation [see fig. 3 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), but Canfield does not appear to explicitly teaches between negative 10 mm 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 (page 4, fig. 1 of Bikechecker shows the range up to 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 0mm to 10mm, as taught by Bikechecker, at a corresponding vertical position. Axle-path deviations within approximately -10mm to +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 to +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.
US 20230070334 A1 to Peter discloses: a bicycle includes a front wheel, a rear wheel, a frame comprising a main frame section and an articulated frame section, the articulated frame section comprising: a lower arm rotatably supported on a first axis by the main frame section, an upper frame link.
US 5553881 A to James discloses: the rearward end of the assembly and the manner in which the changes in alignment between the components produces the prescribed path for motion of the wheel axle.
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 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, 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, Koppikar, Vivek 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 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
April 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights