DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 Amendment
Amendment filed 11/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 2-13 have been amended and new claims 16-20 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walthert et al. (US – 2016/0339990 A1) and further in view of Luce (US – 2007/0069072 A1), and Frolik (US – 2006/0265144 A1).
As per claim 1, Walthert discloses Bicycle Component, Bicycle And Method comprising:
a first tube (Attached figure and Fig: 3b) and a second tube (Attached figure and Fig: 3b ) configured in a telescopic arrangement having an interior space (Fig: 3b);
a pneumatic chamber (281, Fig: 3b) containing a mass of a gas configured to resist compression of the telescopic arrangement (The fluid spring 261 is filled with a fluid and presently with a gas and preferably with air, [0160], Fig: 3b);
an analysis device (47, Fig: 3b) including:
a sensing device (47, Fig: 3b) disposed in the interior space of the housing or exterior of the pneumatic chamber to detect a characteristic related to a [[the]] relative position of the first and second tube and provide a signal indicative of the relative position (Preferably each of the shock absorbers 100 is provided with at least one sensor device 47 for obtaining relative motions between the components 101 and 102 and in particular for determining positions of the components 101 and 102 relative to one another, [0122], Fig: 3b); and
a power supply disposed at least in part in the housing (A cable 38 serves for a power supply and/or data transmission, [0167], Fig: 3b).
Walthert discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose a housing attached to the bicycle component but located remotely from the pneumatic chamber;
a circuitry disposed at least in part in the housing and configured to receive the signal,[[, and]]
a wireless communicator in communication with the circuitry and disposed in the housing, the wireless communicator to transmit a wireless signal representative of the relative position.
Luce discloses Aircraft Shock Having A Fluid Lever Monitor comprising:
a housing (38, 39, Fig: 1-2) attached to the bicycle component but located remotely from the pneumatic chamber (a transmitter/receiver or sensor unit 38 located outside the strut for transmitting/receiving signals to/from the prove assembly , [0023], Fig: -2);
a circuitry disposed at least in part in the housing and configured to receive the signal,(The sensor unit 38 communicates the signal from the prove assembly 37 to a computer, processor or other logic device 39 for analyzing the signal and for determining a condition of the amount of liquid in the strut 10, [0023], Fig: 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Bicycle Component, Bicycle And Method of the Walthert to make the housing attached to the bicycle component but located remotely from the pneumatic chamber and a circuitry disposed at least in part in the housing and configured to receive the signal as taught by Luce in order to prevent the circuitry from damage due to shock.
Further, Walthert as modified by Luce fails to explicitly disclose a wireless communicator in communication with the circuitry and disposed in the housing, the wireless communicator to transmit a wireless signal representative of the relative position.
Frolik discloses Method for Making a Decision on the Status of a Mechanical System Using Input and Response Data Acquired in Situ comprising:
a wireless communicator (244, Fig: 2) in communication with the circuitry and disposed in the housing, the wireless communicator to transmit a wireless signal representative of the relative position ([0032], Fig: 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Bicycle Component, Bicycle And Method of the Walthert as modified by Luce to make the wireless communicator in communication with the circuitry and disposed in the housing, the wireless communicator to transmit a wireless signal representative of the relative position in order to provide an in-situ representation of the mechanical system is generated as a function of the first data and the second data. The in-situ representation is assessed so as to make a decision regarding the status of the mechanical system.
As per claim 2, Luce also discloses wherein the circuitry is at least partially disposed in the pneumatic chamber (a probe assembly 37 extending into the strut and a transmitter/receiver or sensor unit 38 located outside the strut for transmitting/receiving signals to/from the probe assembly, [0023], Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 3, Luce further discloses wherein the analysis device includes a printed circuit board (PCB) including the circuitry being disposed within the housing (While the sensor unit 38 may be connected to the processor 39 via electrical means, preferably the probe assembly 37 is an optical device that communicates with the sensor unit 38 via an optical cable 41, [0025], Fig: 1-2).
As per claim 4, Luce further discloses wherein the housing is sealed to isolate the PCB from a [[the]] pressure of the pneumatic chamber ([0031] – [0033], Fig: 2-4).
As per claim 5, Luce further discloses wherein the sensing device is a pressure sensor extending through an opening in the housing to detect the pressure of the gas in the pneumatic chamber (A gas fitting (not shown) also may be provided in the wall of the cylinder 32 to provide access for a pressure transducer and the addition of gas. Pressure data developed by the transducer also can be communicated to the processor 39, [0042], Fig: 2-4).
As per claim 6, Walthert discloses wherein the analysis device includes a valve (293, Fig: 3b) to control a flow of the gas into and/or out of the pneumatic chamber (Opening the control valve 293 enables gas exchange in any desired axial position of the suspension piston 37, [0163], Fig: 3b).
As per claim 8, Forlik further disclose wherein the wireless communicator (200, 244, Fig: 2) includes an antenna operable to transmit signals representative of the detected pressure (Fig: 2).
As per claim 9, Forlik further disclose wherein the analysis device includes a top cap, and the antenna is at least partially disposed in the top cap (Forlik discloses analyzer 136 is performed via wireless communication link 186, therefore, it’s obviously required antenna).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walthert et al. (US – 2016/0339990 A1) as modified by Luce (US – 2007/0069072 A1), and Forlik (US – 2006/0265144 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Galasso et al. (US – 2011/0202236 A1).
As per claim 10, Walthert as modified by Luce and Frolik discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensing device includes a strain gauge attached to one of the first or second tubes.
Galasso discloses Method and Apparatus for Suspension Adjustment comprising:
wherein the sensing device includes a strain gauge attached to one of the first or second tubes (The sensor 5 (and sensors 5b, 5c, 35, 65 and a pedal force sensor (not shown)) may be any suitable force or acceleration transducer (e.g. strain gage, wheatstone bridge, accelerometer, hydraulic cylinder, interferometer based, optical, thermal, acoustic or any suitable combination thereof)), [0031], Fig: 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Bicycle Component, Bicycle And Method of the Walthert as modified by Luce and Frolik to use the sensing device includes a strain gauge attached to one of the first or second tubes as taught by Galasso in order to provide small size and light weight so that reduce space and weight of the bicycle.
As per claim 11, Galasso further discloses wherein the strain gauge (5c) is attached to the exterior of the first or second tube (Fig: 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior art and teaching reference fail to disclose wherein the analysis device includes a top cap, and wherein the valve is at least partially disposed in the top cap (Claim 7), wherein the analysis device includes a power supply, and wherein the power supply is at least partially disposed in the interior space (Claim 12) and wherein the housing comprises at least one cavity, wherein the sensing device, the circuitry, and the wireless communicator are disposed in the at least one cavity (Claim 6).
Claims 13, 15 depend on claims 12, 14 and claims 17-20 depend on claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARK, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 U..S.C. 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 Walthert et al. (US – 2016/0339990 A1) further in view of Luce (US – 2007/0069072 A1), Frolik (US – 2006/0265144 A1) and Galasso et al. (US – 2011/0202236 A1).
Claims 7, 12-20 are allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/SAN M AUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616