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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manaka et al. (US 7,163,365).
With respect to claim 1, Manaka et al. disclose a swingarm stabilizer (90) that is operable to inhibit lateral motion of a swingarm on a motorcycle (Figs 1-3) wherein the swingarm stabilizer comprises: a body (Fig 8), said body having a first end (portion of body to the right of recess 97 comprising cap 92 and bolt hole 96) and a second end (left side of body comprising head 94 and recess 97), said body being cylindrical in shape (Fig 9), said body having a first portion and a second portion, said first portion and said second portion of said body being contiguous (Figs 8-9), said first portion of said body having a diameter that is greater (portion with cap 92 and skirt 95) than a diameter of the second portion (head 94), said body having a first opening (96) proximate said first end, said body having a second opening (97) proximate said second end; a first passage (Fig 8), said first passage extending through said first portion of said body from said first opening; a second passage (Fig 8), said second passage extending through said second portion of said body from said second opening, said second passage being contiguous with said first passage (Fig 8); and wherein said second passage has a diameter that is greater than a diameter of the first passage (Fig 8).
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.
Claims 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manaka et al.
With respect to claim 2, Manaka et al. disclose the claimed invention discussed above but do not disclose wherein said second portion of said body has a length that is greater than a length of the first portion of the body. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to try forming the dimensions such that the length in the second portion is longer than the first portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 3, wherein the first passage (96) is cylindrical in shape (Figs 8-9).
With respect to claim 4, Manaka et al. disclose the claimed invention discussed above but do not disclose wherein the second passage is hexagonal in shape. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to try forming second passage in a hexagonal shape to match that of the head (94), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 5, Manaka et al. disclose the claimed invention discussed above but do not disclose wherein said body is manufactured from nylon. However, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the body out of nylon, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-1362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
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, Paul Dickson can be reached on 571-272-7742. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
DREW BROWN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DREW J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614