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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 includes the limitation, “a joint for transmitting torsion, such as a Hirth-type joint”. This renders the claim indefinite in two ways. First, the use of the phrase “such as” creates an indefinite limitation due to a lack of positively claiming the structure. Applicant has elected to suggest structure rather than positively claim it and thus confusion is made. Second, the term “Hirth-type joint” similarly creates confusion as to what is actually being claimed – a Hirth joint or simply ones that evokes its structure. Corrections are required to bestow clarity.
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) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lumpkin (US 9,156,521). Lumpkin discloses:
With regard to claim 1 - A rear triangle of a tubular bicycle frame, which comprises a tubular structure which defines at least one head tube (see Fig. 1) for connection to a front fork, a first, substantially horizontal tubular body 16, which is functionally connected to said head tube and defines an inlet for mounting a saddle post, a second, oblique tubular body 18, and a third, substantially vertical tubular body 20 and a bottom bracket 22, wherein said rear triangle is composed of a first half-triangle 24, 26 and a distinct second half-triangle 24, 26, each one composed of a pair of horizontal chain stays 24 which at one end are rigidly connected to a pair of distinct oblique seat stays 26 so as to define, for each one of said pairs of horizontal chain stays 24 and oblique seat stays 26, a V-shape, upper and lower free ends of which are articulated to said third tubular body 20 so that they are configured to oscillate (see Fig. 7).
With regard to claim 2 - wherein said upper free ends of said pairs of oblique seat stays 26 are articulated, so that they can oscillate, by means of pivots or bushings or bearings or a rocker arm 38, to said third tubular body 20 proximate to said inlet (see Fig. 7).
With regard to claim 3 - wherein said lower free ends of said pairs of horizontal chain stays 24 are articulated so that they are configured to oscillate on said third tubular body 20 in a region proximate to said bottom bracket 22 by means of a joint 36 which is capable of transmitting torsion and is located in a dedicated second seat (see Fig. 7).
With regard to claim 4 - wherein said free ends of said pairs of horizontal chain stays are articulated so that they are configured to oscillate on said third tubular body in a region proximate to said bottom bracket by means of a joint for transmitting torsion positioned in said second seat which is provided transversely with respect to said second, oblique tubular body (see Fig. 7).
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) 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lumpkin (US 9,156,521) in view of Talavasek (US 8,403,350). With regard to claim 6, Lumpkin discloses wherein an articulation of said upper free ends of said pairs of oblique seat stays 26 to said third tubular body 20 occurs by means of said rocker arm 38. However, Lumpkin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the rocker arm is constituted by a plate which is substantially C-shaped, so as to define first wings that wrap around said third tubular body in a region that lies below said inlet where a fourth seat is provided which is transverse to said third tubular body for the insertion of a first pivot.
Talavasek teaches a rear triangle of a tubular bicycle frame, which comprises a tubular structure which defines at least one head tube 34 for connection to a front fork 66, a first, substantially horizontal tubular body 30, which is functionally connected to said head tube and defines an inlet for mounting a saddle post 58, a second, oblique tubular body 38, and a third, substantially vertical tubular body 42 and a bottom bracket 26, wherein said rear triangle is composed of a first half-triangle 108 and a distinct second half-triangle 108, each one composed of a pair of horizontal chain stays 126 which at one end are rigidly connected to a pair of distinct oblique seat stays 116 so as to define, for each one of said pairs of horizontal chain stays 126 and oblique seat stays 116, a V-shape, upper and lower free ends of which are articulated to said third tubular body 42 so that they are configured to oscillate; wherein said upper free ends of said pairs of oblique seat stays 116 are articulated, so that they can oscillate, by means of a rocker arm 134, to said third tubular body 42 proximate to said inlet; wherein an articulation of said upper free ends of said pairs of oblique seat stays 116 to said third tubular body 42 occurs by means of said rocker arm 134, which is constituted by a plate which is substantially C-shaped (see Fig. 2), so as to define first wings that wrap around said third tubular body 42 in a region that lies below said inlet where a fourth seat 136 is provided which is transverse to said third tubular body for the insertion of a first pivot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the rear triangle of Lumpkin with the teaching of Talavasek such that the rocker arm is constituted by a plate which is substantially C-shaped, so as to define first wings that wrap around said third tubular body in a region that lies below said inlet, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the upper free ends remain bound to the third tube even should all other connections fail.
With regard to claim 7, Talavasek teaches wherein on each of said first wings of said rocker arm 138 first holes and second holes are provided, which are mutually adjacent, said first holes being arranged in axial alignment with said fourth seat 136 for pivoting to said third tubular body 42 by means of a second pivot (see Figs. 2 and 3).
With regard to claim 8, Talavasek teaches wherein said second holes are provided in a region of said first wings that is directed toward said inlet, said rocker arm 138 being allowed to oscillate in the direction of said head tube (see Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 9, Lumpkin fails to explicitly disclose wherein said upper free ends of said oblique seat stays 24 are fork-shaped so as to define a pair of second wings. Talavasek teaches (see marked up figure below) wherein said upper free ends of said oblique seat stays 116 are fork-shaped so as to define a pair of second wings on which, along a same axis, pairs of third holes are provided which are adapted to allow, by means of a pair of third pivots 136, pivoting to said rocker arm 134 by arranging in advance, in axial alignment with each other, said third holes with said second holes and said first wings between said second wings.
PNG
media_image1.png
552
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the rear triangle of Lumpkin with the teaching of Talavasek such that the rocker arm is constituted by a plate which is substantially C-shaped, such that said upper free ends of said oblique seat stays are fork-shaped so as to define a pair of second wings, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure a more secure connection.
With regard to claim 10, Lumpkin discloses wherein a substantially V-shaped fork 68 interacts with said rocker arm 38, and third wings thereof, which are perforated at one end, can be arranged between said second wings of said upper free ends of said oblique seat stays 26 and are articulated therein by means of said third pivots, at the vertex of said fork 68, by means of a fourth pivot, a first end of a piston 44 is associated which constitutes a shock absorber and is connected, at a second end thereof, to a support 50 that can be coupled to said first tubular body 16 (see Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 includes specific structure for the joint connecting the chainstays to one another, defining a Hirth joint. While Hirth joints are known and used in the art, most notably for coupling crank arms, the specific structure claimed could not fully be discovered within the art nor modified without an amount of hindsight beyond which is acceptable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY WILHELM whose telephone number is (571)272-6980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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 at 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 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.
/TIMOTHY WILHELM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614 February 7, 2026