DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 01/09/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
None of the non-patent literature documents in the 01/09/2024 IDS have been reviewed because copies of the non-patent literature documents were not provided in accordance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2). The U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in the 01/09/2024 have been reviewed and considered.
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.
Claims 3-4, 9, and 13 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.
Claim 3 claims, “the first cycle wheel has a negative camber with the second cycle wheel”. It is unclear if the applicant means that both wheels have negative camber with respect to a common vertical plane or if the front wheel has negative camber with respect to a plane defined by the second wheel. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and in accordance with the applicant’s drawings, claim 3 is interpreted to mean that each of the first and second front wheels has negative camber with respect to a common vertical plane.
In claim 9, the term, “the obtuse angle” lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears that the applicant intended for claim 9 to depend from claim 8 rather than from claim 7. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 9 will be treated as if it does depend from claim 8.
Claim 13 claims, “the second end of the first control bar arm is coupled to the first cycle wheel and the second end of the second control bar arm is coupled to the second cycle wheel.” Claim 13 depends from claim 12 which claims that the first attachment assembly is adapted to attach to a second end of the first control arm and that the second attachment assembly is adapted to attach to the second end of the second control arm. Accordingly, it is unclear if the attachments claimed in claim 13 are different from the attachments claimed in claim 12. Note, if the attachments of claim 13 are the same attachments claimed in claim 12, claim 13 would be rejectable under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as failing to further limit the claim from which it depends.
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 1, 8, 14, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Hurdy (US 1521540 A).
With respect to claim 1, Hurdy discloses: A front fork for a cycle, comprising: a steerer having a first end and a second end; a first fork blade and a second fork blade; a crown with two ends wherein the second end of the steerer attaches to the crown between the two ends of the crown with the steerer extending from the crown to the first end of the steerer, wherein each fork blade extends from opposite ends of the crown in a direction opposite the second end of the steerer thereby forming a cavity in between the first fork blade and the second fork blade; a first attachment assembly at a distal end of the first fork blade adapted to attach to a first cycle wheel in the cavity; and a second attachment assembly at a distal end of the second fork blade adapted to attach a second cycle wheel in the cavity (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 8, Hurdy discloses the front fork of claim 1, wherein the first end of the steerer and the second end of the steerer each have a circular opening with a center point forming a steering axis S- S, wherein the first fork blade is parallel to the second fork blade creating a fork axis F-F, and wherein the steering axis S-S and the fork axis F-F intersect to form an obtuse angle (see annotated figure below).
Note, any two lines that aren’t parallel or normal to each other will intersect in a manner that forms both an obtuse and acute angle.
PNG
media_image2.png
360
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14, Hurdy discloses: a bicycle, comprising: a bicycle frame configured to couple with a first front bicycle wheel, a second front bicycle wheel, and a rear bicycle wheel; and a front fork coupled to the first front bicycle wheel and the second front bicycle wheel, wherein the front fork includes a steerer having a first end and a second end, a first fork blade and a second fork blade, a crown with two ends wherein the first end of the steerer attaches to the crown between the two ends of the crown with the steerer extending from the crown to the second end of the steerer, wherein each fork blade extends from opposite ends of the crown in a direction opposite the second end of the steerer, forming a cavity in between the first fork blade and the second fork blade, wherein the front fork includes: a first attachment assembly at a distal end of the first fork blade adapted to attach a first cycle wheel in the cavity, and a second attachment assembly at a distal end of the second fork blade adapted to attach a second cycle wheel in the cavity (see annotated figures below).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
306
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 16, Hurdy discloses: The bicycle of claim 14, wherein the first end of the steerer and the second end of the steerer each have a circular opening with a center point forming a steering axis S- S, and wherein the bicycle further includes a hub axis H-H from a center of a first front bicycle wheel hub to a center of a rear bicycle wheel hub, and a normal axis N-N being perpendicular to the hub axis H-H, wherein the normal axis N-N and the steering axis S-S intersect to create an acute angle, and wherein the hub axis H-H intersects the steering axis S-S to create an obtuse angle (see annotated figure below).
Note, any two lines that aren’t parallel or normal to each other will intersect in a manner that forms both an obtuse and acute angle.
PNG
media_image4.png
437
445
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurdy (US 1521540 A).
With respect to claim 2, Hurdy discloses the front fork of claim 1 but is silent in teaching that the first and second fork blade, and the crown are a unitary structure.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hurdy to have the first and second fork blade and crown be a unitary structure because the use of a one-piece construction is a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 V. B.). Such a person would have been motivated to make the modification to simplify assembly of the bicycle. Note, since Hurdy does not disclose a front suspension, the use of a unitary structure compared to a multi-part structure would have no effect on the operation of the device.
With respect to claim 9, Hurdy discloses the front fork of claim 8, but is silent in teaching that the obtuse angle ranges from 150 degrees to 154 degrees.
However; the federal circuit has held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). In the present case, the prior art device differs from the claimed invention only by the claimed angle range. Since further modifying Hurdy to arrive at the claimed invention would not cause the prior art device to perform differently, the recitation of the angle range does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Note, claim 9 is examined as if depending from claim 8 because claim 8 provides antecedent basis for the term, “the obtuse angle” in claim 9.
With respect to claim 17, Hurdy discloses the bicycle of claim 16 but is silent regarding the claimed angle ranges.
However; the federal circuit has held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). In the present case, the prior art device differs from the claimed invention only by the claimed angle range. Since further modifying Hurdy to arrive at the claimed invention would not cause the prior art device to perform differently, the recitation of the angle range does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Claims 3-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurdy (US 1521540 A) in view of JP 7054752 B1; hereinafter, JP’752 .
With respect to claim 3, Hurdy discloses the front fork of claim 1 but is silent in teaching that the first cycle wheel has a negative camber with the second cycle wheel.
JP’752 teaches a cycle comprising a first front wheel (16L, Fig. 1) and a second front wheel (16R) wherein the first and second front wheel having negative camber (see “camber”, paragraph [0016]; also see 16L/R, Fig. 1). JP’572 further teaches that negatively cambered front wheels improve straight line stability (see paragraph [0016]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hurdy in view of JP’752 to arrive at the claimed invention and to improve the straight-line stability of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 4, Hurdy in view of JP’752 discloses the front fork of claim 3 but is silent in teaching that the negative camber is 1.5°. However; the federal circuit has held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). The only difference between the claimed invention and the device resulting from the combination of Hurdy and JP’752 is the recitation of 1.5° of camber compared to the 2-3° of camber taught by JP’752 (JP’752; see paragraph [0016]). The recitation of 1.5° does not serve to make the claimed device patentably distinct from the prior art device because modifying the prior art device to have 1.5° of camber instead of 2° of camber would not affect operation of the device. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try 1.5° of camber with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a person would have been motivated to try 1.5° of camber to improve the straight-line stability of the vehicle while protecting the tires of the vehicle against excess ware due to over-cambered wheels.
With respect to claim 15, Hurdy discloses the front fork of claim 14, wherein the first attachment assembly is coupled to the first cycle wheel in the cavity and the second attachment assembly is coupled to the second cycle wheel in the cavity (see annotated figure below) but is silent in teaching that the first cycle wheel has a negative camber with the second cycle wheel.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
JP’752 teaches a cycle comprising a first front wheel (16L, Fig. 1) and a second front wheel (16R) wherein the first and second front wheel having negative camber (see “camber”, paragraph [0016]; also see 16L/R, Fig. 1). JP’572 further teaches that negatively cambered front wheels improve straight line stability (see paragraph [0016]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hurdy in view of JP’752 to arrive at the claimed invention and to improve the straight-line stability of the vehicle.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurdy (US 1521540 A) in view of DE 202009000904 U1; hereinafter, DE’904.
With respect to claim 5, Hurdy discloses the front fork of claim 1 but is silent in teaching that the first attachment assembly having a first cylindrical threaded insert for receiving a first bolt to interlock the first cycle wheel with the first fork blade in the cavity, and the second attachment assembly having a second cylindrical threaded insert for receiving a second bolt to interlock the second cycle wheel with the second fork blade in the cavity.
DE’904 teaches a bicycle through-axle system comprising a cylindrical threaded insert (3, Fig. 1) for receiving a first bolt (1) to interlock a cycle wheel with a fork blade (7a/7a’) in a cavity (space between 7a/7a’).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hurdy in view of DE’904 to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide replaceable threads for attaching the wheels. Such a person would have been further motivated to make the modification to allow a user to remove or install the wheels without the use of tools.
With respect to claim 7, Hurdy in view of DE’904 discloses the front fork of claim 5, but is silent in teaching that the first and second fork blade have a thickness ranging from 1.25 to 1.75 inches. However; the federal circuit has held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). Since the prior art device differs from the claimed invention only by the claimed dimensions, and since further modifying Hurdy in view of DE’904 to have said claimed dimensions would cause the prior art device to perform differently, the claimed dimensions do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurdy (US 1521540 A) in view of Schmid (WO 2022228593 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Hurdy discloses: the front fork of claim 1, but is silent in teaching that the first fork blade and the second fork blade are tapered.
Schmid teaches a bicycle fork comprising a first fork blade (2, Fig. 1) and a second fork blade (2), wherein the first and second fork blades are tapered (see “tapers”, paragraph [0021]). Schmid further discloses that the taper saves material and weight (see paragraph [0021]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hurdy in view of Schmid to arrive at the claimed invention and save material and weight as taught by Schmid (Schmid; see paragraph [0021]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 18-20 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.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 10-13 and 18-20, the closest prior art of record is Hurdy (US 1521540 A). Hurdy discloses: a front fork for a cycle, comprising: a steerer having a first end and a second end; a first fork blade and a second fork blade; a crown with two ends wherein the second end of the steerer attaches to the crown between the two ends of the crown with the steerer extending from the crown to the first end of the steerer, wherein each fork blade extends from opposite ends of the crown in a direction opposite the second end of the steerer thereby forming a cavity in between the first fork blade and the second fork blade; a first attachment assembly at a distal end of the first fork blade adapted to attach to a first cycle wheel in the cavity; and a second attachment assembly at a distal end of the second fork blade adapted to attach a second cycle wheel in the cavity (see annotated figures above).
Hurdy is silent regarding the claimed control bar assembly. Suggestions to modify Hurdy to arrive at the claimed invention were not reasonably found in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and discloses tricycles having two front wheels and means for interconnecting left and right vehicle wheels in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6087. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (7:30 - 5:00 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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571) 272-2706. 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.
/MATTHEW D LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617