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
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Busby (US 6,036,213 A).
Regarding claim 1, Busby teaches a single-track vehicle frame, comprising:
a front subframe (16+18+20) to support a seat (@ 22);
a rear subframe (38+44+48) having a swingarm (38); and
a resilient hinge (40) interconnecting the front subframe and the rear subframe (Col. 4, Lines 33-41 and Fig 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Busby teaches that the resilient hinge includes a fixed beam having a front beam end (4f) coupled to the front subframe and a rear beam end (4r) coupled to the rear subframe (Fig 3 Annotated).
Regarding claim 3, Busby teaches that the fixed beam is between the front subframe and the rear subframe (Fig 3 Annotated).
Regarding claim 4, Busby teaches that the front subframe includes a seat tube (18) extending upward from a bottom bracket shell (24), and wherein the fixed beam extends from the front beam end at the seat tube above the bottom bracket shell to the rear beam end at the swingarm below the front beam end (Fig 3 Annotated).
PNG
media_image1.png
383
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Girard (US 6,450,520 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Girard teaches a single-track vehicle frame (12), comprising:
a front subframe (14) to support a seat (@ 26);
a rear subframe (16) having a swingarm (16); and
a resilient hinge (48) interconnecting the front subframe and the rear subframe (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 2, Girard (Fig 1) teaches that the resilient hinge includes a fixed beam having a front beam end coupled to the front subframe (@ 50) and a rear beam end coupled to the rear subframe (@ 52).
Regarding claim 3, Girard teaches that the fixed beam is between the front subframe and the rear subframe (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, Girard teaches that the fixed beam has a neutral axis (Ne), wherein the swingarm defines a horizontal plane (Ho), and wherein an angle (A) between the neutral axis and the horizontal plane is oblique (Fig 1 Annotated).
Regarding claim 7, Girard teaches that the fixed beam includes a plate having a rectangular cross-sectional area, and wherein the rectangular cross-sectional area has an aspect ratio (T:L) less than 0.5 (Fig 1 Annotated).
Regarding claim 10, Girard teaches that the single-track vehicle frame of claim 1 further comprising a support linkage interconnecting the front subframe and the rear subframe, wherein the support linkage includes a front link (60) coupled to the front subframe, a rear link (62) coupled to the rear subframe, and an intermediate joint (54) interconnecting the front link and the rear link (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, Girard teaches a bicycle frame (12), comprising:
a front subframe (14) having a seat tube (24+26);
a rear subframe (16) having a pair of chainstays (38); and
a resilient hinge (48) interconnecting the front subframe and the rear subframe (Fig 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Girard (Fig 1) teaches that the resilient hinge includes a fixed beam having a front beam end coupled to the front subframe (@ 50) and a rear beam end coupled to the rear subframe (@ 52).
Regarding claim 14, Girard teaches that the fixed beam has a neutral axis (Ne), wherein the swingarm defines a horizontal plane (Ho), and wherein an angle (A) between the neutral axis and the horizontal plane is oblique (Fig 1 Annotated).
Regarding claim 15, Girard teaches that the single-track vehicle frame of claim 11 further comprising a support linkage interconnecting the front subframe and the rear subframe, wherein the support linkage includes a front link (60) coupled to the front subframe, a rear link (62) coupled to the rear subframe, and an intermediate joint (54) interconnecting the front link and the rear link (Fig 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
558
818
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Skulason (US 2014/0225347 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 16, Skulason teaches a bicycle (110) having a frame (109), comprising:
a fork (103) coupled to a front wheel (113);
a front subframe having a seat tube (106, 906) to support a seat (not shown) and a head tube (Fig 1), wherein the fork is mounted on the head tube (Fig 1);
a rear subframe (112) having a swing arm/pair of chainstays (910, 920) coupled to a rear wheel (912); and
a resilient hinge (921, 922) interconnecting the front subframe and the rear subframe (Fig 9).
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 17, Skulason teaches that the resilient hinge includes a fixed beam having a front beam end (907) coupled to the front subframe and a rear beam end (rear end of 921, 922) coupled to the rear subframe (Fig 9).
Regarding claim 3, Skulason teaches that the fixed beam is between the front subframe and the rear subframe (Fig 9).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 18, Skulason teaches that the seat tube extends upward from a bottom bracket shell (BB), and wherein the fixed beam extends from the front beam end at the seat tube above the bottom bracket shell to the rear beam end at the swingarm/pair of chainstays below the front beam end (Annotated Fig 9).
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 19, Skulason teaches that the fixed beam has a neutral axis (Ne), wherein the pair of chainstays define a horizontal plane (Ho), and wherein an angle (A) between the neutral axis and the horizontal plane is oblique (Annotated Fig 9).
Regarding claims 10, 15 and 20, Skulason teaches a support linkage interconnecting the front subframe and the rear subframe, wherein the support linkage includes a front link (908) coupled to the front subframe, a rear link (905) coupled to the rear subframe, and an intermediate joint (923) interconnecting the front link and the rear link (Fig 9).
PNG
media_image3.png
740
531
media_image3.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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skulason (US 2014/0225347 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Skulason teaches an angle (A) between the neutral axis and the horizontal plane is oblique (Annotated Fig 9).
However, Skulason does not expressly teach that the angle is in a range of 25 to 65 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Skulatson to have an angle of between 25 and 65 degrees thus ensure that the stresses in the flexible members are distributed optimally (Para [0033]) and since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Skulason would not operate differently with the claimed angle and since the hinge is intended to reside within the distal end of a swingarm an approximate largest angle of 65 degrees the device would function appropriately having the claimed angle. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may” be in a range of 25 to 65 degrees (specification pp. [0039]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skulason (US 2014/0225347 A1) in view of Voss (US 2022/0177071 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Skulason teaches the frame of claim 2. However, Skulason does not expressly teach that a length of the fixed beam between the front beam end and the rear beam end is in a range of 3 to 7 inches.
Voss teaches that length of the fixed beam between the front beam end and the rear beam end is in a range of 10 to 20 cm or 3.9 to 7.8 inches (Para [0131] and [0249]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of Skulason from between 3.9 and 7.8 inches to between 3 and 7 inches to optimize the energy management system (Voss Para [0251]) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girard (US 6,450,520 B1) in view of Schober (US 6,783,142 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Girard teaches the resilient hinge includes a plate (Fig 1). However, Busby does not teach that the plate formed from spring steel.
Schober teaches that the plate formed from spring steel (Col. 5, Lines 5-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Busby’s frame, in view of Schober, with a plate formed from spring steel, thus providing materials that are lightweight and have an excellent shape retention memory (Col. 5, Lines 5-12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO-892 form teach single track vehicle frames having resilient hinge of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAM SHABARA whose telephone number is (571)272-5495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, MINNAH SEOH can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/HOSAM SHABARA/Examiner, Art Unit 3611