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 § 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) 1-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richey et al. (US Patent Pub 2025/0163988 in view of Wikenson (US Patent 5,628,713).
Richey et al. discloses a front fork for a bicycle (See Figure 2), the front fork comprising: a crown (210) having a top side and bottom side opposite the top side (See Figure 2); at least one first leg (202) coupled to and extending downward from the bottom side of the crown; and a steerer tube (212) coupled to and extending upward from the top side of the crown. Richey et al. discloses first and second markings (310 and 320) extending in a circumferential direction, but does not disclose those markings located on the steerer tube and does not disclose the second markings extending in an axial direction and intersecting the first markings. Wilkinson discloses first markings (306) and second markings (308) (See Figure 32) that allow for the adjustment of a telescoping pole. These markings in Wilkinson allow for the precise adjustment in both the longitudinal and axial direction of the pole segments. Additionally, Richey et al. uses the first
and second markings to allow for the adjustment of the suspension components. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in this art to modify the placement of the first and second markings disclosed in Richey et al. to be placed on the steerer tube to allow a user to precisely adjust the length of the steerer tube to a desired length and also align the steerer tube to the handlebars of the bicycle as taught by Wilkinson in aligning two pole segments together using first and second markings.
Regarding claims 2-3, the combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson discloses wherein the first and second markings are formed by removing material from the outer surface of the steerer tube (See Wilkinson, column 9, line 55+).
Regarding claims 4-5, the combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson discloses wherein the first and second markings are formed by applying material (paint) to the outer surface of the steerer tube (See Wilkinson, column 9, line 50+).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson discloses wherein the first marking perpendicularly intersects the second markings (See Wilkinson Figure 32).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson discloses wherein the first marking includes a numerical value adjacent a first line (See Wilkinson Figure 32).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson discloses wherein the first marking comprises a plurality of the first lines on the outer surface of the steerer tube, the plurality of first lines spaced from each other in an axial direction along the outer surface of the steerer tube, each of the plurality of first lines indicating a distance between the respective line and the top side of the crown, the second marking comprising a second line intersecting the plurality of the first lines, the second line perpendicularly intersects the plurality of the first lines (See Wilkinson Figure 32).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson discloses wherein the steerer tube has a first portion that is straight and second portion that is tapered, the first portion extending between the second portion and top end of the steerer tube (See Richey et al. Figure 3), and wherein the first and second markings are on the first portion of the steerer tube (It would have been obvious to place the first and second markings on the first portion of the steerer tube since that is the portion that receives the handlebars of the bicycle.)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson discloses wherein the front fork is a suspension fork (See Richey et al. Figure 1).
Claim(s) 13-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richey et al. (US Patent Pub 2025/0163988) in view Wilkinson (US Patent 5,628,713) above, and further in view of Klepper (DE 2021 005 482). The combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson set forth above in regards to claim 1, discloses a front fork for a bicycle, the front fork comprising: a crown having a top side; at least one first leg coupled to and extending downward from the bottom side of the crown; and a steerer tub coupled to and extending upward from the top side of the crown. Additionally, as explained above, it would have been obvious to move the first and second markings in Richey et al. from the suspension components to the steerer tube in the same configuration as taught by Wilkinson. However, the combination does not show a stem (inherent to attach the handlebars) on the steerer tube with a gap between the ends of the stem in order to align the marking in the gap. Klepper discloses a stem (1) that has a gap (See Figures la and 1b) so that the line of the axial marking is visible between the ends of the stem when the stem is installed on the steerer tube. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in this art to provide a stem with a gap as taught by Klepper on the combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson in order for the axial marking line to be visible in order to align the stem on the steerer tube.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson discloses a second leg (220), the steerer tube having a first central axis, the first central axis extending along a first vertical plane, the first leg and the second leg having central axes, the central axes of the first and second legs forming a second vertical plane, the second vertical plan being perpendicular to the first vertical plane, and wherein the line is aligned with the first vertical plane on the outer surface of the steerer tube.
Regarding claims 15-16, the combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson discloses wherein the first and second markings are formed by removing material from the outer surface of the steerer tube (See Wilkinson, column 9, line 55+).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson discloses wherein the first and second markings are formed by applying material (paint) to the outer surface of the steerer tube (See Wilkinson, column 9, line 50+).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson discloses wherein the steerer tube has a first portion that is straight and second portion that is tapered, the first portion extending between the second portion and top end of the steerer tube (See Richey et al. Figure 3), and wherein the first and second markings are on the first portion of the steerer tube (It would have been obvious to place the first and second markings on the first portion of the steerer tube since that is the portion that receives the handlebars of the bicycle.)
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Richey et al. and Wilkinson discloses wherein the front fork is a suspension fork (See Richey et al. Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that the effective filing date of US 2025/0163988 is the non-provisional filing date of August 23, 2024, instead of the provisional filing date of Provisional Application No. 63/534,506 that was filed on August 24, 2023. Applicant argues that the subject matter disclosed in Provisional application No. 63/534,506 does not provide adequate written description support to provide an effective filing date for US 2025/0163988 back to August 24, 2023, thus disqualifying it as prior art under 35. U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion, upon review of Provisional Application No. 63/534,506, the drawings provided in the Provisional Application provides adequate written description support to qualify the effective filing date of US 2025/0163988 as August 24, 2023, thus qualifying as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that Richey et al. does not disclose markings on the steerer tub and then argues that Wilkinson does not a bicycle front fork. Applicant is arguing against the references individually and not the combination of references. These arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, Examiner argues that Examiner has taken Official Notice to teach substituting the markings taught on the suspension tubes for the steerer tube. This assertion is not correct; Examiner has not taken Official Notice. Examiner is merely substituting the placement of the markings from one component in Richey et al. to another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 19 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 James A Shriver II whose telephone number is (303)297-4337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 4:00 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, J. Allen Shriver II can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
J. ALLEN SHRIVER II
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights