DETAILED ACTION
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 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, and 16 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 2 recites the limitation "the high rear suspension axis" in lines 1 – 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4, lines 2 and 3 recites the limitation “the pulley”, however, it is unclear whether the “pulley” refers to the previously recited “an idler pulley” in claim 1, lines 5 – 6 or the “pulley” in claim 3, lines 1 – 2.
Claim 5, line 2 recites the limitation “the pulley”, however, it is unclear whether the “pulley” refers to the previously recited “an idler pulley” in claim 1, lines 5 – 6 or the “pulley” in claim 3, lines 1 – 2.
Claim 7, line 2 recites the limitation “the pulley”, however, it is unclear whether the “pulley” refers to the previously recited “an idler pulley” in claim 1, lines 5 – 6 or the “pulley” in claim 6, line 4.
Claim 8, line 2 recites the limitation “its’, however, such limitation is unclear and indefinite as to what “its” refers to.
Claim 8, line 6 recites the limitation “the pulley”, however, it is unclear whether the “pulley” refers to the previously recited “an idler pulley” in claim 1, lines 5 – 6 or the “pulley” in claim 6, line 4.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the rear axle axis" in lines 1 – 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the vertical rear wheel travel" in lines 3 – 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15, line 8 recites the limitation “its’, however, such limitation is unclear and indefinite as to what “its” refers to.
Claim 16, line 2 recites the limitation “its’, however, such limitation is unclear and indefinite as to what “its” refers to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1 – 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eveleigh (CA 3080960 A1) in view of Mueller et al. (WO 2023/031291 A2).
For claim 1, Eveleigh discloses a high pivot point rear suspension bicycle comprising
a frame 22 including a front triangle 23 and a swingarm 24;
a rear suspension pivot point 30 [between the front triangle and the swingarm] (fig.1 , page 9, paragraph [036]), [wherein location of the rear suspension pivot point provides a predominantly rearward axle path] (fig. 1); and
a drive train including a drive chain 35, a rear sprocket 36 located at a rear wheel axis 37, an idler pulley 119 [located in close proximity to the rear suspension pivot point] (fig. 1), a front sprocket 34 located at a crank axis 32, and a tensioner 41 [located between the idler pulley and the front sprocket] (fig. 3), [wherein the drive chain traverses from the rear sprocket to the idler pulley, from the idler pulley to the front sprocket, from the front sprocket to the tensioner and from the tensioner back to the rear sprocket] (fig. 3), [wherein the tensioner is to pivot away from the rear suspension pivot point when vertical rear wheel travel of the bicycle increases to allow for chain growth in the drive belt] (page 16, paragraph [061], fig. 6, in the chain slackening direction 90 when the bicycle is ridden over uneven terrain); but does not explicitly state the drive chain is a belt.
Mueller et al. discloses [in the present embodiment, the flexible drive member is a chain 120 and the drive and driven sprockets are chain sprockets; it is contemplated that in other embodiments; the flexible drive member 120 could be a toothed drive belt and sprockets 116, 118 could be belt sprockets] (page 18, paragraph [00121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the belt and belt sprockets of Mueller et al. with the drive train of Eveleigh with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved durability and reduced noise reduction, thus improving the overall lifespan of the components and reducing overall maintenance and replacement costs.
For claim 2, Eveleigh modified as above discloses the [wherein the tensioner is to pivot back towards the high rear suspension axis when the vertical rear wheel travel of the bicycle decreases in order to keep the drive belt appropriately tensioned] (page 16, paragraph [061], fig. 6, in the chain tensioning direction 81).
For claim 3, Eveleigh modified as above discloses the bicycle wherein the tensioner includes a pivoting member 74 and a pulley 75 [mounted to a far end of the pivoting member] (fig. 13).
For claim 4, Eveleigh modified as above discloses the bicycle [wherein the drive belt traverses the pulley] (fig. 3); and [the far end of pivoting member and the pulley pivot away from the rear suspension pivot point to adjust a path of the drive belt when the vertical rear wheel travel of the bicycle increases] (page 16, paragraph [061], fig. 6, in the chain slackening direction 90 when the bicycle is ridden over uneven terrain).
For claim 5, Eveleigh modified as above discloses the bicycle wherein the tensioner further includes a spring 80 [to cause the far end of the pivoting member and the pulley to pivot back towards the high rear suspension axis when the vertical rear wheel travel of the bicycle decreases in order to keep the drive belt appropriately tensioned] (page 18, paragraph [067], fig. 8).
For claim 13, Eveleigh modified as above discloses the bicycle further comprising an electric motor] (page 8, paragraph [032]).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eveleigh (CA 3080960 A1) in view of Mueller et al. (WO 2023/031291 A2), and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA)
For claim 11, Eveleigh modified as above does not explicitly disclose the bicycle further comprising a gear box located at the crank axis or a geared hub located at the rear axle axis to provide internal gearing for the bicycle.
AAPA disclose a bicycle 400 may include a gear box located at an intersection between seat tube 112 and down tube 116 or a geared hub located at a rear wheel axle 136 to provide internal gear ratios] (fig. 4, page 4, paragraph [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the gear box of AAPA with the bicycle of Eveleigh modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for smoother shifting and improved durability, thus reducing overall maintenance costs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 17 – 20 are allowed.
Claims 6, 9, and 10 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.
Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose:
For claims 6 and 14: a spring arm having a first end pivotally secured to the first location of the front triangle and connected to the first end of the pivoting member; and a spring having a first end secured to a second location of the front triangle and a second end secured to a second end of the spring arm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20210276659 – comprising a bicycle comprising a drivetrain including a crankset; a chain; a sprocket; and a chain tensioner;
US-20180001961 – comprising a bicycle comprising a rear sprocket; a driving-force transmitting member; a tensioner; and transmission apparatus;
FR-2945785 – comprising a bicycle comprising a guiding and tensioning system; a rear derailleur; a chain; and a front derailleur;
US-20060030440 – comprising a bicycle comprising a shifting idler pulley; a chain; a lower guide pulley; a chainring; and a rear derailleur;
NL-1019063 – comprising a bicycle comprising a front sprocket; a chain tensioner; a sprocket; and a chain;
DE-19726067 – comprising a bicycle comprising a chain drive and linkage connection; and
AT-350398 – comprising a bicycle comprising a sprocket; a chain wheel; a chain; a straight lever; and rollers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacob D. Knutson whose telephone number is (571)270-5576. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)-272-6265. 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.
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611