DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
“decorative plate” of claims 7 and 14
“brake mount” of claim 7
“slotted structure” of claim 13
“engine connecting tube” of claim 12
“footrest connecting tube” of claim 12
“first cushion fixing bar” and “second cushion fixing bar” of claim 18
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout the specification, all figures are described as “block diagrams”; however, the drawings do not illustrate any block diagrams.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Throughout the claims, when claim features are introduced, an article such as “a” or “an” should precede the introduced feature. For example, in claim 1, “comprises frame head tube” should read, “comprises a head tube”.
Each claim should be presented in a single sentence, and accordingly should only have the first letter capitalized and have one period.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 10 each claim, “hollow metal tubing, which is low cost and easy to process”. It is unclear if “low cost and easy to process” is a claim limitation that limits the scope of the claim or merely an advantageous effect of the invention. Accordingly, it would be unclear if a motorbike frame of identical structure but made from a relatively expensive metal tubing falls within the scope of the claims.
Claim 2 claims, “with frame head tube1 mounted at the bottom…”. It is unclear which feature the head tube is mounted at the bottom of.
Claim 3 claims, “said first main frame and said second main frame are…a generally trapezoidal shape”. Claim 4, which depends from claim 3, claims, “said first main frame and said second main frame may also be rectangular, or triangular, or circular, or sector, or irregular polygon”. It is unclear how the first and second main frame could be both “generally trapezoidal” as provided by claim 3 and the other shapes as provided by claim 4. Further, the use of the word, “may” makes it unclear whether or not the following limitations are claim features or exemplary embodiments of the invention.
Claim 3 claims, “a smooth and beautiful profile”. The phrase, “smooth and beautiful” is subjective, and accordingly renders the claim indefinite.
Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claim phrase "unobtrusive manner" indefinite because the specification did not "provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language without an objective boundary") (MPEP 2173.05(b) IV.).
Claim 4 claims, “said second main frame may also be…”. The use of the word, “may” makes it unclear whether or not the following limitations are claim features or exemplary embodiments of the invention.
Claim 5, claims, “said first sub-frame and said second sub-frame both have…a U-shape”. Claim 6, which depends from claim 5 then claims, “said first sub-frame and said second sub-frame may also be semi-circular”. It is unclear if the applicant intends for “U-shape” and “semi-circular” to refer to the same shape. In the event that the terms refer two unique shapes, it would be unclear how the sub-frames could be both shapes. If the terms refer to the same shape, claim 6 would not be considered to further limit claim 5 (see MPEP 608.01(i)).
In claim 7, the term, “said brake mount” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 12, it is unclear what the applicant means by, “the late is used to mount the plate”.
In claim 12, the term, “the late” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 15 and 17 recite, “hollow metal tubing in the form of a curved or diagonal shape”. It is unclear what the applicant means by “diagonal shape” since “diagonal” describes orientation and not shape.
Claim 16 recites, “an second support bar”. It is unclear if the applicant also intended to first claim, “a first support bar”.
Claim 16 recites, “and one end of each of said support frame being connected to said support frame”. It is unclear how an end of a feature could be connected to itself as claimed.
In claims 8, 9, and 18, the term, “the cushion” lacks proper antecedent basis. Note, claim 1 does not provide proper antecedent basis for “the cushion” because claim 1 does not positively recite, “a cushion”.
In claim 19, the term, “the mounted cushion” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19 recites, “…ergonomically designed”. The term, “ergonomically designed” is indefinite because it is subjective (see MPEP 2173.05(b) IV.).
Claim 20 recites, “…simple structure, high strength and low vibration, reducing the cost of motorbike and low cost”. The recitation renders the claim indefinite because the specification provides no standards for defining, “simple structure”, “high strength”, “low vibration”, or “low cost”.
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, 7, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Mega Moto Mini Bike Frame; hereinafter, Mega Moto.
With respect to claim 1, Mega Moto discloses: a kind of motorbike frame characterized in that it comprises frame head tube, main frame assembly, sub-frame components, and support assembly; Said main frame assembly comprises first main frame and second main frame disposed diagonally opposite each other, said first main frame and said second main frame both being of a bent structure and having their ends attached to the same side of said frame head tube and forming a closed loop with said frame head tube. The distance between the rear ends of said first main frame and said second main frame is greater than the distance between the front ends so as to form a space for the installation of the engine between first main frame and second main frame; Said sub-frame components comprises oppositely disposed first sub-frame and second sub-frame, said first sub-frame and second sub-frame both being of a bent structure, and said first sub-frame being connected diagonally to a lower portion of the rear side of said first main frame at each end, and said second sub-frame being connected diagonally to a lower portion of the rear side of said second main frame at each front and rear end, so as to form a space for mounting the brake between first sub-frame and second sub-frame; Said support assembly comprises support frame, said support frame being of a bent structure, said ends of said support frame being attached diagonally from below to an upper portion of the rear side of said first main frame and said second main frame, respectively, so as to form a recessed area for mounting a cushion between the upper ends of first main frame and second main frame and the upper end of support frame (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, and as discussed above, the “brake mount” and “decorative plate” are not illustrated in the drawings filed 08/28/2023. However; given the structural similarities between the claimed invention and the frame disclosed by Mega Moto, the office holds the position that the Mega Moto frame anticipates each and every limitation of claim 7 as they were intended to be presented.
With respect to claim 16, Mega Moto discloses: A kind of motorbike frame according to claim 1, characterized in that said support assembly further comprises two support frame (see annotated figure below) and an second support bar (see annotated figure below) mounted on said support frame, the two support frame being set opposite to each other, and one end of each of said support frame being connected to said support frame, and the other end being connected to said first sub-frame and said second sub-frame, respectively, in order to support the load-bearing of the cushion area and to achieve the effect of reducing vibration, and at the same time to facilitate the installation of a mudguard by means of the second support bar.
PNG
media_image2.png
424
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20, Mega Moto discloses: a motorbike comprising frame, said frame comprising frame head tube, main frame assembly, sub-frame components, and support assembly; Said main frame assembly comprises first main frame and second main frame disposed diagonally opposite each other, said first main frame and said second main frame both being of a bent structure and having their ends attached to the same side of said frame head tube and forming a closed loop with said frame head tube. The distance between the rear ends of said first main frame and said second main frame is greater than the distance between the front ends so as to form a space for the installation of the engine between first main frame and second main frame; Said sub-frame components comprises oppositely disposed first sub-frame and second sub-frame, said first sub-frame and second sub-frame both being of a bent structure, and said first sub-frame being connected diagonally to a lower portion of the rear side of said first main frame at each end, and said second sub-frame being connected diagonally to a lower portion of the rear side of said second main frame at each front and rear end, so as to form a space for mounting the brake between first sub-frame and second sub-frame; Said support assembly comprises support frame, said support frame being of a bent structure, said ends of said support frame being attached diagonally from below to an upper portion of the rear side of said first main frame and said second main frame, respectively, so as to form a recessed area for mounting a cushion between the upper ends of first main frame and second main frame and the upper end of support frame; The frame adopts the structure of tube and plate combination, which has the characteristics of simple structure, high strength and low vibration, reducing the cost of motorbike and low cost (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
382
665
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 2-7, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mega Moto in view of Hu (US 20080100029 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Mega Moto discloses the motorbike frame according to claim 1. As discussed above, it is unclear what the applicant means by, “the frame head tube1 mounted at the bottom to limit the steering angle of frame head tube”; however, given the structural similarities between the claimed invention and the frame disclosed by Mega Moto, the office holds the position that the Mega Moto frame anticipates the “mounted at the bottom” limitation.
It is not readily evident from photographs of the Mega Moto frame is made of hollow metal tubular members.
Hu discloses a bicycle frame (10, Fig. 1) made of hollow metal tubular members (“hollow metal tubes”, abstract).
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 the Mega Moto frame in view of Hu to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide a lightweight frame.
With respect to claim 3, Mega Moto in view of Hu as modified above discloses: A kind of motorbike frame according to claim 1 characterized in that said first main frame and said second main frame are made of hollow metal tubing, which is low cost and easy to process, and both have the same shape and dimensions in a generally trapezoidal shape, with an arc at the upper end, which allows for the formation of a larger space for mounting the engine under a limited perimeter between said first main frame and said second main frame, and has a smooth and beautiful profile.
With respect to claim 4, Mega Moto in view of Hu as modified above discloses: A kind of motorbike frame according to claim 3 to characterized in that said first main frame and said second main frame may also be rectangular, or triangular, or circular, or sector, or irregular polygonal.
With respect to claim 5, Mega Moto in view of Hu as modified above discloses: A kind of motorbike frame according to claim 1, characterized in that said first sub-frame and said second sub-frame are made of hollow metal tubing, which is low cost and easy to process, and both have the same shape and dimensions in a U-shape.
With respect to claim 6, Mega Moto in view of Hu as modified above discloses: A kind of motorbike frame according to claim 5, characterized in that said first sub-frame and said second sub-frame may also be semi-circular.
With respect to claim 7, Mega Moto in view of Hu as modified above discloses: A kind of motorbike frame according to claim 6 characterized in that said first sub-frame and said second sub-frame are further mounted on the inside of said brake mount and brake mount, by means of which the brake is mounted and positioned, and by means of which brake mount facilitates the fixed mounting of a decorative plate.
As noted above, it is unclear what the applicant means by, “by means of which brake mount facilitates the fixed mounting of a decorative plate”; however, given the structural similarities between the claimed invention and the prior art device, the office holds the position that the Mega Moto frame meets this limitation.
With respect to claim 12, Mega Moto in view of Hu discloses: A kind of motorbike frame according to claim 1, characterized in that said main frame assembly further comprises engine connecting tube, engine mounting plate (see annotated figure below) and footrest connecting tube, said engine connecting tube being connected between the rear end of said first main frame and said lower part of said second main frame, said footrest connecting tube being connected at the front end of said first main frame and said lower part of said second main frame and extending at both ends to the outside of said first main frame and said second main frame, respectively, and said engine mounting plate being connected between said engine connecting tube and said footrest connecting tube, with a welded fixing connection for a firm connection, by means of which the engine is mounted and positioned, and by means of which the late is used to mount the plate.
PNG
media_image4.png
444
614
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Note, as discussed above, the “engine connecting tube”, and “footrest connecting tube” are not illustrated in the drawings. Accordingly, it is unclear which features these are in the drawing. Furthermore, and as discussed above, it is unclear what the applicant means by, “the late is used to mount the plate”. Due to the structural similarities between the claimed device, and the prior art device, the office holds the position that the Mega Moto frame meets these limitations.
Regarding the “welded limitation”, Hu further discloses welding as means for connecting hollow metal tubing (Hu; see “welding”, abstract).
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 Mega Moto in view of Hu to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide means for assembling the complete frame.
With respect to claim 13, Mega Moto in view of Hu as modified above discloses: a kind of motorbike frame according to claim 12, characterized in that said footrest connecting tube is made of hollow metal tubing, but it is not readily evident from photographs of the frame that each end of the footrest connecting tube is connected to the footrest mount in a slotted structure.
As discussed above, since the “slotted structure” is not illustrated, it is unclear which feature, “slotted structure” refers to. However; due to the structural similarities between the claimed device, and the prior art device, the office holds the position that the Mega Moto frame meets the “engine connecting tube” and “footrest connecting tube” limitations.
With respect to claim 14, Mega Moto in view of Hu discloses: a kind of motorbike frame according to claim 12, characterized in that said main frame assembly further comprises two first support strips (see annotated figure below) and a second trim plate mount (see annotated figure below) mounted on said first support strips, the two first support strips being provided opposite to each other, and one end of said first support strips being connected to the inner top of said first main frame or said second main frame respectively, and the other end being connected to the inner side portion of said first main frame or said second main frame respectively, in order to increase the structural strength of the first main frame and second main frame and to achieve a reduction of vibration, and at the same time to facilitate the fixing and mounting of a decorative plate by means of the second trim plate mount.
PNG
media_image5.png
423
540
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 15, Mega Moto in view of Hu as modified above discloses: A kind of motorbike frame according to claim 14, characterized in that said first support strips is made of hollow metal tubing in the form of a curved or diagonal shape.
With respect to claim 17, Mega Moto discloses: a kind of motorbike frame according to claim 16, further comprising tubing in a curved shape, but it is not readily evident from photographs of the frame that it is made from hollow metal tubing.
Hu discloses a bicycle frame (10, Fig. 1) made of hollow metal tubular members (“hollow metal tubes”, abstract).
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 the Mega Moto frame in view of Hu to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide a lightweight frame.
With respect to claim 18, Mega Moto in view of Hu discloses: a kind of motorbike frame according to claim 1, characterized in that said support assembly further comprises two support frame and an second support bar mounted on said support frame, the two support frame being set opposite to each other, and one end of each of said support frame being connected to said support frame, and the other end being connected to said first sub-frame and said second sub-frame, respectively, in order to support the load-bearing of the cushion area and to achieve the effect of reducing vibration, and at the same time to facilitate the installation of a mudguard by means of the second support bar (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
424
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 19, Mega Moto in view of Hu appears to disclose: a kind of motorbike frame according to claim 18, characterized in that the length of said second cushion fixing bar is greater than the length of first cushion fixing bar in order to make the mounted cushion, the dimensions of the rear end of which are greater than the dimensions of the front end, ergonomically designed.
The exact lengths of the cushion fixing bars is not readily evident from photographs of the Mega Moto frame; however, if necessary, modification to the Mega Moto frame to arrive at the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Such a person may have been motivated to adjust the lengths of the cushion fixing bars to adjust the width of the vehicle’s saddle. Such a modification would be considered obvious because it is a mere change in size/proportion of an existing feature (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.).
Claims 8 and 9rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mega Moto.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Mega Moto discloses: A kind of motorbike frame according to claim 1, characterized in that said support frame forms an angular connection between said first main frame and said second main frame
The exact angle or angle range between the first and second main frames of the Mega Moto frame is not readily evident from photographs of the frame. However; before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose an angle that falls between the claimed range. Such a person would be motivated to adjust the angle between the main frames to adjust the available space for engine mounting and to adjust the overall width of the vehicle.
Furthermore, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims [is] 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 [is] not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mega Moto as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hu (US 20080100029 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Mega Moto, as modified above, discloses: a kind of motorbike frame according to claim 8; however, it is not readily evident from photographs of the frame that it is made of hollow metal tubing.
Hu discloses a bicycle frame (10, Fig. 1) made of hollow metal tubular members (“hollow metal tubes”, abstract).
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 the Mega Moto frame in view of Hu to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide a lightweight frame.
With respect to claim 11, Mega Moto in view of Hu as modified above discloses: a kind of motorbike frame according to claim 10, characterized in that said support frame may also be semi-circular.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-patent document V (see List of references cited by examiner) shows the Mega Moto (formerly known as Monster Moto) MMB-80 frame.
Non-patent document W is a video showing operation of a complete motorbike using a Mega Moto frame.
The cited patent documents disclose bicycle and motorbike frames 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, 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.
/MATTHEW D LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/PAUL N DICKSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614