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 .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 5/20/2026 (hereinafter Response) has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 7, and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Based on the claim amendments, the claim objections raised in the non-final office action mailed 3/3/2026 (hereinafter Office Action) are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pürner (DE 102022104404 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pürner discloses [a bicycle handlebar system with a cable routing pathway] (Fig. 1, paragraphs 0009 – 0012), comprising
a stem 1 and [a handlebar 5 engaged with the stem] (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0060 – 0063);
[the stem extends along a first axial direction] (FA, Annotated Fig. 3a, below);
two opposite ends of the first axial direction are respectively defined as [a distal end D and a proximal end P] (Fig. 3a); wherein
the stem comprises [a stem body 100] (Fig. 1, paragraph 0060) and [a clamping member 20] (Fig. 1, paragraph 0062);
[a proximal end of the stem body has a fork connecting portion 3] (Fig. 1, paragraph 0061);
[a distal end of the stem body has a handlebar connecting portion 2] (Fig. 1);
the stem body has [a cable routing space therein] (Fig. 3, paragraphs 0045 and 0065 disclose a cable routing space as a cavity within the stem body 100 wherein numbered element 7 is generally disposed), wherein
[a position of the cable routing space facing the handlebar connecting portion has an entrance] (ENT, Fig. 3a) and [a position of the cable routing space adjacent to the fork connecting portion has an exit] (EXT, Fig. 3a);
two opposite sides of the handlebar connecting portion in a direction perpendicular to the first axial direction respectively have [a first clamping portion 102] (Fig. 3a, and Annotated Fig. 7a, below);
[the entrance is formed between the two first clamping portions] (Fig. 3a);
[the clamping member is detachably engaged with the handlebar connecting portion] (Figs. 2, 5 and paragraph 0069 disclose that the clamping member is detachably engaged with the handlebar connecting portion);
two opposite sides of the clamping member in the direction perpendicular to the first axial direction respectively have [a second clamping portion] (SCP, Fig. 7a);
[the two second clamping portions are opposite to the two first clamping portions in the first axial direction] (Fig. 7a);
[a part of the clamping member located between the two second clamping portions has an opening] (OP, Fig. 3a);
[the handlebar 5 is clamped between the handlebar connecting portion 2 and the clamping member 20] (Fig. 1, paragraphs 0062 – 0063);
[two parts of an outer surface of the handlebar, which are clamped between the two first clamping portions and the two second clamping portions, are defined as two clamped surfaces] (2XCS, Annotated Fig. 1a, below);
[a part of the handlebar located between the two clamped surfaces has at least one cable routing pathway] (Figs. 1a and 3a illustrate that a part of the handlebar located between the two clamped surfaces has at least one cable routing pathway, e.g., adjacent to where numbered element 7 passes through numbered element 103 in Fig. 3a), wherein [the at least one cable routing pathway communicates between the opening and the entrance] (Fig. 3a).
PNG
image1.png
100
100
image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
image3.png
100
100
image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
image5.png
100
100
image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Pürner discloses the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway as claimed in claim 1, wherein
[the fork connecting portion has a fork connecting hole] (Fig. 1a illustrates that numbered element 4 is disposed in the fork connecting hole of the fork connecting portion 3);
[the fork connecting hole extends along a second axial direction] (SA, Figs. 1a, 3a);
[two opposite sides of the second axial direction are respectively defined as a first side F and a second side S] (Figs. 1a, 3a);
[an edge of a second side of the entrance ESE is connected to the outer surface of the handlebar located between the two clamped surfaces] (Fig. 3a; ESE is connected to the outer surface of the handlebar located between the two clamped surfaces when the handlebar 5 is clamped as shown in Fig. 1a);
[an edge of a first side of the entrance EFE and the outer surface of the handlebar located between the two clamped surfaces are spaced] (Fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 3, Pürner discloses the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway as claimed in claim 2, wherein
[a connecting portion CP is connected between two first sides of the two second clamping portions] (Fig. 3a);
[an inside of the connecting portion has a groove portion] (GR, Fig. 3a), wherein
[a distal end of the groove portion communicates with the opening, and a proximal end of the groove portion communicates with the first side of the entrance of the cable routing space] (Fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 15, Pürner discloses the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway as claimed in claim 1, wherein
[the at least one cable routing pathway comprises at least two cable routing pathways] (at least two cable routing pathways are disclosed in Fig. 3a, e.g., the at least two cable routing pathways comprising a cable routing pathway adjacent to where numbered element 7 passes through numbered element 103 in Fig. 3a on a second side of the stem body and another cable routing pathway adjacent to and through numbered element 103 on a first side of the stem body).
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 4 – 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pürner (DE 102022104404 A1) in view of Pacenti (US 9,764,792 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Pürner discloses the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway as claimed in claim 1, wherein
[the fork connecting portion has a fork connecting hole] (Fig. 1a illustrates that numbered element 4 is disposed in the fork connecting hole of the fork connecting portion 3);
[the fork connecting hole extends along a second axial direction] (SA, Figs. 1a, 3a);
[two opposite sides of the second axial direction are respectively defined as a first side F and a second side S] (Figs. 1a, 3a);
[the at least one cable routing pathway comprises a cable routing pathway] (Examiner notes that the at least one cable routing pathway fundamentally comprises the cable routing pathway; see Fig. 3a); however, Pürner does not explicitly disclose that the cable routing pathway forms a second recess on a second side of the handlebar located between the two clamped surfaces, wherein the second recess communicates between the opening and a second side of the entrance.
Pacenti discloses [a handlebar 102] (Fig. 4 and col 4, lines 4 – 5) comprising [a second recess] (col. 4, lines 32 – 33; described as “a non-continuous depression fifty-nine degrees from horizontal below {a} centerline 114”; Examiner interprets the orientation of the handlebar 102 in Fig. 4 of Pacenti to have the same orientation as the handlebar 5 in Fig. 1a of Pürner such that half of the handlebar 102 in Fig. 4 of Pacenti below the centerline 114 is the second side and half of the handlebar 102 above the centerline 114 is the first side) on [a second side of the handlebar] (col. 4, line 33; “below {a} centerline 114”) [located between the two clamped surfaces] (Fig. 10 illustrates the handlebar 102 clamped in a stem 104 wherein the second recess is between two clamped surfaces, i.e., two outer surfaces of the handlebar 102 in contact with the stem 104 and generally defined by numbered element 118H), wherein [the second recess communicates between the opening and a second side of the entrance] (col. 4, lines 36 – 40 disclose that the second recess can be at any practical alternative angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second recess of Pacenti with the handlebar 5 of Pürner, positioned at a practical alternative angle, such that the cable routing pathway forms a second recess on the second side of the handlebar 5 located between the two clamped surfaces, wherein the second recess communicates between the opening and the second side of the entrance with a reasonable expectation of success.
One skilled in the art would have been motivated to do so because at least one of the following:
allows for more space to route additional cables which may not fit through numbered element 103 in Fig. 3a of Pürner;
provides a more aesthetically pleasing appearance by routing cables internally;
routing cables internally rather than externally protects cables from damage upon collision with other objects; and
organizes cables, which can help manage interference of cables with other components.
Regarding claim 5, Pürner as modified above discloses the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway as claimed in claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose that the handlebar has another cable routing pathway; the another cable routing pathway forms a first recess on a first side of the handlebar located between the two clamped surfaces, wherein the first recess communicates between the opening and a first side of the entrance.
Pacenti discloses [a first recess] (col. 4, lines 32 – 34; described as “a non-continuous depression seventy-two degrees from horizontal above the centerline 114”) on [a first side of the handlebar] (col. 4, line 34; “above the centerline”) [located between the two clamped surfaces] (Fig. 10 illustrates the handlebar 102 clamped in the stem 104 wherein the first recess is between two clamped surfaces of the handlebar 102), wherein [the first recess communicates between the opening and a first side of the entrance] (col. 4, lines 36 – 40 disclose that the first recess can be at any practical alternative angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first recess of Pacenti with the handlebar 5 of Pürner, positioned at a practical alternative angle, such that the another cable routing pathway forms a first recess on the first side of the handlebar 5 located between the two clamped surfaces, wherein the first recess communicates between the opening and the first side of the entrance with a reasonable expectation of success. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to do so because incorporating the another cable routing pathway would create space on the first side of the handlebar to route additional cables, which may not fit through numbered element 103 in Fig. 3a of Pürner, and would provide a more aesthetically pleasing appearance by routing cables internally.
Regarding claim 6, Pürner as modified above discloses the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway as claimed in claim 5, wherein [the handlebar extends along a third axial direction TA] (Fig. 1a); however, Pürner as modified above does not explicitly disclose that a width of the first recess along the third axial direction is smaller than a width between the two clamped surfaces along the third axial direction; a width of the second recess along the third axial direction is smaller than the width between the two clamped surfaces along the third axial direction; the first recess and the second recess are arranged in a staggered configuration in the third axial direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the width of the second recess along the third axial direction smaller than the width between the two clamped surfaces along the third axial direction; make the width of the first recess along the third axial direction smaller than the width between the two clamped surfaces along the third axial direction; and to arrange the first recess and the second recess in a staggered configuration in the third axial direction. Arranging the first recess and the second recess in a staggered configuration in the third axial direction provides increased structural integrity of the handlebar over arranging the first recess and the second recess in a coplanar alignment. Furthermore, a staggered configuration of the first recess and the second recess in the third axial direction would decrease spatial interference when routing cables within the at least one cable routing pathway.
Furthermore, regarding claims 4 – 6, it would have been obvious to incorporate the second recess of Pacenti and the first recess of Pacenti with the handlebar 5 of Pürner because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Pürner discloses the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway as claimed in claim 1, wherein
[the fork connecting portion has a fork connecting hole] (Fig. 1a illustrates that numbered element 4 is disposed in the fork connecting hole of the fork connecting portion 3);
[the fork connecting hole extends along a second axial direction] (SA, Figs. 1a, 3a);
[two opposite sides of the second axial direction are respectively defined as a first side F and a second side S] (Figs. 1a, 3a);
[the at least one cable routing pathway comprises a cable routing pathway] (Fig. 3a; Examiner notes that the at least one cable routing pathway fundamentally comprises the cable routing pathway); however, Pürner does not disclose the cable routing pathway comprises a tubing section connected between two opposite sides of a part of the handlebar located between the two clamped surfaces, wherein a through hole is formed in the tubing section.
Pacenti discloses [a tubing section connected between two opposite sides of a part of the handlebar 302 located between the two clamped surfaces, wherein a through hole 306 is formed in the tubing section] (col 5, lines 66 – 67, and Figs. 16, 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the through hole 306 of Pacenti within the cable routing pathway of the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway of Pürner as above with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would allow additional space to route cables through numbered element 103 in Fig. 3 of Pürner, and to provide a more aesthetically pleasing appearance by routing cables internally through the through hole.
Regarding claim 8, Pürner discloses the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway as claimed in claim 1, wherein
[the fork connecting portion has a fork connecting hole] (Fig. 1a illustrates that numbered element 4 is disposed in the fork connecting hole of the fork connecting portion 3);
[the fork connecting hole extends along a second axial direction] (SA, Figs. 1a, 3a);
[two opposite sides of the second axial direction are respectively defined as a first side F and a second side S] (Figs. 1a, 3a);
[the at least one cable routing pathway comprises a cable routing pathway] (Fig. 3a; Examiner notes that the at least one cable routing pathway fundamentally comprises the cable routing pathway); however, Pürner does not disclose that the cable routing pathway is an annular groove formed by recessing inward into the outer surface of the handlebar located between the two clamped surfaces.
Pacenti discloses [an annular groove 506] formed by recessing inward into an outer surface of the handlebar 502] (Fig. 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handlebar 5 of Pürner to use the annular groove 506 of Pacenti such that the cable routing pathway is the annular groove 506 of Pacenti formed by recessing inward into the outer surface of the handlebar 5 of Pürner located between the two clamped surfaces. One skilled in the art would be motivated to do so because it would allow additional space to route cables that may not fit through numbered element 103 in Fig. 3a of Pürner, and to provide a more aesthetically pleasing appearance by routing cables internally. One skilled in the art could do so with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 13, Pürner discloses the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a first distance between the two second clamping portions along the direction perpendicular to the first axial direction is less than or equal to 100 mm.
Pacenti discloses [a first distance between the two second clamping portions along the direction perpendicular to the first axial direction is less than or equal to 80 mm] (Fig. 3 illustrates that a center portion of a handlebar 102 is 80 mm, thus the first distance of Pacenti is less than or equal to 80 mm).
The Purner/Pacenti handlebar system therefore features a first distance of exactly 80mm (i.e. less than the claimed 100mm), but does not cover the entirety of the claimed range.
Recognizing that the first distance (as a result-effective variable) directly correlates to allowing adequate space necessary to route cables therebetween, which is a desirable characteristic , it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to make the first distance of the modified Pürner/Pacenti handlebar system to be 100 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. See MPEP 2144.05 - II - Routine Optimization. One skilled in the art would be motivated to make the first distance larger to accommodate routing larger cables internally.
Regarding claim 14, Pürner discloses the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway as claimed in claim 1, wherein [the handlebar 5 extends along a third axial direction TA] (Fig. 1a); however, Pürner does not explicitly disclose a second distance between the two clamped surfaces along the third axial direction is less than or equal to 40 mm.
Recognizing that the first distance (as a result-effective variable)is directly correlated to having adequate space necessary to route cables therebetween, which is a desirable characteristic, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to make the first distance of the modified Pürner/Pacenti handlebar system to be 40 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. See MPEP 2144.05 - II - Routine Optimization. One skilled in the art would be motivated to make the first distance larger to accommodate routing larger cables internally.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pürner (DE 102022104404 A1) in view of Pacenti (US 9,764,792 B2) and Su (US 5,842,385).
Regarding claim 9, Pürner discloses the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose that the handlebar comprises a handlebar body and a bushing; a middle of the handlebar body forms a small-diameter portion, wherein an outer diameter of the small-diameter portion is smaller than a boundary surrounded by each of the two first clamping portions and each of the two second clamping portions; the bushing fits around the small-diameter portion, wherein an outer surface of the bushing is aligned with an outer surface of two opposite sides of the handlebar body adjacent to two ends of the small-diameter portion; the two clamped surfaces are formed on the outer surface of the bushing; the at least one cable routing pathway is formed on the bushing.
Pacenti discloses [a handlebar 502] (Annotated Fig. 20a, below) wherein the handlebar comprises
[a handlebar body HB] (Fig. 20a);
[a middle of the handlebar body forms a small-diameter portion 506] (Fig. 20a), wherein [an outer diameter] (diameter of 506 in Fig. 20a) of the small-diameter portion is smaller than [a boundary OBD surrounded by each of the two first clamping portions and each of the two second clamping portions] (Fig. 20a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the handlebar 502 of Pacenti with the bicycle handlebar system of Pürner because the result would have yielded predictable results. One skilled in the art would be motivated to do so because it would beneficially allow additional space to route cables that may not otherwise fit through numbered element 103 in Fig. 3a of Pürner, and to provide a more aesthetically pleasing appearance by routing cables internally. One could do so with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation.
Pürner as modified with the handlebar 502 of Pacenti, does not explicitly disclose that the handlebar 502 additionally comprises the bushing wherein;
the bushing fits around the small-diameter portion, wherein
an outer surface of the bushing is aligned with an outer surface of two opposite sides of the handlebar body adjacent to two ends of the small-diameter portion;
the two clamped surfaces are formed on an outer surface of the bushing;
the at least one cable routing pathway is formed on the bushing.
Su discloses [a handlebar stem assembly comprising a bushing 30] (col. 1, line 62; Annotated Fig. 6a, below), wherein the bushing 30 fits around a handlebar (col. 2, lines 60 – 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Pürner, as modified above to use the handlebar 502 of Pacenti, with the bushing 30 of Su, wherein
[the bushing 30 fits around the small-diameter portion] (e.g., a hole 36 in Fig. 6a sized to accommodate the small-diameter portion), wherein
[an outer surface of the bushing is aligned with an outer surface of two opposite sides of the handlebar body adjacent to two ends of the small-diameter portion] (e.g., axially aligned when the handlebar 502 is disposed in the hole 36);
[the two clamped surfaces are formed on an outer surface of the bushing] (Fig. 6a);
[the at least one cable routing pathway is formed on the bushing] (illustrated as an annular depression recessing into the bushing 30 in Fig. 6a).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the bicycle handlebar system of Pürner/Pacenti with the bushing 30 of Su using known methods at the time of the claimed invention, and in combination, each element would have merely performed the same function as it would have separately. Doing so would advantageously make the bicycle handlebar system more customizable to an end user (e.g., to accommodate handlebars with smaller diameters).
PNG
image7.png
100
100
image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
image9.png
100
100
image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway in claim 9, wherein
the bushing comprises [two half casings that are engaged with each other] (Fig. 6a; Su, col. 2, lines 60 – 62);
the at least one cable routing pathway comprises two cable routing pathways;
[one of the two cable routing pathways forms a first recess on one of the two half casings] (e.g., half of the annular depression of the bushing 30 on numbered element 31), [the other cable routing pathway forms a second recess on the other half casing] (e.g., half of the annular depression of the bushing 30 on numbered element 32).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pürner (DE 102022104404 A1) in view of Carlini (US 2012/0210821 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Pürner discloses the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose that the at least one cable routing pathway is formed by recessing inward into the outer surface of the handlebar and does not communicate with an inner portion of the handle.
Carlini discloses [an at least one cable routing pathway 1808 is formed by recessing inward into the outer surface of the handlebar and does not communicate with an inner portion of the handlebar] (Figs. 20 – 23).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the at least one cable routing pathway 1808 from Carlini with the handlebar 5 of Pürner using known methods, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to protect cables from damage by recessing them into the handlebar as claimed, to provide a location to secure cables and to provide an aesthetically pleasing look.
Regarding claim 12, Pürner discloses the bicycle handlebar system with the cable routing pathway as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a third distance between a deepest position of the at least one cable routing pathway recessing into the outer surface of the handlebar and the outer surface of the handlebar is greater than or equal to 2 mm.
Recognizing that the third distance (as a result-effective variable) is directly correlated to having adequate space necessary to route cables therein, which is a desirable characteristic, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to make the third distance greater than or equal to 2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. See MPEP 2144.05 - II - Routine Optimization. One skilled in the art would be motivated to make the first distance larger to accommodate routing larger cables internally.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response directed toward 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See Response pp. 6-8.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
On page 6 of the Response Applicant argues in the last paragraph that Pürner does not teach "each and every one" of the claimed features as recited in amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues in the first two paragraphs on page 7 of the Response that Pürner does not disclose, teach, or suggest at least the feature of “a part of the handlebar located between the two clamped surfaces has at least one cable routing pathway, wherein the at least one cable routing pathway communicates between the opening and the entrance" because Pürner describes a stem for a bicycle wherein a cable 7 does not pass through handlebar 5, therefore, handlebar 5 of Pürner lacks a structure that could be deemed an equivalent to the cable routing pathway recited in claim 1.
Examiner disagrees. This argument is not persuasive because Applicant takes too narrow of a view of the definition of a cable routing pathway. A cable routing pathway can, e.g., be a pathway along the surface of a part of handlebar 5 located between two clamped surfaces that communicates between the opening and the entrance (see, e.g., Figs. 1 – 3 of Pürner). Based on this interpretation Pürner does disclose all limitations of amended claim 1.
In response to Applicant's argument in the second paragraph on Page 7 of the Response that Pürner fails to show at least a certain feature of the invention, it is noted that at least the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., "Cable 7 of Pürner does not pass through handlebar 5") is not recited in rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument in the third paragraph on Page 7 of the Response that Pürner fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “structure provided between the opening and the front passage”) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant relies on Annotated FIG. 7 of Pürner on page 7 of the Response to make the above argument. Examiner asserts that without limitations further describing specific properties of the structure of a cable routing pathway in claim 1, it is unclear why the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable given a broadest reasonable interpretation. Examiner notes that Annotated Fig. 7a on page 2 of the Office Action was not used in the rejection of the above feature recited by the Applicant. For at least these reasons Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response directed towards the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the same reasons discussed above in relation to the arguments directed toward the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1 – 3 and 15. Applicant’s arguments on pp. 8-11 are also not found persuasive because the additional references argued are not relied upon for teaching the argued limitation.
In response to applicant’s arguments on pp. 8-11 of the Response that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, see pp. 23 – 24 of the Office Action regarding the rejection of claim 11.
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 Tyler Ferguson whose telephone number is (571) 272-7374. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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.
/Tyler Ferguson/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights