DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to the application filed 09/29/23. The request for foreign priority to a corresponding TW application filed 03/22/23 has been received and is proper. Claims 1-8 are currently pending yet all are rejected as detailed below. 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
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.
Kariyama
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kariyama et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0038757). Kariyama is directed to a hydraulic bicycle brake component. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Kariyama discloses a brake system [Figs. 1, 16, 20, 23] comprising a bicycle frame (30) and a housing (10, 23) mounted to the bicycle frame, the housing including an oil chamber (32) for brake fluid storage, one of two ends of the housing being hinged to a brake lever (28) via a hinge (28d) [see para. 0028], the brake lever including an arm (28) for compressing the brake fluid within the oil chamber to initiate braking, the housing having a connector (70) connected to another one of the two ends thereof, the connector (54, 56, 58, 60, 63) communicating with the oil chamber and located close to the bicycle frame, an output end of the connector connected to a hose (50) that runs along the bicycle frame. See Figs. 1, 16, 20, 23.
Claim 2: Kariyama discloses that the housing includes a communication chamber (24a) defined therein and located away from the arm, the communication chamber communicating with the oil chamber. See Fig. 10.
Claim 4: Kariyama discloses that the arm includes a piston (34) located within the oil chamber and being slidable along a depth direction of the oil chamber, a spherical screw (28b) includes a ball head and a threaded shaft, the ball head extends into the oil chamber and pushes the piston for compressing brake fluid, the threaded shaft is located outside the oil chamber and connected to the brake lever. See Fig. 23.
Claim 5: Kariyama discloses that the connector includes a bolt (54) threadedly connected to the housing and extending into the communication chamber, the bolt has an oil passage, an output end of the oil passage is open on a wall of the bolt that is located outside the communication chamber, an end part (39, at 63) is fitted onto the bolt, the end part includes an oil groove (at 63) that communicates with the output end of the oil passage of the bolt, a hollow column (63, 56) has one of two ends thereof connected to an outer wall of the end part and communicating with the oil groove. See Fig. 11.
Claim 6: Kariyama discloses that the oil groove of the end part is an annular groove. See Fig. 11.
Claim 7: Kariyama discloses that another one of the two ends of the hollow column is connected to the hose. See Fig. 11.
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.
Kariyama in view of Nakai
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kariyama in view of Nakai et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0031279). Nakai is directed to a hydraulic operating system. See Abstract.
Claim 3: Kariyama is relied upon as in claims 1 and 2 above but does not disclose the “secondary chamber” with a “plug screw.” Nakai also discloses a bicycle brake system on a bicycle frame (H) with a lever (40) that actuates a piston (22) in an oil chamber (38) of a housing (20) that connects via a connector to a hose (16), wherein the housing includes a secondary chamber (24) defined therein and communicating with the oil chamber, a plug screw (26, 28) is located at an opening of the secondary chamber to seal a filling port. See Fig. 4; para. 0053 (“Specifically, the hydraulic fluid tank 54 includes a threaded opening 54a that threadedly receives the bolt 58”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include this additional chamber because there needs to be some type of fluid reservoir to account for the volume changes that occur during piston movement in the oil chamber. The inclusion of a hydraulic storage tank in these types of systems is well-known and commonly employed in the art.
Kariyama in view of Matsueda
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kariyama in view of Matsueda et al. (CN 104512512). Matsueda is directed to a bicycle hydraulic operating device. See Abstract.
Claim 8: Kariyama is relied upon as in claim 1 above but the lever is biased due to a compression spring rather than a torsion spring. Matsueda discloses a bicycle brake system with a lever (34) with a hinge (at X1) to actuate a piston (48), wherein the hinge includes a torsion spring (74) mounted thereon which provides a returning force for the brake lever. See Figs. 2, 6. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a torsion spring because this is a simple substitution, effectively achieving the same result of biasing the lever to a non-operating position. The use of a torsion spring is an obvious design choice given the rotational actuation of the brake lever.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 December 17, 2025