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 Objections
Claims 6-7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 2, recites the limitation “meltbonding” which should be changed to “melt bonding”.
Claim 7, lines 1-2, recites the limitations “a first major edge of the fabric” which should be changed to “the first major edge of the fabric”.
Claim 7, line 2, recites the limitations “a second major edge of the fabric” which should be changed to “the second major edge of the fabric”.
Claim 7, lines 2-3, recites the limitations “a rolled form” which should be changed to “the rolled form”.
Claim 7, line 4, recites the limitation “meltbonded” which should be changed to “melt bonded”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bean US 20010042261 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Bean discloses [an apparatus 30 suitable for use as a bicycle seatpost protector,] (Fig. 13-18; Paragraph 0054; Bean discloses and illustrates that one of the advantages of the wrapping device 30, is its versatility. Therefore, inherently implying that the apparatus is suitable for a bicycle seatpost protector.) comprising:
[an outer layer 86 of material;] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0038)
[an inner layer 84 of material of equal length and width as the outer layer of material;] (Fig. 3 & 5; Paragraph 0038-0041)
[the inner and outer layers of material joined together into a unitary fabric of length L,] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0038) [where the length L is sufficient to cover substantial portions of a seatpost of a bicycle;] (Fig. 13-18; Paragraph 0054) and
[the outer and inner layers having fasteners 52 configured to fasten a first major edge 60 of the fabric to a second major edge 62 of the fabric when the fabric is in a rolled form about the bicycle seatpost.] (Fig. 3-6; Paragraph 0045)
Regarding claim 2, Bean further discloses [wherein the outer layer of material is selected from natural and synthetic materials.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0037)
Regarding independent claim 10, Bean discloses [an apparatus 30 suitable for use as a bicycle seatpost protector,] (Fig. 13-18; Paragraph 0054; Bean discloses and illustrates that one of the advantages of the wrapping device 30, is its versatility. Therefore, inherently implying that the apparatus is suitable for a bicycle seatpost protector.) comprising:
[an outer layer 86 of material;] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0038)
[an inner layer 84 of material of equal length and width as the outer layer of material;] (Fig. 3 & 5; Paragraph 0038-0041)
[the inner and outer layers of material joined together into a unitary fabric of length L 68 and width W 70,] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0038) [where the length L is sufficient to cover substantial portions of a seatpost of a bicycle;] (Fig. 13-18; Paragraph 0054)
[where the width W is sufficient to cover substantial portions of a seatpost of a bicycle;]
and (Fig. 5; Paragraph 0035)
[the outer and inner layers having fasteners 52 configured to fasten a first major edge 60 of the fabric to a second major edge 62 of the fabric when the fabric is in a rolled form about the bicycle seatpost.] (Fig. 3-6; Paragraph 0045)
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bean in view of Bigolin US 20060119148 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Bean does not disclose wherein the outer layer of material is natural leather
Bigloin teaches [wherein the outer layer of material is natural leather.] (Paragraph 0016 of Bigolin; Bigolin discloses an outer layer 3 that is preferably made of a natural leather.)
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 natural leather outer layer of Bigloin with the apparatus of Bean with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the use of a known durable and protective natural leather material for the outer layer, thus improving wear resistance and protective performance of the outer layer.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bean in view of Hu et al. CN 111888622 B.
Regarding claim 4, Bean does not disclose wherein the outer layer of material is selected from the group consisting of high-density foams, thermoplastic materials, thermoplastic elastomers, and combinations thereof.
Hu et al. teaches [wherein the outer layer of material is selected from the group consisting of high-density foams, thermoplastic materials, thermoplastic elastomers, and combinations thereof.] (Fig. 7; Page 5, lines 17-22; Hu et al. discloses an outer layer, wherein the outer layer is formed of polyether block polyamide. Hu et al. expressly teaches that polyether block polyamide possesses the performance of a thermoplastic elastomer, including elastic recovery and resistance to repeated deformation. Accordingly, Hu et al. teaches an outer layer selected from a thermoplastic elastomer.)
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 thermoplastic elastomer outer layer of Hu et al. with the apparatus of Bean with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the selection of a resilient, elastically deformable outer layer material, thus enhancing durability and resistance to repeated deformation during use.
Regarding claim 5, Bean does not disclose wherein the inner layer of material is selected from the group consisting of felt, natural or synthetic woven or nonwoven materials, microfiber cloth, pile cloth, and combinations thereof.
Hu et al. teaches [wherein the inner layer of material is selected from the group consisting of felt, natural or synthetic woven or nonwoven materials, microfiber cloth, pile cloth, and combinations thereof.] (Fig. 7; Page 5, lines 17-22)
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 inner lining material of Hu et al. with the apparatus of Bean with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the use of soft woven or nonwoven lining materials that protect the seat post surface, thus reducing abrasion and improving protective performance.
Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bean in view of Reece US 20190210211 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Bean does not disclose wherein the inner layer of material and the outer layer of material are joined together with any one of glue, stitching, meltbonding, or combinations thereof.
Reece teaches [wherein the inner layer 26 of material and the outer layer 40 of material are joined together with any one of glue, stitching, melt bonding, or combinations thereof.] (Fig. 6 of Reece; Paragraph 0128 of Reece; Reece discloses an appropriate attachment mechanism 28, such as a suitable type of suture is employed for joining the inner layer 26 to the outer layer 40.)
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 layer attachment technique of Reece with the apparatus of Bean with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for securely joining the inner and outer layers using known attachment methods such as glue, stitching, or melt bonding, thus forming a stable and unitary layered structure.
Regarding claim 8, Bean does not disclose wherein the length L ranges from about 50 to about 100 percent of a length of the seatpost.
Reece teaches [wherein the length L ranges from about 50 to about 100 percent of a length of the seatpost.] (Paragraph 0074 of Reece)
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 seat post coverage length of Reece with the apparatus of Bean with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the protector to cover a substantial portion of the seat post, thus providing improved protection over a greater length of the seat post.
Regarding claim 9, Bean does not disclose wherein the length L ranges from about 50 to about 100 percent of a length of the seatpost.
Reece teaches [wherein the length L ranges from about 75 to about 100 percent of a length of the seatpost.] (Paragraph 0074 of Reece)
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 seat post coverage length of Reece with the apparatus of Bean with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the protector to cover a substantial portion of the seat post, thus providing improved protection over a greater length of the seat post.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bean in view of Neophitou GB 2480438 A.
Regarding claim 7, Bean discloses [wherein the fasteners 52 configured to fasten a first major edge 60 of the fabric to a second major edge 62 of the fabric when the fabric is in a rolled form about the bicycle seatpost comprise hook and loop fastener strips,] (Fig. 3-6; Paragraph 0045)
Bean does not disclose the fastener strips being glued, stitched, meltbonded, or combination thereof to the inner layer of material and the outer layer of material, respectively.
Neophoitou teaches [the fastener strips being glued, stitched, meltbonded, or combination thereof to the inner layer of material and the outer layer of material, respectively.] (Fig. 1-3 of Neophitou; Page 2, lines 27-29)
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 fastener attachment technique of Neophitou with the apparatus of Bean with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the fastener strips to be securely affixed to the inner and outer layers using known bonding and stitching technique, thus ensuring reliable fastening of the protector when wrapped around the seat post.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reece in view of Hu et al.
Regarding independent claim 11, Reece discloses [an apparatus suitable for use as a bicycle seatpost protector 24,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0117) comprising:
[a member comprising one or more layers of material of cylindrical shape, having a length L,] (Fig. 6; Paragraph 0128; As shown in Fig. 6, Reece illustrates the outer layer 40 joining with the inner layer 26 through an appropriate attachment mechanism 28.) [where the length L is sufficient to cover substantial portions of a seatpost of a bicycle,] (Fig. 1 and 6; Paragraph 0128) [an inner diameter D, and comprising a longitudinal slit running the length L;]
Reece does not disclose the member devoid of fasteners; and the member being expandable in diameter and able to change dimensions with simple hand force, such that the inner diameter D is expandable from a first value D1 to a second value D2 and collapsible back to diameter D1 upon removal of the hand force, whereby the longitudinal slit is configured to expand to an opening or gap substantially equal to the width of a seatpost and then collapse back to form the longitudinal slit as a user slides or presses the seatpost protector over the seatpost.
Hu et al. teaches [the member devoid of fasteners; and the member being expandable in diameter and able to change dimensions with simple hand force, such that the inner diameter D is expandable from a first value D1 to a second value D2 and collapsible back to diameter D1 upon removal of the hand force, whereby the longitudinal slit is configured to expand to an opening or gap substantially equal to the width of a seatpost and then collapse back to form the longitudinal slit as a user slides or presses the seatpost protector over the seatpost.] (Fig. 7; Page 5, lines 17-22; Hu et al. discloses a tubuler member having an outer sleeve layer 7 formed of polyether block polyamide. Hu et al. teaches that polyether block polyamide possesses the performance of a thermoplastic elastomer, including resilience and elastic recovery after repeated deformation. A thermoplastic elastomer is capable of being manually expanded and returning to its original dimensions upon release. Accordingly, Hu et al. teaches a member that is expandable in diameter under simple hand force and collapsible back upon removal of the force.)
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 deformable tubular member of Hu et al. with the apparatus of Reece with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the protector to be manually expanded to fit over a seat post and to elastically recover to grip the seat post once released, thus eliminating the need for fasteners while maintaining secure attachment.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reece in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Jiyuni et al. JP 2000160714 A.
Regarding claim 12, Reece, as modified, does not disclose wherein the one or more layers of material comprises a polymeric foam that contracts from an original shape when pressed on and expands back to the original shape once pressure is released.
Jiyuni et al. teaches [wherein the one or more layers of material comprises a polymeric foam that contracts from an original shape when pressed on and expands back to the original shape once pressure is released.] (Fig. 1-3; Page 15, lines 27-32; Jiyuni discloses a closed-cell foam having a delayed shape recovery property. The foam is configured to be compressed from an original shape and to recover and expand back to the original shape after the compressive force is release. Accordingly, Jiyuni teaches a polymeric foam that contracts when pressed and expands back once pressure is released.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the closed-cell polymeric foam of Jiyuni et al. with the apparatus of Reece, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the protector to contract when pressed and expand back to its original shape upon release, thus providing compressive gripping and cushioning of the seat post.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bigloin US 20160368553 A1 – comprises seat for bicycle saddles and the like, including a first inner layer made from a rubber-type material, a second layer, made from a material of the natural or synthetic fabric type, placed over said first layer, and a fourth outer layer, made from a material of the natural fabric type. The first layer being cured together with said second layer and fourth layer so as to make a compact composite structure. It is also presented a method for the manufacturing of the seat.
Nicholson US 20140182756 A1 – comprises a protective cover having a one-piece cover body having a front panel and a rear panel joined together to form an envelope having an open top and closed bottom. The envelope encapsulates a bicycle. Elongate openings are formed through the panels adjacent the closed top. Closures such as zippers are provided at the open bottom and at openings. The cover body is formed of supple, stretchable, water-resistant material. The cover also has a nylon tricot backing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611