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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawings: Applicant’s indicated “first thickness” is not that as what examiner thought. Tmax as indicated in figure 7 must be the diameter including surface 146 in figure 7; applicant’s amended figures 7 and 8 do not include that surface. Examiner notes, however, that the indications for thickness are most appropriate in the amended drawings. Drawing objections are not resolved, and therefore, still included in this action.
Regarding claim objections; examiner notes this objection is withdrawn.
Regarding indefiniteness:
Applicant correctly argues that claim 9 requires the “relatively short distance” is in the “covered portion”, which is the area of the innertube that is within cover 120. Examiner notes that the “covered portion” was previously incorrectly attributed to the area under the clamps; this has been properly refuted.
Examiner thanks applicant for clarifying amendments to claim 16.
Examiner thanks applicant for clarifying amendments to claim 10 and 15.
Regarding the 103 rejection, applicant is correct in that the obviousness rejection replaces the “through hole” 208 of Yu with multiple indentations/protrusions of Marquis. Examiner notes that the through hole 208 of Yu cooperates with the protrusion 306 of the clamp 30 of Yu; therefore Yu already discloses the use of a very small area (i.e. not the complete circumference) of protrusions engaging indentations/holes, in a location opposite the 209/210 slit. Therefore, applicant’s argument that it is not obvious to use “not completely through” indentations (of Marquis) in place of the “completely through” indentation (of Yu) in a small (i.e. not the complete circumference) area of the handle grip (of Yu), is not considered persuasive. Further, Yu already teaches that the shape of the 208 and 306 must cooperate, and therefore, if the ”through hole” 208 is modified to be NOT “through”, then the cooperating structure 306 must also change to accommodate.
Applicant argues that any modification by Marquis must necessarily replace both holes 208 and 209, because Marquis discloses the not through ridges are along the entire circumference of the handle bar. Examiner disagrees that the entire circumference must be covered by ridges as taught by Marquis, since Yu teaches only the areas required to engage between clamp and handle must be those areas. Only the areas that are modified for engagement in Yu are modified by Marquis in this obvious modification. Applicant’s argument that the modified not-completely through indentation of Yu, taught to be not-completely through taught by Marquis, requires full circumference coverage of the handle bar of Yu is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the clamp (figure 4 of Yu) must extend through the sleeve 20 to engage the handlebar. Examiner notes that while Yu does disclose this occurrence, applicant cannot argue that the clamp must directly engage the handlebar to effectively keep the grip on the handlebar. This is because applicant’s clamp does not directly engage the handlebar, so to argue the clamps MUST touch in order to retain the grip on the handlebar, applicant’s own device would not retain the grip on the handlebar, because applicant’s clamp does not directly touch the handlebar. Further, the clamp not touching the handlebar is old and well known to keep the grip on the handlebar, as taught in the following previously cited references: 2007/0157758 Shih, 2012/0073086 Rarick, 2009/0255093 Hsu.
Regarding claims 11, 13-15, applicant makes arguments similar to claim 1. Applicant now claims a relative location on the inner tube, comparing the location of the slit to the “tube indentations of the …exposed portion” in relation to the opposite end of the inner tube. The claimed relationship is that the slit is “closer” to the opposite longitudinal end than the “tube indentations of the exposed portion”. Examiner notes that the relative change in size of the thicknesses of the engagement features of Yu does not affect the form, function, or use, of the Yu device. Please see new consideration below.
Regarding claims 16-21, applicant argues the Yu requires the grip to be around and encircling the clamps, meaning the grip is not “between” the clamps. Examiner notes that Marquis discloses the grip being only between the clamps. Further, this location is old and well known in the art, shown in previously cited references Shih, and Hsu, previously mentioned above. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 18, applicant argues about the relative thicknesses of the clamp in relation to the grip, asserting this is done for comfort. Examiner notes that Marquis discloses this relationship, and further notes that previously cited references Shih also discloses the same clamp/grip thickness; but also previously cited references Hsu and Rarick disclose the clamp is larger than the grip. Therefore, examiner contends that this clamp thickness/grip thickness relationship is changeable for any reason, and can be done for any reason that is not just “comfort”.
Regarding new claims 25-27; applicant has included a negative limitation which is new matter. Examiner contends that there is no positive or negative limitation disclosed by the specification for whether or not the clamp engages the slit, and as such, according to MPEP2173.05i. “Silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation”. In an alternative, examiner notes that the clamp does not have an engaging feature for the slot, and therefore, examiner suggests the following options;
the clamp does not have a feature capable of engaging within the slot, or
the slot is sized such that the clamp does not engage within the slot.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “thicknesses” as claimed does not correlate to the “thickness TG” measurement disclosed in . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25, 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 25, 27, applicant negatively claims “no portion of the clamp is located within the slit”. Examiner notes that applicant does not disclose that the clamp does or does not get located within the slit at any point in the specification. Examiner notes that “Silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation”, according to MPEP 2173.05i. Examiner makes the following suggestions: the clamp does not have a feature capable of engaging within the slot, or
the slot is sized such that the clamp does not engage within the slot.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-21, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2011/0277586 Yu in view of 2020/0156729 Marquis.
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a handlebar grip assembly (title), comprising:
an inner tube 20 defining an outer surface, an inner surface, a circumference, first and second inner tube longitudinal ends and an inner tube length (figure 2), and including a wall, a first slit (209/210 combination) adjacent to the first inner tube longitudinal end that extends completely through the wall; and
at least one tube indentation 208 adjacent to the first inner tube longitudinal end, and the tube indentation 208 is separated from the slits by protrusions/material along the circumference; and
a handlebar grip 50, defining first and second grip longitudinal ends and a grip length, on the inner tube 20.
Yu discloses an assembly having only one slit and one indentation 208 on one end of the inner tube 20, not on both ends; a handlebar grip 50 having a length that is the same length as the inner tube such that the ends of the grip are coplanar with the inner tube. Yu discloses that the tube indentation 208 extends through the material of the inner tube, and that the clamp includes a protrusion 306 that engages indentation 208. Yu only discloses one tube indentation in the area of the clamp 30.
Marquis discloses a handle grip similar to Yu, comprising:
The grip 150 being shorter in length than the inner tube requiring the use of two clamps;
an inner tube 310 defining an outer surface (with “cooperative outer surface 118” [0028]), an inner surface, a circumference, first and second inner tube longitudinal ends (which have clamps 140 on each end) and an inner tube length, and including a wall,
a first plurality of circumferentially spaced tube indentations (ridges of cooperative outer surface 118) adjacent to the first inner tube longitudinal end that do not extend completely through the wall and are separated by first tube protrusions (as shown by ridges in figure 1, discussed in [0028]), and a second plurality of circumferentially-spaced tube indentations adjacent to the second inner tube longitudinal end that do not extend completely through the wall and are separated by second tube protrusions (cooperative outer surface extends the length of the handlebar); and
a handlebar grip.
Regarding the tube indentation, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the single through indentation 208 of Yu with the plurality of tube indentations 158 that do not continue through the material of the tube of Marquis, in order to “prevent relative rotation about the longitudinal axis” [0028] of Marquis. Examiner contends that Yu discloses indentation 208 in the tube with protrusion 306 in the clamp, which provides for a non-rotational relationship in Yu. Marquis provides a similar handle structure with clamps which also has abutting surfaces of the clamp and tube with engagement features, for the purpose of preventing rotation. Examiner contends that changing the type of protrusion/indentation used between the clamp and the clamp surface are equivalent within the art of handlebar grips. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding two sets of indentations and two slits, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the clamp and the clamping surfaces of Yu as modified in two locations, as is old and well known and taught by Marquis. Marquis discloses the use of a shorter grip and two clamps, in an old and well known manner of handle grips. Examiner notes that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (b).
Regarding claim 2, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inner tube 20 defines an axial direction and a circumference (as it is a tube); and the first and second slits (Yu teaches one slit, while Marquis teaches it is obvious to use equivalent attachment mechanisms on both ends of the inner tube) each include a portion 210 that extends in the axial direction and a portion 209 that extends partially around the circumference.
Regarding claim 3, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 2, wherein the first and second slits (comprising portions 209 and 210) are T-shaped (as shown in figure 2 of Yu).
Regarding claim 4, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: first (30, as taught in Yu) and second clamps (second is obviously duplicated as discussed in claim 1) that are configured to clamp the inner tube to a handlebar (as shown and disclosed in Yu figure 5).
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 5, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 4, wherein the inner tube 20 has a covered portion (grip is shorter than length of inner tube) first exposed portion (Yu as modified has “exposed portions” which engage the clamps on both ends of the inner tube in the manner shown by Marquis figure 1) that extends from the first grip longitudinal end to the first tube longitudinal end and defines a first exposed portion length, and
a second exposed portion that extends from the second grip longitudinal end to the second tube longitudinal end and defines a second exposed portion length (duplicated on the other end, as discussed in claim 1 above);
at least a portion of the first slit (combination of 209 and 210) is located within the first exposed portion (because Shih discloses the slits 12 are entirely in the exposed portion as shown in figure 5, 6, 8) and at least a portion of the second slit (combination of 209 and 210) is located within the second exposed portion (as taught by Shih); and
the first and second clamps (30 of Yu figure 4) are configured to be positioned over the first and second exposed portions of the inner tube (as shown in Yu and Shih).
Regarding claim 6, Yu as modified discloses the handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 5, wherein the first and second clamps (Yu figure 4) define respective clamp lengths (Applicant defines “clamp length” as measurement LC shown in figure 8; clamp in Yu has such a “clamp length”) that are less than the first and second exposed portion lengths (Yu discloses ridge 207 on the exterior side of the exposed portion created by the shortened grip as taught by Marquis, and therefore, when the clamp 30 of Yu is placed on the “exposed” location exactly where it is taught in Yu, the clamp 30 has a width that does not cover ridge 207).
Regarding claim 7, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 5, wherein the first and second exposed portions (mounting portions that are “exposed” by the shortened grip 50) include stops 207 that limit axial movement of the first and second clamps (limit the axial movement of the clamp 30 from coming off the inner tube 20).
Regarding claim 8, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 5, wherein the first and second clamps (figure 4) define respective inner surfaces (detailed in figure 4) with pluralities of circumferentially spaced clamp protrusions (306 and opposite 306) that are configured to fit within the circumferentially spaced tube indentations ([0020], also taught by the cooperating surfaces in Marquis).
Regarding claim 9, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 5, wherein the slits (combo of 209/210, and duplicated on the other end) extend no more than a relatively short distance into the covered portion of the inner (applicant defines “relatively short distance” to mean “no more than 0.25 inch or no more than 6% of the length of the covered portion). According to broadest reasonable interpretation, the slit (combo 209/210 of Yu) extends approximately the same distance as disclosed by applicant. Should applicant disagree, then examiner notes that a minor change in size does not affect the form, function, or use, of the device of modified Yu with two connection devices.
Regarding claim 10, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 4, wherein the first and second clamps (Yu’s clamp, duplicated, as taught in Marquis) each include a clamp
PNG
media_image1.png
290
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
body; the first and second clamps each define a longitudinal axis (“longitudinal axis” is identical to applicant’s disclosed “longitudinal axis” in the clamps) and
the clamp body of each clamp (shown in Yu figure 4) defines a first thickness measured in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at a first location that is spaced apart from the free ends (as annotated in figure 4, identical to applicant’s argued “thicknesses” in the arguments filed 8/2/2025) and a second thickness, that is less than the first thickness, measured in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at a second location that is spaced apart from the free ends (as annotated in figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Yu discloses a handlebar grip assembly, comprising:
an inner tube 20 including a wall and defining an outer surface, an inner surface, a circumference, first and second inner tube longitudinal ends, an inner tube length, first exposed portion (engaging clamp 30) relatively adjacent to the first inner tube longitudinal end, the first exposed portion having tube indentation 208 extending completely through the wall (slot 209 would also be considered a tube indentation which extends through the wall) and are separated from one another by tube protrusions (material) that are circumferentially aligned with the tube indentations,
a first slit 209/210 that extends completely through the wall (of the inner tube 20) from the first tube longitudinal end to a first point, the first point is equal to the second longitudinal end than the location of the tube indentation;
a handlebar grip 50, defining first and second grip longitudinal ends, on the inner tube 10; and
first clamp 30 defining respective inner and each including a plurality of clamp protrusions surfaces (having projections 306, 316 that engage the indentations on the tube 10) that are on the inner surface and are configured to fit within the circumferentially spaced tube indentations (208 and 209) and
a plurality of clamp indentations 304 that are on the inner surface and are configured to receive the circumferentially spaced tube protrusions.
wherein the inner tube includes a first slit 209/210 adjacent to the first tube longitudinal end that extends through the wall.
Yu does not disclose the use a grip 50 that is shorter than the inner tube 20 so that there are two exposed ends of the inner tube 20 to use two clamps 30. Yu also discloses the use of a through hole/indentation 208 and the slot 209, both of which engage particular protrusions on the inner surface of clamp 30, but not that the through hole/indentation 208 does not extend through the material of the inner tube 20. Yu discloses the use of one slit and one tube indentation. Yu discloses the tube indentations and the first slit are the same distance from the opposite longitudinal end, not that the slit is closer to the opposite longitudinal end.
Marquis discloses a handle grip similar to Yu, comprising:
The grip 150 being shorter in length than the inner tube requiring the use of two clamps;
an inner tube 310 defining an outer surface (with “cooperative outer surface 118” [0028]), an inner surface, a circumference, first and second inner tube longitudinal ends (which have clamps 140 on each end) and an inner tube length, and including a wall,
a first plurality of circumferentially spaced tube indentations (ridges of cooperative outer surface 118) adjacent to the first inner tube longitudinal end that do not extend completely through the wall and are separated by first tube protrusions (as shown by ridges in figure 1, discussed in [0028]), and a second plurality of circumferentially-spaced tube indentations adjacent to the second inner tube longitudinal end that do not extend completely through the wall and are separated by second tube protrusions (cooperative outer surface extends the length of the handlebar); and
a handlebar grip.
Regarding the tube indentation, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the single through indentation 208 of Yu with the plurality of tube indentations 158 that do not continue through the material of the tube of Marquis, in order to “prevent relative rotation about the longitudinal axis” [0028] of Marquis. Examiner contends that Yu discloses indentation 208 in the tube with protrusion 306 in the clamp, which provides for a non-rotational relationship in Yu. Marquis provides a similar handle structure with clamps which also has abutting surfaces of the clamp and tube with engagement features, for the purpose of preventing rotation. Examiner contends that changing the type of protrusion/indentation used between the clamp and the clamp surface are equivalent within the art of handlebar grips. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
PNG
media_image2.png
314
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding two sets of indentations and two slits, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the clamp and the clamping surfaces of Yu as modified in two locations, as is old and well known and taught by Marquis. Marquis discloses the use of a shorter grip and two clamps, in an old and well known manner of handle grips. Examiner notes that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (b).
Regarding the relative proximity to the opposite longitudinal end of the tube indentations and the slit, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the size of the tube indentations of Yu to a smaller size, as annotated in Yu figure 2. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(a).
Regarding claim 13, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 11, wherein the inner tube 10 defines an axial direction and a circumference; and the first and second slits 209 each include a portion that extends in the axial direction and a portion that extends partially around the circumference.
Regarding claim 14, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 11, wherein the first and second exposed portions (which engage the clamps of Yu, duplicated by Marquis) define respective exposed portion lengths; and the first and second clamps define respective clamp lengths that are less than the first and second exposed portion lengths (as shown in both Yu and in Marquis).
Regarding claim 15, please see claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 16, Yu discloses a handlebar grip assembly, comprising: an inner tube 20 defining an inner tube length, first exposed portion (receiving the clamp 30) and first and second inner tube longitudinal ends;
first clamp 30 on the first exposed portions of the inner tube 20, clamp 30 has a body with free ends 310/312 and a tightener 44 that passes through the free ends and is configured to move the free ends relative to one another (having threads) the clamp defining a longitudinal axis (along the length of the inner tube),
the clamp body defining a first thickness measured in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see Yu figure 4 annotated in claim 10) that is spaced apart from the free ends and a second thickness, that is less than the first thickness, measured in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at a second location that is spaced apart from the free ends, and
a handlebar grip 50 defining opposite longitudinal ends.
Yu does not disclose the use of a grip 50 which is shorter than the inner tube, so that the inner tube has two exposed portions and two clamps. Yu, does not disclose the use of two clamps.
Marquis discloses a handle grip similar to Yu, comprising:
The grip 150 being shorter in length than the inner tube requiring the use of two clamps;
an inner tube 310 defining an outer surface (with “cooperative outer surface 118” [0028]), an inner surface, a circumference, first and second inner tube longitudinal ends (which have clamps 140 on each end) and an inner tube length, and including a wall,
a first plurality of circumferentially spaced tube indentations (ridges of cooperative outer surface 118) adjacent to the first inner tube longitudinal end that do not extend completely through the wall and are separated by first tube protrusions (as shown by ridges in figure 1, discussed in [0028]), and a second plurality of circumferentially-spaced tube indentations adjacent to the second inner tube longitudinal end that do not extend completely through the wall and are separated by second tube protrusions (cooperative outer surface extends the length of the handlebar); and
a handlebar grip.
Regarding the tube indentation, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the single through indentation 208 of Yu with the plurality of tube indentations 158 that do not continue through the material of the tube of Marquis, in order to “prevent relative rotation about the longitudinal axis” [0028] of Marquis. Examiner contends that Yu discloses indentation 208 in the tube with protrusion 306 in the clamp, which provides for a non-rotational relationship in Yu. Marquis provides a similar handle structure with clamps which also has abutting surfaces of the clamp and tube with engagement features, for the purpose of preventing rotation. Examiner contends that changing the type of protrusion/indentation used between the clamp and the clamp surface are equivalent within the art of handlebar grips. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding two sets of indentations and two slits and two clamps, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the clamp and the clamping surfaces of Yu as modified in two locations, as is old and well known and taught by Marquis. Marquis discloses the use of a shorter grip and two clamps, in an old and well known manner of handle grips. Examiner notes that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (b).
Regarding claim 17, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 16, the second clamp body thickness defines a minimum clamp body thickness and the second location is offset from the free ends by about 180 degrees around the longitudinal axis (see annotated Yu figure 4 above).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 16, wherein the handlebar grip 50 (shortened in the manner taught by Marquis) includes a wall defining a grip wall thickness (taught in both Yu and Marquis); and the first and second clamps 30 each define a maximum clamp thickness and a minimum clamp thickness. The thickness of the grip 50 of Yu and the minimum thickness of clamp 30 have a relationship, but Yu does not disclose which is larger, or if they are equal.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(a). Replacing the grip material 50, the clamp 30, will affect the relative size relationship between these two thicknesses. Neither the grip being thicker than clamp 30, nor grip being thinner than clamp 30, affects the use of the handlebar grip in a manner other than comfort. Examiner notes that Marquis discloses this relationship, and further notes that previously cited references Shih also discloses the same clamp/grip thickness; but also previously cited references Hsu and Rarick disclose the clamp is larger than the grip.
Regarding claim 20, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 16, wherein the first and second exposed portions (as taught in Marquis) each include circumferentially- spaced tube indentations and circumferentially-spaced tube protrusions (the splines 119); and the first and second clamps 30 each define respective inner surfaces with circumferentially-spaced clamp protrusions that are configured to fit within the circumferentially-spaced tube indentations and circumferentially-spaced clamp indentations that are configured to receive the circumferentially-spaced tube protrusions (as taught by both Yu and Marquis).
Regarding claim 21, Yu as modified discloses a handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 16, wherein the inner tube includes a wall, a first slit 209 of Yu, adjacent to the first tube longitudinal end that extends through the wall, and a second slit adjacent to the second tube longitudinal end that extends through the wall (by duplicating the whole exposed end on either side of the grip as taught in Marquis).
Regarding claim 26, please see claim 9 above.
Claim(s) 25, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu modified by Marquis as applied to claims 4 and 11 above, and further in view of 2007/0157758 Shih.
Regarding claim 25, Yu as modified discloses the grip assembly of claim 4, wherein
the inner tube defines an axial direction (along the axis of tube 20 of Yu);
the first and second slits 209/201 (duplicated taught by Marquis) each include a portion 210 that extends in the axial direction and a portion 210 that extends partially around the circumference.
Yu discloses that the clamp is engaged within portions of the slit.
Marquis discloses that the clamp does not extend within the inner tube, but does not show any open portions of the inner tube.
Shih discloses the use of slits that are arrange longitudinally in the tube, the clamp of Shih does not have surfaces that go within the slits of Shih.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to omit the surfaces of the clamp of Yu that engages the slits 209/210, in the manner old and well known taught in Shih, as this does not affect the form, function, or use, of the clamp. The clamp will effectively frictionally hold the innertube of Yu to the handlebar of Yu within or without direct contact, as shown in Shih and other cited references, discussed in the arguments above. Examiner contends that the clamp directly OR indirectly contacting the handlebar does not affect the functionality of the clamp.
Regarding claim 27, Yu as modified discloses the handlebar grip assembly as claimed in claim 11, having a portion of the clamp within the slit.
Marquis discloses that the clamp does not extend within the inner tube, but does not show any open portions of the inner tube.
Shih discloses the use of slits that are arrange longitudinally in the tube, the clamp of Shih does not have surfaces that go within the slits of Shih.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to omit the surfaces of the clamp of Yu that engages the slits 209/210, in the manner old and well known taught in Shih, as this does not affect the form, function, or use, of the clamp. The clamp will effectively frictionally hold the innertube of Yu to the handlebar of Yu within or without direct contact, as shown in Shih and other cited references, discussed in the arguments above. Examiner contends that the clamp directly OR indirectly contacting the handlebar does not affect the functionality of the clamp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677