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 .
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the length of said main section of said at least one slat or key or rod is lower of an amount among 1 and 4 cm than the length of said at least one slot or recessed portion.” It is unclear what length or range of lengths of the main section is being claimed by this recitation.
Claim 18 recites “a component for activating/deactivating said actuator.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it appears to depend from claim 12).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Auzmendi (EP 3069969). Auzmendi discloses an adjustable height or dropper seatpost for a bicycle including: - an upper, in use, tube, the upper end or head of the upper tube (fig. 6: 10) being designed to house or engage or belong to seat clamps or connector for connecting the seatpost to a bicycle seat (fig. 6: 300), - a lower, in use, tube, with the upper tube being slidingly mounted in the lower tube (fig. 6: 100) along a longitudinal axis between a retracted position, in which the length of the seatpost is minimum (fig. 7) and an extended position (fig. 6), in which the length of the seatpost is maximum, the upper end of said lower tube or a component integral or mounted thereon defining a shoulder protruding inwardly (fig. 3: 31), whereas said seatpost comprises at least one abutment component (fig. 8: 40) integral with the upper tube and designed to abut against said shoulder when said upper tube and said lower tube are mutually displaced so as to bring them to the extended position, wherein said upper tube delimits at least one slot or recessed portion (fig. 3: 14) and said abutment component comprises at least one slat or key or rod firmly (fig. 3: 70/72) and removably fitted or fittable or inserted or insertable in a respective slot or recessed portion and designed to protrude outwardly from the latter for abutting against said shoulder as soon as said upper tube and said lower tube are mutually brought to said extended position, the position and/or arrangement of said at least one slat or key or rod in said slot or recessed portion being adjustable, so that it is possible to change the extended position and, in turn, the maximum length of the seatpost.
As concerns claim 11, Auzmendi discloses wherein said at least one slot or recessed portion is straight and has a dimension of main extension parallel to the longitudinal axis of the respective upper tube, and wherein said at least one slat or key or rod is straight too (fig. 3).
As concerns claim 12, Auzmendi discloses an actuator mounted inside said upper and lower tubes and designed to displace said upper tube among said retracted and said extended position.
As concerns claim 15, Auzmendi discloses wherein said upper or lower tube comprises a front, a rear and two sides, with the upper end or head of the upper tube being designed to house or engage or belong to seat clamps or connector for connecting the seatpost to a bicycle seat (figs. 6, 8: 300), so that the latter is arranged with the direction from the back to the tip thereof parallel to the direction from the rear to the front of the seatpost.
As concerns claim 17, Auzmendi discloses a bicycle having a frame (shown in fig. 8 at lower end of lower tube), a seat (fig. 6: 300) and an adjustable height seatpost (fig. 3: 1) as claimed in claim 1, said frame including at least one tubular component with the lower tube of the adjustable height seatpost mounted therein, said seat being instead connected to said seat clamps or connector housed or engaged or including the upper end or head of the upper tube
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) 2-5, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auzmendi in view of Yeom (WO 2011/059155). Auzmendi teaches wherein said at least one slot or recessed portion is not-through across the thickness of the respective upper tube (as shown in fig. 3) and wherein the latter delimits one or a plurality of holes (fig. 3: 50) extending from said slot or recessed portion inwardly, whereas said at least one slat or key or rod includes a main section (fig. 3: 72) as well as a lug or protrusion (fig. 3: 71) extending from said main section, with the main section insertable or fittable in said at least one slot or recessed portion. Auzmendi does not teach wherein the lug/protrusion is insertable or fittable in said at least one hole (it appears 71 presses/clamps 72 on the wall within the recess). However, Yeom teaches a similar seatpost height adjustment device wherein a lug/protrusion (fig. 3: 14a) in the lower tube extends into the hole 15 on the upper tube in order to set the height of the seatpost. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide the protrusion mechanism of Yeom on the seatpost of Auzmendi with the accompanying appropriate number of holes in order to provide more stable height setting for the user.
As concerns claim 3, Auzmendi, as modified, teaches wherein said seatpost delimits at least two or three holes (Auzmendi, fig. 3: 50 and Yeom, fig. 1: 15) and wherein said main section is insertable or fittable in said slot or recessed portion, while said lug or protrusion is insertable or fittable in each of said holes, so that depending on the hole engaged by said lug or protrusion the position of said main section in said slot or recessed portion is adjusted, so that it is possible to change the extended position (as shown in fig. 3 of Auzmendi).
As concerns claims 4 and 5, Auzmendi, as modified, does not expressly teach the distance from the holes from each other or the ends of the slot/recess. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try hole spacing of 10-20mm and hole distances from the ends from 25-50mm in order to provide the desired range or height selections to a user.
As concerns claim 8, Auzmendi, as modified, teaches wherein the firm and removable insertion or fit of said at least one slat or key or rod in a respective slot or recessed portion is due to the engagement or interference fit or press fit among said at least one lug or protrusion and said at least one hole only, optionally in addition to the engagement or interference fit or press fit among said main section and said at least one the slot or recessed portion (as shown in fig. 3 and discussed in claim 2).
As concerns claim 9, as best understood, Auzmendi, as modified, teaches wherein the length of said main section of said at least one slat or key or rod is lower of an amount among 1 and 4 cm than the length of said at least one slot or recessed portion, in such a manner that the main section is entirely inserted or mounted within the slot or recessed portion in any assembling position or arrangement of the slat or key or rod in said at least one slot or recessed portion (Auzmendi, fig. 3: the main section is entirely within the slot).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auzmendi. Auzmendi does not teach wherein said at least one slot or recessed portion is or departs at a distance among 0.5 cm and 3 from the lower end of said upper tube. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try the recessed portion spaced between 0.5 and 3cm from the lower end of the upper tube in order to provide the desired range of adjustment for the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 10 and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art references of Auzmendi and Yeom fail to teach:
wherein said lug or protrusion is at a first distance from a first end of said slat or key or rod and at a second distance from a second end of said at least one slat or key or rod lower than said first distance, so that depending on the position of the first and second end of said at least one slat or key or rod in said slot or recessed portion the extended position is changed;
wherein said at least one slot or recessed portion has a depth of about 0.5 and 3 mm, whereas said at least one slat or key or rod has a thickness greater of about 0.5-3 mm than the slot or recessed portion, so that the slat or key or rod can be partly received in the slot or recessed portion and partly protrude from the latter;
an actuator mounted inside said upper and lower tubes and designed to displace said upper tube among said retracted and said extended position (the devices of Auzmendi and Yeom are manually adjusted/set, there being no teaching, suggestion or motivation to add an adjustment actuator inside the upper and lower tubes to move it up and down without substantially redesigning the manner in which the mechanism locks the tube(s)).
wherein said upper tube delimits two slots or recessed portions extending on parts opposite to one another of the upper tube, with two slats or keys or rods each inserted or fitted in a respective slot or recessed portion.
Further, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art absent hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636