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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim mentions that the stanchions, each of which is connected at a first end to the crown and at a second end to a corresponding lower….., the phrase appears to be unfinished as it does not state if the second end is connected to a wheel or a dropout. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word “claim” should be added to the preamble of each claim, so as to state, “The method of claim 17”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5,6,13 and 14 are 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. Regarding claim 5, the claim states “wherein the channel includes an edge that is at an angle between 20 and 45 degrees above the second end of the steer tube”, is applicant trying to mention an angle from an axis cutting the steerer tube transversely?, because figure 3A and 3B sown the angle, however, the claim does not make sense to what the angle is being taken in reference to. The claim needs to be written to identify from what axis the angle is being taken from or being created from. For now the claim will be examined as a distance from the end of the steer tube.
Regarding claim 6, the claim will also be addressed as a distance from the second end of the steer tube due the angle discussed in the claim being uncleared (see the above paragraph related to the indefinite rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 13, the claim states “wherein the channel includes an edge that is at an angle between 20 and 45 degrees above the second end of the steer tube”, is applicant trying to mention an angle from an axis cutting the steerer tube transversely?, because figure 3A and 3B sown the angle, however, the claim does not make sense to what the angle is being taken in reference to. The claim needs to be written to identify from what axis the angle is being taken from or being created from. For now the claim will be examined as a distance from the end of the steer tube.
Regarding claim 14, the claim will also be addressed as a distance from the second end of the steer tube due the angle discussed in the claim being uncleared (see the above paragraph related to the indefinite rejection of claim 5)..
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Rijckevorsel (US 2021/0061401, Vorsel from now on). Regarding claim 1, Vorsel discloses a suspension fork assembly, the assembly comprising: a steer tube (3,24,28) with a first end (closer to the handlebar 7) separated from a second end (closer to the fork, see figure 4) by an elongated body;
an adjustable stem (22,30,31,32) at the first end, wherein the adjustable stem is configured to be securely fastened to handlebars (7); and
a set of legs (11) connected to the second end by a crown (15), wherein: the set of legs houses a compressible suspension component (see figure 4 as it shows a corrugated member which leads the knowing that the forks move up and down as a suspension that compresses),
the adjustable stem includes an opening (13) sized to receive at least a brake line (12, see Par. 0038), the steer tube includes a channel (in between members 24,28, see figures 2 and 3) extending through a sidewall of the steer tube and sized to receive the brake line into the steer tube.
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(s) 1,2,5,6,7,9,10,13,14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man (US 2013/0076000) in view of Dunlap (US 12179877).
Regarding claim 1, Man discloses fork assembly, the assembly comprising:
a steer tube (2) with a first end (towards the handlebar 15) separated from a second end (towards the fork 33) by an elongated body (length of the steer tube);
an adjustable stem (44, it adjust to receive the brake cable 39) at the first end, wherein the adjustable stem is configured to be securely fastened to handlebars (see figure 1); and
a set of legs (33) connected to the second end by a crown (see figure 1 as the forks are connected to each other via a crown, wherein the upper bent ends of the forks and combination with the bottom end of member 4 create a crown), wherein:
the adjustable stem includes an opening (for the brake line 39 to go through it, see figure 1) sized to receive at least a brake line (39), the steer tube (2) includes a channel (space where brake line 39 to come out of the steer tube, see figure 1) extending through a sidewall of the steer tube (see figure 1) and sized to receive the brake line into the steer tube.
Man does not mention a suspension on the forks. However, Dunlap discloses a bicycle front suspension a rod and piston (see figures 3 and 4) that form a compressible suspension component in combination with the fluid that is within the rod and piston.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Man by adding a suspension such as the one disclosed by Dunlap, in order to provide a bicycle with a smoother ride as the front wheel would be able to deal with bumps on the road so as to act as a front suspension for the bicycle. The combination of Man and Dunlap can be seen as applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Man further discloses, wherein: the set of legs further comprises a corresponding pair of stanchions (elongated part of the fork going towards the front wheel), each of which is connected at a first end to the crown and at a second end to a corresponding lower front wheel, wherein, the combination of Man and Dunlap ends with a pair of stanchions with housing the compressible suspension component.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, wherein the channel includes an edge (36, see figure 1) that is at a distance above the second end of the steer tube (see figure 1) (see 35 USC 112b rejection above).
Regarding claim 7, Man does not mention a specific distance between the channel and the second end of the steer tube, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge that the channel can be move to a different distance within the length of the steer tube, in order to accommodate different types of bicycle or different sizes of bicycle, wherein in one of those bicycles, the edge can be 30mm above the second end of the steer tube.
Regarding claim 9, Man discloses a vehicle comprising: a fork assembly (33) that includes: a steer tube (4) with a first end (closer to the handlebar) separated from a second end (end away from the handlebar) by an elongated body (length of the steer tube);
an adjustable stem (44, it adjust to receive the brake cable 39) at the first end, wherein the adjustable stem is configured to be securely fastened to handlebars (see figure 1); and
a set of legs (33) connected to the second end by a crown (see figure 1 as the forks are connected to each other via a crown, wherein the upper bent ends of the forks and combination with the bottom end of member 4 create a crown), wherein: the adjustable stem includes an opening (for the brake line 39 to go through it, see figure 1) sized to receive at least one brake line (39), and the steer tube includes a channel (21,26) extending through a sidewall of the steer tube (see figure 3) and sized to receive the brake line with its connection member (28);
a frame including a head tube (2) that is coaxially aligned with the steer tube; handlebars (15) connected to the adjustable stem (see figure 1); and the brake line (39) extending from the handlebars and passing into an annular region between the steer tube and the head tube (see figure 1), wherein the brake line enters the steer tube through the channel (26) and exits from the second end (as the end of the interior part of cable 39 ends in the second end 38 and proceeds to extend along the outside of the head tube, see figure 4A).
Man does not mention a suspension on the forks. However, Dunlap discloses a bicycle front suspension a rod and piston (see figures 3 and 4) that form a compressible suspension component in combination with the fluid that is within the rod and piston.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Man by adding a suspension such as the one disclosed by Dunlap, in order to provide a bicycle with a smoother ride as the front wheel would be able to deal with bumps on the road so as to act as a front suspension for the bicycle. The combination of Man and Dunlap can be seen as applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Man further discloses, wherein: the set of legs further comprises a corresponding pair of stanchions (elongated part of the fork going towards the front wheel), each of which is connected at a first end to the crown and at a second end to a corresponding lower front wheel, wherein, the combination of Man and Dunlap ends with a pair of stanchions with housing the compressible suspension component.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, wherein the channel includes an edge (36, see figure 1) that is at a distance above the second end of the steer tube (see figure 1) (see 35 USC 112b rejection above).
Regarding claim 15, Man does not mention an specific distance between the channel and the second end of the steer tube, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge that the channel can be move to a different distance within the length of the steer tube, in order to accommodate different types of bicycle or different sizes of bicycle, wherein in one of those bicycles, the edge can be 30mm above the second end of the steer tube.
Claim(s) 17,19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strien (US 9457859) in view of Dunlap (US 12179877). Regarding claim 17, Strien discloses a method of assembling a steering assembly (see figure 2), the method comprising: forming a channel (40a) in a sidewall of a steer tube (40), wherein the channel is sized to receive a line (C1,C3); coupling a second end of the steer tube to a crown (Col. 4, line 58) attached to a set of legs (forks 24); inserting the steer tube into a head tube (42) of a frame (14); and coupling a first end of the steer tube to an adjustable stem (44) . Strien does not mention housing a compressible suspension component, however, Dunlap discloses a bicycle front suspension a rod and piston (see figures 3 and 4) that form a compressible suspension component in combination with the fluid that is within the rod and piston.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Strien by adding a suspension such as the one disclosed by Dunlap, in order to provide a bicycle with a smoother ride as the front wheel would be able to deal with bumps on the road so as to act as a front suspension for the bicycle. The combination of Strien and Dunlap can be seen as applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Additionally, Strien does not mention that the line is a brake line, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge that a brake line can be passed through the channel instead of the lines (C1 or C3), in order to hide the brake line from exposure from the elements
Regarding claim 19, Strien does not mention an specific distance between the channel and the second end of the steer tube, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge that the channel can be move to a different distance within the length of the steer tube, in order to accommodate different types of bicycle or different sizes of bicycle, wherein in one of those bicycles, the edge can be 30mm above the second end of the steer tube.
Regarding claim 20, (see bottom of rejection of claim 17 for the brake line), Strien further comprises piping at least one line through a front aperture in the adjustable stem (see figure 8); and piping the at least one line through the channel in the steer tube (see figure 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,4,8,11,12,16 and 18 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.
Regarding claims 3,4,8,11,12 and 16 the art of record did not include “the rearward facing bracket that routing the brake line”.
Regarding claim 18, the art of record did not include any specific “angle of drilling the channel on the steer tube”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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.
/MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611