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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the greyscale renderings lack detail; proper black-and-white line drawings should be submitted.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: a comma appears to be missing in line 2 following “support portion.” 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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 are drawn to a “tipless” saddle. It is unclear what “tipless” is intended to specify in this context (that is, is “tip” related to an end or a tilt or something else).
Claim 3 recites “said rail frame comprise two rear rings…,” which is repeated from claim 1. It is unclear if this is intended to somehow further define the invention (note that “comprise” should read - - comprises - -). Claim 3 recites the limitation "said two rear" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5 and 6 recite “configured to implement.” It is unclear how this language should be interpreted in the context of the claims. That is, do the front portions simply connect with the protruding ridges or does “implement” imply some form of action? Further, it is unclear if a word is missing before or after “integrally” in the 7th line.
Claims 7-10 begin with language essentially repeated from claim 1. It is unclear if this is intended to somehow further define the invention. The claims further recite “reinforcing… in a tilt up manner so as to prevent… being sagged down under pressure” It is unclear what a tilt up manner might be as well as what might constitute being “sagged down” and under what pressure.
Claims 11 and 12 recite “front secure unit… comprises two front rings… configured to be secured to… front secure units.” It is unclear if the “front secure units” are different from the “front secure unit,” and if not, how the rings are secured to their own element.
Claims 13 and 14 recite the limitation "said two ends" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 13 and 14 recite “which one end” in line 4. Does Applicant intend - - with - - one end? The claims further recite “a securing member” in lines 5-6. Is this intended to differ from the “securing bracket?” The claims further recite “for detachably connected to” in line 6. Does Applicant intend - - connecting - - to?
Claims 2-20 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on an indefinite claim.
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) 1-12 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dodge et al. (US Patent Number 6471297).
Regarding claim 1, Dodge discloses a tipless saddle, comprising a saddle body (at least an upper portion of 110) having a front pelvic support portion a central recess extending from a rear end of said saddle body to said front pelvic support portion, and two buttock support surfaces gradually and symmetrically extended sidewardly and upwardly from two longitudinal sides of said central recess respectively (see at least Figures 1-5 showing this arrangement with a recess between upward and outwardly extending support portions and a front pelvic support), wherein said two buttock support surfaces have two curved retention surfaces inclinedly and upwardly extended to two tips of two sides of said saddle body respectively and symmetrically (see at least Figures 2 and 5), wherein said front pelvic support portion and two front portions of said two buttock support surfaces integrally form a pelvic support arrangement of said tipless saddle (at a front); a rigid bottom base (at least a bottom of 110) coupled to an underside of said saddle body; and a rail frame (at least 100, 200), which is secured to said bottom base for mounting a saddle clamp (at 154, 156, 158), comprising two rear rings (two rear members 212) arranged spacedly apart and configured to be secured to a pair of suspension units (116, 118) so as to mount to a rear portion of said bottom base, a front secure unit (other members 212 and/or 112, 114, or associated bolts) provided at a front portion of said bottom base, and a pair of rails (at 120 for instance) parallelly extended between said two rear rings and said front secure unit for mounting the saddle clamp.
Regarding claim 2, Dodge further discloses said rail frame further comprises a rail bridge support (at 210, or alternatively at the clamp) rigidly fixed between said pair of rails so as to reinforce said pair of rails and ensure a distance between said pair of rails.
Regarding claim 3, Dodge further discloses said rail frame comprise two rear ring arranged spacedly apart and configured to be secured to a pair of suspension units so as to mount to a rear portion of said bottom base (as above), wherein said rail bridge support is a panel having two opposing sides integrally affixed to rear positions of said pair of rails and one side integrally affixed to a rear rail connected between said two rear (at least as assembled and as best understood).
Regarding claim 4, Dodge further discloses said front pelvic support portion has two protruding ridges defined by a front portion of said central recess and said two front portions of said two buttock support surfaces (see Figure 2 for instance).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Dodge further discloses a front opening of said central recess extends vertically and downwardly to form a front recess dividing a front portion of said saddle body into said two protruding ridges which are positioned at said front opening of said central recess and said front recess and gradually protruded from said two buttock support surfaces (see again at least Figure 2), wherein said two front portions of said buttock support surfaces are two inclined and curved front surfaces configured to implement with said two protruding ridges of said front pelvic support portion integrally form said pelvic support arrangement of said tipless saddle (this is the general arrangement).
Regarding claims 7-10, Dodge further discloses said two buttock support surfaces are symmetrical curved surfaces gradually extended sidewardly and upwardly from said two longitudinal sides of said central recess and said two sides of said saddle body respectively (as above), wherein a height from a bottom surface of said saddle body to said two sides is higher than a height from said bottom surface to said two longitudinal sides (i.e. a height at an outside portion is greater than at a central portion based on the raised forms; see figures), forming two wing supports of said saddle body integrally, wherein said two sides of said saddle body are two elevated side supports respectively forming two curved retention surfaces of said two buttock support surfaces inclinedly and upwardly extended to two tips of said two sides for reinforcing said two wing supports in a tilt up manner so as to prevent said two wing supports being sagged down under pressure and provide upward and inward supporting capability (they are formed as claimed and would be at least capable of performing as claimed as best understood).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Dodge further discloses said front secure unit of said rail frame comprises two front rings (two members 212 for instance) arranged spacedly apart and configured to be secured to a pair of front secure units (springs or bolts for instance) so as to mount to a front portion of said bottom base.
Regarding claims 17-20, Dodge further discloses said central recess is a concave recess having an enlarged rear end opening, an enlarged front end opening and an enlarged center reservoir (see figures; the recess is viewed as shaped as claimed), such that said central recess forms an air flow channel for air ventilation therethrough, wherein a curvature of each of said two buttock support surfaces is configured for matching and conforming to a buttock of a rider of said tipless saddle while sitting on said saddle body (the device would be capable of functioning as claimed).
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) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodge in view of Bailie et al. (US Patent Number 9745010).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Dodge discloses a saddle as explained above but does not disclose details of the front secure unit. Bailie discloses a related device including a rail frame having a front arm integrally extended between two front ends of a pair of rails, wherein said front arm and said two front ends of said pair of rails form a U-shaped front portion of said rail frame (at 182), wherein a front secure unit comprises a securing bracket (176, 178, and/or 258) which one end connected to said bottom base and another end extended across said front arm to form a securing member for detachably connected to said bottom base through a securing element (172 for instance), wherein said securing bracket further has a securing groove formed between said two ends thereof, which is sized and shaped to fittingly receive said front arm therein so as to securely hold and affix said U-shaped front portion of said rail frame in position (this is the general arrangement; see figures). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a rail and secure arrangement as taught by Bailie in Dodge’s saddle because this could improve user comfort and safety.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Dodge discloses a saddle as explained above but does not disclose details of the front secure unit. Bailie discloses a related device including two front ends of a pair of rails are extended frontwardly to from a V-shape front end member (at 182), wherein a front secure unit is integrally provided on a bottom base and has an engaging slot (of 176, 178, and/or 180) facing rearwards to engage with said front end member of a rail frame, wherein said engaging slot is sized and shaped to engage with said front end member so as to securely hold and affix said front end member of said rail frame in position (this is the general arrangement; see figures). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a rail and secure arrangement as taught by Bailie in Dodge’s saddle because this could improve user comfort and safety.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 15-20 of copending Application No. 18/377728 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to provide the components arranged as claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it shows a range of related saddle designs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636