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 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al (US 6070895 A) in view of Mackenroth (US 20100187870 A1).
For claim 1, Newman discloses a shock-absorbing seat post structure comprising:
a shock-absorbing seat post 22 (1) having one of two ends thereof connected to a seat rod 20 (11), another one of the two ends forming a seat tube bottom end 30 of tube 22 (12).
Newman teaches that the “seat post” (from the claim language) is connected to a bike frame seat post (called seat post SP in Newman, Fig. 4) via a second connecting means which “preferably consists of two forwardly directed arms 42 (only one shown) extending from the front of the upper portion 41 of the lower guide member 22 and spaced and angled to fit the standard bicycle seat mounting (not shown) on the top of the seat post SP”. The particulars of the connecting members and how they fit to the top of the seat post are not shown.
However, Mackenroth teaches two clamping portions Fig. 7: clamping portions shown at left (13) extending from the seat tube (12), each of the two clamping portions (13) having an inwardly facing groove (131) that recesses away from each other each clamp side has a semi-circular groove which forms the circular mounting channel, the grooves (131) of the two clamping portions (13) having an insertion opening (137) at one of two ends thereof at bottom, a stop portion (132) formed at another one of the two ends of the grooves the top surface (the rim around the top edge of the circular mounting channel) is considered a stop portion as it may signify the level at which the tube being inserted should stop (Fig. 8 shows seat post 4 inserted up to the stop portion) (131), each clamping portion (13) including at least one locking hole Fig. 7 (133).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Newman by forming the “second connecting means” of Newman as a clamp as disclosed by Mackenroth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a removable, secure mount to connect the device to the bike seat post.
As modified, Newman therefore teaches that the two clamping portions extend from the seat tube and that the grooves of the two clamping portions form the mounting channel with an angle (θ) relative to the seat tube Newman, Fig. 4.
Newman does not state what the angle of the mounting channel is relative to the seat tube and only mentions possible angles relative to vertical. Newman does teach that the angle is adjustable with pivot 48 (typo in spec as 49) and states that the “desired angle of operation depends on many variables such as the location of the seat; the weight, distribution, and geometry of the bicycle and cyclist”, etc. (Col 4, lines 40-42), and “it may be preferable to have a steeper angle for road racing type bicycles and a lesser angle for off road type bicycles” (Col 5, lines 6-8).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the angle less than 45 degrees based upon factors such as bike geometry, riding conditions, etc. in order to provide a smooth riding experience without signification energy losses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 2, Newman as modified discloses the shock-absorbing seat post structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein each clamping portion (13) has two locking holes (133) arranged linearly Fig. 7: two holes shown, each clamping portion (13) has a concave groove (134) which is located away from the seat tube (12) concave groove shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
293
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 3, Newman as modified discloses the shock-absorbing seat post structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein each clamping portion (13) has a raised portion (135) formed to an outer side thereof and located corresponding to the groove (131) corresponding thereto shown above.
For claim 4, Newman as modified discloses the shock-absorbing seat post structure as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose that the angle (θ) is between 14 degrees to 18 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the adjustable angle between 14-18 degrees based upon factors such as bike geometry, riding conditions, etc. in order to provide a smooth riding experience without signification energy losses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman in view of Mackenroth, further in view of Bosch (US 0975827 A).
For claim 5, Newman discloses a shock-absorbing seat post structure comprising:
shock-absorbing seat post 22 (1) having one of two ends thereof connected to a seat rod 20 (11), another one of the two ends forming a seat tube bottom end 30 of tube 22 (12).
Newman teaches that the “seat post” (from the claim language) is connected to a bike frame seat post (called seat post SP in Newman, Fig. 4) via a second connecting means which “preferably consists of two forwardly directed arms 42 (only one shown) extending from the front of the upper portion 41 of the lower guide member 22 and spaced and angled to fit the standard bicycle seat mounting (not shown) on the top of the seat post SP”. The particulars of the connecting members and how they fit to the top of the seat post are not shown.
However, Mackenroth teaches two clamping portions Fig. 7: clamping portions shown at left (13) extending from the seat tube (12), each of the two clamping portions (13) having an inwardly facing groove (131) that recesses away from each other each clamp side has a semi-circular groove which forms the circular mounting channel, the grooves (131) of the two clamping portions (13) having an insertion opening (137) at one of two ends thereof at bottom, a stop portion (132) formed at another one of the two ends of the grooves the top surface (the rim around the top edge of the circular mounting channel) is considered a stop portion as it may signify the level at which the tube being inserted should stop (Fig. 8 shows seat post 4 inserted up to the stop portion) (131), each clamping portion (13) including at least one locking hole Fig. 7 (133).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Newman by forming the “second connecting means” of Newman as a clamp as disclosed by Mackenroth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a removable, secure mount to connect the device to the bike seat post.
As modified, Newman therefore teaches that the two clamping portions extend from the seat tube, the two clamping portions (13) clamped to a bicycle frame Newman, Fig. 4 (2), a portion of the bicycle frame (2) located within the mounting channel as modified (136), the bicycle frame (2) defining a horizontal line (L1) Fig. 4.
Newman does not state what the angle of the mounting channel is relative to a horizontal line of the bicycle frame nor what the angle of the mounting channel is relative to the seat tube.
Newman does teach that it may be preferable to have the angle be within a range “alpha” from 10-40 degree off vertical as this may be “better able to isolate the torso of the cyclist from these shock forces” (Col 4, lines 51-52) but provides for the angle to be adjusted via the pivot 48 to account for many other variables that could affect the desired angle. Newman states that the “desired angle of operation depends on many variables such as the location of the seat; the weight, distribution, and geometry of the bicycle and cyclist”, etc. (Col 4, lines 40-42), and “it may be preferable to have a steeper angle for road racing type bicycles and a lesser angle for off road type bicycles” (Col 5, lines 6-8).
Additionally, Bosch teaches that it is known to orient a shock absorber of a bike seat at a vertical orientation Fig. 1; Col 1, lines 46-47: “to act as guides in the vertical vibration of the saddle”.
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the angle to be 90 relative to the horizontal line of the bike frame as taught by Bosch to account for factors such as bike geometry, riding conditions, etc. in order to provide a smooth riding experience without signification energy losses, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the angle of the channel relative to the seat tube is dependent on the configuration of the bike that it is installed on, and orienting the channel to be vertical as above would likely make that angle be less than 45 degrees.
Still, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the angle less than 45 degrees based upon factors such as bike geometry, riding conditions, etc. in order to provide a smooth riding experience without signification energy losses and in order to set the angle of the channel at a vertical orientation as above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 6, Newman as modified discloses the shock-absorbing seat post structure as claimed in claim 5, wherein each clamping portion (13) has two locking holes (133) arranged linearly Fig. 7: two holes shown, each clamping portion (13) has a concave groove (134) which is located away from the seat tube (12) shown above.
For claim 7, Newman as modified discloses the shock-absorbing seat post structure as claimed in claim 5, wherein each clamping portion (13) has a raised portion (135) formed to an outer side thereof and located corresponding to the groove (131) corresponding thereto shown above.
For claim 8, Newman as modified discloses the shock-absorbing seat post structure as claimed in claim 5, but fails to disclose that the angle (θ) is between 14 degrees to 18 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the adjustable angle between 14-18 degrees based upon factors such as bike geometry, riding conditions, etc. in order to use the device on a bike that has a seat tube at that angle while setting the channel at a vertical orientation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, JOSHUA J MICHENER can be reached at (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 9/26/2025