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 Amendment
The amendment filed June 17th, 2026 has been entered. Amended claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-14, 16-20, and new claim 21 is pending in the application.
The amendment to independent Claim 1 incorporates all limitations from canceled dependent Claim 5, which was indicated in the Office Action dated May 12th, 2026 as containing allowable subject matter. Therefore, the amendment is sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1)/103 rejections of Claim 1, and the related rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment to independent Claim 11 incorporates all limitations from canceled dependent Claims 12 and 15, which was indicated in the May 12th, 2026 Office Action as containing allowable subject matter. Therefore, the amendment is sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claim 11, and the related rejection has been withdrawn.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over US Pub. 2018/0339744 A1 to McFarland in view of US Pub. 2019/0210677 A1 to O’Reilly.
Regarding Claim 20, McFarland teaches a foot rest of a balance bicycle, comprising:
a body (square spindle A1, Diagram 1 below) having a flat upper surface (surface A2, Diagram 1), a lower tab (“bracket mount plate” 208, Diagram 1/Fig. 4B);
a crank bolt (A3, Diagram 1) extending through the body to engage a spindle (A1) of a bottom bracket (206) of the bicycle ([0009]); and
a threaded fastener (“bolt” 212, Fig. 4A) extending through an aperture (210) of the tab (208);
wherein the foot rest covers one end of the bottom bracket (as viewed coaxially from one end, Diagram 1) and is mounted to the bicycle in a fixed orientation (when the element is fixed radially and axially, its orientation is always horizontal, for example).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diagram 1 – Annotated inset of McFarland - Fig. 4B
McFarland does not teach an explicit central aperture extending through the body from an inner side to an outer side.
In the same field of endeavor of bicycle bottom bracket covers, O’Reilly teaches a two-sided symmetrical rounded cover (62 and 64, Fig. 7, [0051]) for a bottom bracket (10, Fig. 7) including a central aperture (76 and 86, respectively, Figs. 8-9, [0058]) extending through a body (O’Reilly -– 65, 68, 74, which is associated with 62, and 90, which is associated with 64, Fig. 8-9; analogous to McFarland – A1, Diagram 1) of the cover from an inner side (O’Reilly – right side of 62, Fig. 8; analogous to McFarland – inner side of length 406, Fig. 4A, [0112]) to an outer side (O’Reilly – left side of 62, Fig. 8; analogous to McFarland – outer side of length 406).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the foot rest, bottom bracket body with tab, crank bolt, and threaded fastener of McFarland with the central aperture of O’Reilly, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that a through hole for accepting a fastener (in O’Reilly, including a countersunk flat head 78 and hex recess 79) is necessary for attaching the pedal spindle to the bottom bracket, and provides a beneficially flat face and easy removal with a standard hex key (O’Reilly – [0058]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-14, 16-19, and 21 are allowed. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Newly added independent Claim 21, as a whole incorporation of Claim 9 into Claim 1 written in independent form, is allowable over the prior art for the same reasons as Claim 9, as indicated in the previous May 12th, 2026 Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, present on Page 7 of Remarks, with respect to Claim 20, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Claim 20, Applicant asserts that the subject matter added to the claim includes allowable limitations of Claim 9, therefore rendering the claim allowable. Examiner disagrees, noting that the specific verbatim limitation, “…a central aperture extending through a/the body of the cover from an inner side to an outer side…”, is included from (now canceled) Claim 12, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by O’Reilly in the previous May 12th, 2026 Office Action, and not contended by the Applicant. Indeed, it appears that no limitations from Claim 9 appear in amended Claim 20, unless Applicant intends to equate the “crank bolt” of Claim 20 with the “first fastener” of Claim 9 (with antecedent basis present in different independent Claim 1), which has not been positively recited or supported.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 Eastern.
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.
/Mitchell James Price/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights