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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 drawn to an apparatus for changing modes of a bicycle component by widening a flow duct of a valve in the reply filed on 5/26/26 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of claim 10 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
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 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 11-15 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 11, the phrase “the drive member and the driving tooth” renders the claim indefinite because both terms lacks antecedent basis and any spatial connection with the claimed bicycle device.
Further, regarding claim 11, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “the operating member is moved from the rest position to the actuating position for shifting the operating mode” renders the claim indefinite because the underlined terms lack antecedent basis and any spatial connection with the claimed bicycle device.
Regarding claim 15, the terms the operating member, the rest position, and the first actuating position render the claim indefinite because the terms lack antecedent basis and any spatial connection with the claimed bicycle device.
Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(b).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP S593037 U to Nakayama.
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama discloses a bicycle device with a bicycle component (1) with two adjustable, different operating modes and an adjusting member (17,18,21) accommodated in the bicycle component (1) for setting the operating modes (Figs. 1-3 & p. 7 ¶2 – p. 8 ¶3 discloses rotating dial 26 between the four depicted positions adjusts the damping force of the suspension),
wherein the adjusting member (17,18,21) comprises a valve, which opens a flow duct (18a) in a first position wider than in a second position (Figs. 1-3 & p. 6 ¶ 3 and p. 7 ¶2 – p. 8 ¶3 discloses that by rotating knob 26 the plate 18 is rotated and changes the width of the oil passage between four sizes varying from narrowest to widest.); and
the adjusting member (17,18,21) comprises a rotary adjusting mechanism (17.18.21), which includes different adjusting positions for the different operating modes, so that further rotation is possible from a first operating mode to a second operating mode in one direction of rotation, and from the second operating mode to the first operating mode, in the same direction of rotation (Figs. 1-3 & p. 7 ¶2 – p. 8 ¶3 discloses four positions for four different dampening modes where they are adjusted by rotating dial 26 and thereby the rotary adjusting mechanism components 17,18,21).
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Nakayama further discloses wherein the bicycle component (1) comprises at least one unit from a group of units including a spring unit and a damper unit (Fig. 1 & p. 9 ¶ 1 discloses the component is a damper. Fig. 1 & p. 6 ¶ 3 discloses the component includes a spring 14 and thus is further interpreted as including a spring unit).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 2, Nakayama further discloses wherein the valve of the adjusting member sets the damper unit to softer damping in one position, and to harder damping, in another position (Figs. 1-3 & p. 7 ¶2 – p. 8 ¶3 noting that lower/higher damping force is interpreted to be harder/softer).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 1, Nakayama further discloses wherein the adjusting mechanism (17.18.21) and the valve share one rotation axis, wherein the adjusting mechanism engages (17.18.21) into a plurality of angular positions (Figs. 1-3 & p. 6 ¶ 3 and p. 7 ¶2 – p. 8 ¶3 disclose valve 12 and the components of the adjusting mechanism angularly adjust into one of four positions to allow different flow rates through the orifices ).
As best can be understood, regarding claim 14, depending on claim 1, Nakamura further discloses wherein the operating member (26) is moved from the rest position to the actuating position for shifting the operating mode (Figs. 1-3 & p. 7 ¶2 – p. 8 ¶3 disclose moving the dial 26 between a first position, i.e., a rest position, and another position, e.g., position 2, i.e., the actuation position, which shafts the operating mode by changing the damping characteristics by restricting/expanding flow through the orifice), and wherein repeated actuation of the operating member (26) from the rest position to the actuating position of the bicycle component causes the successive setting of alternating different operating modes (Figs. 1-3 & p. 7 ¶2 – p. 8 ¶3 disclose each time the dial is rotated from one position, at rest, to the next actuated position, the operation mode, i.e., damping characteristic changes.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama in view of US 2008/0116622 A1 to Fox.
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Nakayama does not appear to further disclose wherein a rotary motion of the adjusting mechanism is impeded in at least one direction of rotation by a fixing device, and wherein the fixing device comprises a fixing part, which is biased into a fixing position by a biasing force.
Fox teaches that it was old and well known in the art of suspension adjustment, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a rotary motion of the adjusting mechanism (67) is impeded in at least one direction of rotation by a fixing device (196), and wherein the fixing device (196) comprises a fixing part (202), which is biased into a fixing position by a biasing force (Fig. 4B & [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of suspension adjustment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension adjustment system disclosed by Nakayama to incorporate for a rotary motion of the adjusting mechanism is impeded in at least one direction of rotation by a fixing device, and wherein the fixing device comprises a fixing part, which is biased into a fixing position by a biasing force as taught by Fox in order to provide positive tactile feedback to the user of each available position, e.g., see Fox [0089], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 1, Nakayama does not appear to further disclose wherein the adjusting mechanism returns a signal as a feedback, as another operating mode is reached.
Fox teaches that it was old and well known in the art of suspension adjustment, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the adjusting mechanism (67) returns a signal as a feedback, as another operating mode is reached (Fig. 4B & [0089] discloses the ball springing into the detent provides positive, i.e., signal, feedback to the user.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of suspension adjustment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension adjustment system disclosed by Nakayama to incorporate for the adjusting mechanism returns a signal as a feedback, as another operating mode is reached as taught by Fox in order to provide positive tactile feedback to the user of each available position, e.g., see Fox [0089], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 11 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama in view of DE10252557A1 to Denk.
PNG
media_image1.png
267
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 1, Nakayama further discloses a handlebar and a control unit (A) with a supporting component (B) (Annotated Fig. 1 & p. 7 ¶ 3 disclose a handlebar is included and the dial 26), and an operating member (26) movable between a rest position and at least one actuating position (Figs. 1-3 & p. 7 ¶2 – p. 8 ¶3 disclose moving the dial 26 between a first position, i.e., a rest position, and another position, e.g., position 2, i.e., the actuation position), … wherein the operating member (26) is connected with the adjusting mechanism (17.18.21) via at least one mechanical connection member such as a control cable (23) or a hydraulic line (Figs. 1 and 3 & p.7 ¶ 3), wherein the connection member (23) is coupled with the drive member (24) and the driving tooth (25) (Figs. 1 and 3 & p.7 ¶ 3).
Although Nakayama discloses that the control unit (A) is mounted *near* the handlebar it is unclear if the control unit is actually mounted to the handlebar or not. Therefore, Nakayama does not explicitly disclose that the control unit (A) is mounted to the handlebar.
Denk teaches that it was old and well known in the art of suspension adjustment devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the control unit (8) to be mounted to the handlebar (4) (Fig. 2 & [0029]-[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of suspension adjustment devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension adjustment device disclosed by Nakayama to incorporate the control unit is mounted to the handlebar as taught by Denk in order to provide suspension adjustment control in a convenient location to the normal riding position, e.g., see Fig. 2 & [0005] and [0029]-[0030], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 11, the modified combination of Nakayama/Denk further discloses wherein the handlebar (Denk – 4) is configured largely straight (4) or curved as a racing handlebar, and allows operation from at least two different gripping positions (Denk Fig. 2 depicts a straight handlebar that could be gripped from any variety of positions, e.g., via a standard grip where hand generally covers the grip 11 and alternatively where the hand generally covers the brake 9 and other controllers 8,10. Examiner notes that the underlined clause is considered to be intended use as it is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and although fully considered – is not understood to affect the scope of the claim because recitations of intended use of the claimed invention do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. See MPEP 2114.).
It would have been obvious to have modified Nakayama in view of the teachings of Denk for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 11 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13, depending on claim 11, the modified combination of Nakayama/Denk further discloses claim 11, comprising a suspension fork and/or a rear wheel damper (Nakayama - 1) as a bicycle component (Nakayama - 1), wherein the adjusting member (Nakayama – 17, 18, 21) is accommodated on the bicycle component (Nakayama - 1), and wherein the control unit (Nakayama - A) can be disposed on the handlebar (Denk – 4) of a bicycle (Denk – 1).
It would have been obvious to have modified Nakayama in view of the teachings of Denk for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 11 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8-10 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 15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights