DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 18/667,364 filed 5/17/2024 and claims priority to US Provisional Application No 63/503,016 filed on May 18, 2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In the instant case, the following implied phrase should be deleted: “An apparatus, such as a seat post for an exercise bicycle, is described.”
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.
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 1-7, 9-15, 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg (US 2005/0202938)(hereinafter Goldberg) in view of Machida et al (US 2013/0072356 A1)(hereinafter Machida).
RE Claim 1: Goldberg discloses a seat post for an exercise bicycle (Figs 1-2), the seat post comprising:
a vertical support post (5);
a horizontal support post (labeled in annotated Fig 1); and
an elbow connector (12 in Fig 1, formed by upper and lower extension as seen in annotated Fig 1), wherein the elbow connector includes:
a lower extension (annotated Fig 1), disposed within an opening of the vertical support post (5 receives lower extension); and
an upper extension (annotated Fig 1).
Goldberg does not explicitly teach the upper extension is disposed within an opening of the horizontal support post.
However, Machida teaches a bicycle seat support post (analogous art) comprising an upper extension (46), a horizontal support post (48) and further teaches the upper extension (46) is disposed within an opening of the horizontal support post (40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg in view of Machida such that the upper extension (46) is disposed within an internal cavity of the horizontal support post (40) as taught by Machida for the advantages of adjustment of the saddle relative to the support (para 0028).
Please note, as currently drafted, neither of the lengths or widths claimed are the entire length or width. The claim merely requires “a length” and “ a width.”
RE the limitation: “the lower extension… having a length that is at least two thirds a width…”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg such that the lower extension has a length that is at least two thirds a width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This would be done for the advantages of structural stability.
RE the limitation: “the upper extension… having a length that is at least two thirds a width…”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg such that the upper extension has a length that is at least two thirds a width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This would be done for the advantages of structural stability.
PNG
media_image1.png
465
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 1. Reproduced and Annotated
RE Claim 9: Goldberg discloses an exercise bicycle (Figs 1-2), comprising:
a frame (Fig 1-2);
a seat (20, para 0025); and
a seat post (vertical extension coupled directly to 20) that supports the seat and is coupled to the frame (Fig 1),
wherein the seat post includes:
a vertical support post (5, also annotated Fig 1);
a horizontal support post (annotated Fig 1); and
an elbow connector (12, upper and lower extension labeled in annotated Fig 1), wherein the elbow connector includes:
a lower extension (annotated Fig 1), disposed within an opening of the vertical support post (lower extension within 5); and
an upper extension (annotated Fig 1).
Goldberg does not explicitly teach the upper extension is disposed within an opening of the horizontal support post.
However, Machida teaches a bicycle seat support post (analogous art) comprising an upper extension (46), a horizontal support post (48) and further teaches the upper extension (46) is disposed within an opening of the horizontal support post (40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg in view of Machida such that the upper extension (46) is disposed within an internal cavity of the horizontal support post (40) as taught by Machida for the advantages of adjustment of the saddle relative to the support (para 0028).
Please note, as currently drafted, neither of the lengths or widths claimed are the entire length or width. The claim merely requires “a length” and “ a width.”
RE the limitation: “the lower extension… having a length that is at least two thirds a width…”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg such that the lower extension has a length that is at least two thirds a width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This would be done for the advantages of structural stability.
RE the limitation: “the upper extension… having a length that is at least two thirds a width…”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg such that the upper extension has a length that is at least two thirds a width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This would be done for the advantages of structural stability.
RE Claim 17: Goldberg discloses seat post (Fig 1), comprising:
a first post (upper extension, annotated Fig 1) configured to support a saddle (20);
a second post (vertical support, annotated Fig 1) configured to position the saddle above an exercise bicycle (Fig 1); and
a connector (12) that couples the first post to the second post, wherein the connector includes a first extension (horizontal support, annotated Fig 1) that is disposed within the first post (annotated Fig 1) and a second extension (lower extension, annotated Fig 1) that is disposed within the second post (Fig 1).
Please note, as currently drafted, neither of the lengths or widths claimed are the entire length or width. The claim merely requires “a length” and “ a width.”
RE the following limitation: “wherein the first extension and the second extension have a length to width ratio that is 2:3 or greater.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg such that the first extension and the second extension have a length to width ratio that is 2:3 or greater since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This would be done for the advantages of structural stability.
RE Claim 2 (and 10): Goldberg as modified discloses the seat post of claim 1 (and 9) as previously discussed.
Goldberg further discloses wherein the lower extension (annotated Fig 1) is disposed within an internal cavity of the vertical support post (annotated Fig 1).
Goldberg does not explicitly teach the upper extension is disposed within an internal cavity of the horizontal support post.
However, Machida teaches a bicycle seat support post (analogous art) comprising an upper extension (46), a horizontal support post (48) and further teaches the upper extension (46) is disposed within an internal cavity of the horizontal support post (40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg in view of Machida such that the upper extension (46) is disposed within an internal cavity of the horizontal support post (40) as taught by Machida for the advantages of adjustment of the saddle relative to the support (para 0028).
RE Claim 3 (and 11): Goldberg as modified discloses the seat post of claim 1 (and 9).
Goldberg does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the upper extension is greater than the length of the lower extension.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg such that the length of the upper extension is greater than the length of the lower extension, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This would be done for the advantages of structural stability.
RE Claim 4 (and 12): Goldberg as modified discloses the seat post of claim 1 (and 9).
Goldberg does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the lower extension is greater than the length of the upper extension.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg such that wherein the length of the lower extension is greater than the length of the upper extension, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This would be done for the advantages of structural stability.
RE Claim 5 (and 13): Goldberg as modified discloses the seat post of claim 1 (and 9).
Goldberg does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the upper extension is equal to the length of the lower extension.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg such that wherein the length of the upper extension is equal to the length of the lower extension, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This would be done for the advantages of structural stability.
RE Claim 6 (and 14): Goldberg as modified discloses the seat post of claim 1 (and 9).
Goldberg does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the lower extension or the length of the upper extension is equal to the width of the elbow connector.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg such that wherein the length of the lower extension or the length of the upper extension is equal to the width of the elbow connector, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This would be done for the advantages of structural stability.
RE Claim 7 (and 15): Goldberg as modified discloses the seat post of claim 1 (and 9).
Goldberg does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the lower extension or the length of the upper extension is between two thirds of the width of the elbow connector and equal to the width of the elbow connector.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg such that wherein the length of the lower extension or the length of the upper extension is between two thirds of the width of the elbow connector and equal to the width of the elbow connector, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This would be done for the advantages of structural stability.
RE Claim 18: Goldberg discloses the seat post of claim 17.
Goldberg does not explicitly teach wherein the length to width ratio of the first extension is different than the length to width ratio of the second extension.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg such that the length to width ratio of the first extension is different than the length to width ratio of the second extension, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This would be done for the advantages of structural stability.
RE Claim 19: Goldberg discloses the seat post of claim 17.
Goldberg does not explicitly teach wherein the length to width ratio of the first extension is different than the length to width ratio of the second extension.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg such that a length of the first extension is greater than a length of the second extension, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This would be done for the advantages of structural stability.
RE Claim 20: Goldberg discloses the seat post of claim 17.
Goldberg does not explicitly teach wherein the length to width ratio of the first extension is different than the length to width ratio of the second extension.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goldberg such that a length of the second extension is greater than a length of the first extension, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This would be done for the advantages of structural stability.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg in view of Machida, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Baker (US 7,226,393 B2)(hereinafter Baker).
RE Claim 8 (and 16): Goldberg as modified discloses he seat post of claim 1 (and 9).
Goldberg does not explicitly teach wherein the vertical seat post is welded to the lower extension of the elbow connector.
However, Baker teaches a bicycle seat post with a connector (analogous art) and further teaches welding of joints (col 5, ln 35-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Goldberg in view of Baker such that the vertical seat post is welded to the lower extension of the elbow connector as taught by Baker for the advantages of secure connection and durability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various bicycle seat assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644