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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
In the information disclosure statement filed 13 June 2024, NPL doc. #1 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
In this case, the copy provided by Applicant is not legible and the details therein are indecipherable.
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered, unless cited by the examiner on form PTO-892.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following informalities:
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 following element(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) (No new matter should be entered):
The “liner” of claims 5 and 6
The arrangement of claim 10, in which the “seatpost is axially displaceable through a dropper seatpost collar”. Examiner notes that Figs. 4 and 5 do show both a “seatpost 6” and a “dropper seatpost collar 12”; however, in these Figs. the collar 12 is shown as a single, integral part of the seatpost 6 (note the continuous cross-hatching), rather than as two separate components with one axially displaceable through the other.
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 1-10 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.
Re Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lower region" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, for this Office Action only, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as –a lower region--.
Clarification and correction are required.
Re Claims 2-10: These claims are considered indefinite because of their dependency from indefinite claim 1.
Examiner notes that any prior art rejections made in this Office Action are made in view of the claims, as best understood by the Examiner, in view of the above indefiniteness rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL 1 ("Dropper post accessory attachment collar" by 5ppppp, 04 February 2020; webpage <https://thingiverse.com/thing:4143338>1).
Re Claim 1: NPL 1 discloses a collar attachment (see “collar” in annotated Fig. 1 below) for supporting an accessory (see the accessory strapped to the collar in Figs. 3 and 5) on a bicycle seatpost (see below), the collar attachment having a first internal bore (see “1st bore” in annotated Fig. 2 below) for receiving the seatpost, and a second internal bore (see “2nd bore” in annotated Fig. 2 below), of larger diameter than the first internal bore, situated below the first internal bore with respect to the orientation of the seatpost in normal use, the collar attachment being provided with a front strap-retaining lip (see “1st lip” in annotated Fig. 4 below) situated at a lower region of the collar attachment and with a rear supporting lip (see “2nd lip” in annotated Fig. 4 below) situated at the lower region of the collar attachment opposite the front strap-retaining lip, the rear supporting lip being disposed at a lower level than the front strap-retaining lip (note the vertical level of each lip, as shown in dashed lines in annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
461
775
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
445
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2: NPL 1 discloses a collar attachment, in which in which the first and second internal bores (see annotated Fig. 2 above) are coaxial (along a longitudinal axis of the seatpost and the collar).
Re Claim 3: NPL 1 discloses a collar attachment, which comprises two parts which are secured together by fasteners (note the fastener shown in annotated Fig. 1 above and the fastener holes shown in annotated Fig. 2 above).
Re Claim 7: NPL 1 discloses a collar attachment which is fitted to a bicycle seatpost (see “seatpost” in annotated Fig. 1 above), the first internal bore being a close fit on the seatpost (see Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL 1, as applied to claims 1-3 and 7 above, and further in view of McKenzie (US Patent 10,266,222).
Re Claim 4: NPL 1 discloses a collar attachment significantly as claimed except wherein the collar attachment comprises two parts interconnected by a living hinge.
McKenzie teaches the use of a collar attachment (7) for supporting an accessory (4) on a bicycle seatpost (2), and further wherein the collar attachment comprises two parts (see “arms” in annotated Fig. 3 below) interconnected by a living hinge (at the base end of bracket 7, connecting the arms; see annotated Fig. 3 below), for the purpose of easily attaching the collar attachment to the seatpost (2).
PNG
media_image4.png
386
1028
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 NPL 1, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the collar attachment comprises two parts interconnected by a living hinge, as taught by McKenzie, for the purpose of easily attaching the collar attachment to the seatpost.
Re Claim 8: NPL 1 discloses a bicycle provided with a collar attachment in accordance with claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), in which an accessory (see Figs 3 and 5) is mounted on the bicycle, the accessory being connected to the seatpost by the collar attachment.
NPL 1 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the accessory is a saddlebag.
McKenzie teaches the use of a collar attachment (7) for supporting an accessory (4) on a bicycle seatpost (2), and further wherein the accessory is a saddlebag (4), for the purpose of carrying equipment on the bicycle.
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 NPL 1, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the accessory is a saddlebag, as taught by McKenzie, for the purpose of carrying equipment on the bicycle.
Re Claim 9: NPL 1 further discloses a bicycle, in which the seatpost is a dropper seatpost (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Re Claim 10: NPL 1 further discloses a bicycle, in which the seatpost is axially displaceable through a dropper seatpost collar (see annotated Figs. 2 and 4 above) fitted to the top of a seat tube (see annotated Fig. 4 above) of the bicycle, the diameter of the second internal bore being sufficiently large to accommodate the dropper seatpost collar (see Fig .2).
Re Claim 11: NPL 1 further discloses a bicycle, in which the seatpost is in a lowered condition (See Figs. 2 and 3), and in which the second internal bore accommodates the dropper seatpost collar through which the seatpost extends (see Fig. 2).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL 1, as applied to claims 1-3 and 7 above, and further in view of Lien (US Patent 7,225,956).
Re Claim 5: NPL 1 discloses a collar attachment significantly as claimed except wherein a liner of resilient material is provided on the first internal bore.
Lien teaches the use of a collar attachment (93) for supporting an accessory (7) on a bicycle seatpost (82), the collar accessory comprising a bore (at the inner surface of frame 93) for receiving the seatpost, and further wherein a liner (6) of resilient material is provided on the first internal bore, for the purpose of cushioning the seatpost.
PNG
media_image5.png
409
842
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 NPL 1, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that a liner of resilient material is provided on the first internal bore, as taught by Lien, for the purpose of cushioning the seatpost.
Re Claim 6: NPL 1, as modified above in view of Lien, discloses a collar attachment significantly as claimed. Neither NPL 1 nor Lien explicitly disclose wherein the liner comprises thermoplastic polyurethane.
Examiner notes that it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) [discussed in MPEP 2144.07].
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 NPL 1, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the liner comprises thermoplastic polyurethane, for the purpose of achieving a desired cushioning and gripping effect, and since such a modification would amount to a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MCMAHON whose telephone number is (571)270-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571) 270-5281. 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.
/MATTHEW R MCMAHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
1 Examiner notes that this NPL document was cited by Applicant with the IDS filed 13 June 2024; however, since the document supplied by Applicant was illegible, it has been re-cited by the Examiner in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited and a copy is attached herewith