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 § 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 –
Claim(s) 1-4, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 103552220 hereinafter CN’220 listed in IDS translation attached.
Regarding Claim 1 CN ‘220 discloses for producing a fork which has at least one cavity in the interior and which is made of a thermoplastic for a two-wheeled vehicle by means of a plastic injection molding process and a fluid injection process (Figure 2, front fork-11,12, page-2 translated), comprising the following steps:- closing a configured injection molding tool (page-3, translated, water assisted injection moulding tool); - injecting a plasticized plastic melt into the closed injection molding tool via at least one injection point (Figure 3, injection point-20); - injecting at least one fluid into the closed injection molding tool in order to displace the plastic core out of the interior of the fork or in order to fill at least one molding cavity which is introduced into the injection molding tool via at least one injection point (Figure 2, page 2-, step-2, page -3, translated, water injected via needle-30); - cooling the injection molded component (page step-3, translated ); and - opening the injection molding tool and removing the fork (page 2 step-3, translated ).
Regarding Claim 2 CN ‘220 discloses characterized in that the fork is made of at least one reinforced and/or unreinforced thermoplastic polypropylene (page-3, 2nd last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 3 CN’220 discloses , characterized in that wherein the fork is additionally reinforced by means of organosheets arranged in the injection molding tool (page-3, 2nd last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 4 CN’220 discloses at least one overflow cavity is provided in the injection molding tool for cavity formation, into which at least one fluid volume flow of the injected fluid presses the plastic core (Figure 3, page-3, overflow cavities-31,32).
Regarding Claim 19 CN’220 discloses fork made of thermoplastic for a two-wheeled vehicle, characterized in that wherein the fork is produced using the method of claim 1(as discussed in Claim 1)
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103552220 hereinafter CN’220 listed in IDS translation attached in view of Pearson (US 6767487).
Regarding Claim 5 CN’220 discloses producing a fork which has at least one cavity in the interior and which is made of a thermoplastic for a two-wheeled vehicle by means of a plastic injection molding process but didn’t disclose that fluid volume flow of the injected fluid presses the plastic core back into the space in front of the screw of the injection molding machine to form a cavity. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Pearson discloses the component is manufactured by a mass back pressure process, with the at least one fluid displacing the plastic core back through a channel front of the screw of the injection molding machine (Figure 3A-3E, col 8 line 8-14, 26-31).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine thye teaching of CN’220 teaching with that of Pearson for the purpose of that the expelled plastic can be remolded in succeeding shots (Col 8 line 51-54).
Regarding Claim 6 CN’220 discloses producing a fork which has at least one cavity in the interior and which is made of a thermoplastic for a two-wheeled vehicle by means of a plastic injection molding process but didn’t disclose that the cavity arranged in the injection molding tool is partially filled with the plastic melt and the plastic core for cavity formation is displaced by the at least one fluid volume flow of the injected fluid. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Pearson discloses, the cavity arranged in the injection molding tool is partially filled with the plastic melt and the plastic core for cavity formation is displaced by the at least one fluid volume flow of the injected fluid wherein for displacement, the plastic melt is inflated in such a way that it adheres to the wall of the injection molding tool, and wherein the injected fluid ensures the residual filling of the cavity arranged in the injection molding tool (Col 1 line 33-41).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine thye teaching of CN’220 teaching with that of Pearson for the purpose of controlling the volume of the plastic material required during the molding cycle.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over CN 103552220 hereinafter CN’220 listed in IDS translation attached in view of Sakamoto (US 20110210482)
Regarding Claim 7, CN’220 disclose fluid injected to push the plastic in the overflow cavity but didn’t disclose that the fluid injected into the fork pushes a projectile arranged on an injector in front of it. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Sakamoto teaches wherein a projectile (see Figs. 3-4, floating core 5) is additionally inserted that has a cross-section corresponding to the hollow space of the plastic frame (see Figs. 3-4 and showing the floating core creating the cross-section of the hollow frame) and the projectile is driven from the first end of the closed injection molding tool toward the second end (see Figs. 3-4), through the previously injected thermoplastic plastic melt by the injected fluid (see [0030] teaching a fluid moving the floating core) to form a constant inner diameter ([0022] teaches a circular cross section of the hollow space with only a small variation).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the at to combine CN’220 teaching with that of Sakamoto’s teaching for the purpose of flowing the fluid smoothly inside the cavity.
Claim(s) 8-14, 15,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over CN 103552220 hereinafter CN’220 listed in IDS translation attached in view of Wolfsberger (US 20180186049)
Regarding Claim 8 CN’220 discloses a fork shank as a tubular insert attached with the front fork (Figure 3, fork shank-10) but did not disclose that wherein an additional tubular insert to be overmolded is inserted into a region of the injection molding tool. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Wolfsberger discloses additional components/insert to be integrated in the into the injection molding tool individually and are overmolded (Figure 6, suspension-26, Claim 7, [0064], [0065] ).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine thye teaching of CN’220 teaching with that of Wolfsberger for the purpose of good bonding between the fork shank and the molded body.
Regarding Claim 9 CN’220/Wolfsbereger discloses unidirectional tapes and/or organosheets are arranged partially or over a large area on the insert to reinforce the fork shank before the plastic melt is injected ([0054]).
Regarding Claim 10 Wolfsberger discloses that characterized in that wherein the insert is made from the same thermoplastic as the rest of the fork (Claim 12 discloses the insert can be made of polypropylene, Wolfsberger: fork could be made of polypropylene , page 3, translated).
Regarding Claim 11 Wolfsberger discloses specific contours are formed on the inner wall of the insert , as a result of which a material-locking connection with increased strength is produced between the insert and the plastic melt when the plastic melt is injected (Figure annotated, [0065] ).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
797
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Wolfsberger discloses through-flow channel is provided on the underside/underneath of the insert , through which the plastic melt flows into the interior of the insert, wherein the at least one through-flow channel is formed on the longitudinal side of the insert (Figure 3, [0065], as disclosed the suspension-26 is filled with another material therefore it would be obvious to interpret that there is a designed pathway for the molten plastic to flow into the insert's interior or into undercuts, enhancing the mechanical locking of the insert for improved mechanical bonding).
Regarding Claim 13, CN’220/Wolfsberger discloses additional components/insert to be integrated in the into the injection molding tool individually and are overmolded (Figure 6, suspension-26, Claim 7, [0064], [0065], Wolfsberger ). However, the claim limitation discloses that the positional aids are optional limitation.
Regarding Claim 14 CN’220 discloses producing a fork which has at least one cavity in the interior and which is made of a thermoplastic for a two-wheeled vehicle but did not disclose that wherein at least one metallic component to be integrated and/or one non- metallic component, is inserted individually or in groups into the cavity of the injection molding tool and back-molded and/or overmolded with the plastic melt. Wolfsberger discloses a similar method of injection molding hollow components (title/abstract) which includes additional metallic components to be integrated in the component such as components of aluminum and/or steel and/or non-metallic components and are back-molded and/or overmolded with the plastic melt ([0018]], [[0019], [0053], [0054], claim 8-9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of CN’220 to include the additional components of Wolfsberger, in order to form specific reinforcement and/or overmolded elements to be integrated into the component as desired (Wolfsberger [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding Claim 15 Wolfsberger discloses , a brake mount, integrated in the component ([0018], claim 19).
Regarding Claim 20, CN’220 discloses that , fork made of thermoplastic for a two-wheeled vehicle, but didn’t disclose that one interface for electronic signal transmission corresponding to a bicycle frame is provided on the fork. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Wolfsberger discloses one interface is an electronic interface for signal transmission ([0018]-[0019]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine CN’220 with that of the teaching of Wolfsberger teaching of the electronic signal for the purpose of switching electronic signals like light on and off ([0019], Wolfsberger).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over CN 103552220 hereinafter CN’220 listed in IDS translation attached in view of CN 203581271 hereinafter CN’271 translation attached listed in IDS
Regarding Claim 16 CN’220 discloses fork made of thermoplastic for a two-wheeled vehicle, but did not disclose that fork (Figure 11, 14, fork/support-12 of the body frame-10 where the wheel-13 is mounted on two interfaces, page -3 translated).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine CN’220 teaching with that of the CN’271 teaching as this vehicle frame is to improve the safety of toddler riding (abstract, CN’271)
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over CN 103552220 hereinafter CN’220 listed in IDS translation attached in view of Darland (US 20020020249)
Regarding claim 17, CN’220 discloses for producing a fork which is which is made of a thermoplastic for bicyle but did not disclose that suggests elevated and/or depressed pockets are integrated in the component to hold elements such as light guides. In the related filed of endeavor pertaining to the art, Darland suggests elevated and/or depressed pockets are integrated in the component to hold elements such as light guides, headlamps, indicators, and/or comparable elements ([0099], [0141], [0152]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine CN’220 teaching with that of the light guides as integrated component taught by Darland’s for the purpose of the functional illumination in the bicycle.
Regarding claim 18, CN’220 discloses for producing a fork which is which is made of a thermoplastic for bicyle but did not disclose that the fork
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine CN’220 teaching with that of Darland’s teaching of the attachment of the handlebar stem for the purpose of with a greater hand grip adjustment in the range of motion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights