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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Ishiguro (JP-2021081048).
Regarding claim 1, teaches a front fork (Paragraphs 10 and 16) comprising:
an upper tube 4 (Paragraph 10);
a lower tube 1 that is relatively movable in an axial direction with respect to the upper tube 4 (Paragraphs 10-11); and
an axle bracket 2 screwed to an outer periphery of a lower end portion 1a of the lower tube 1 (Paragraphs 15-16, Fig. 2),
wherein the lower tube 1 has a screw thread 1b formed on an outer periphery of a diameter-reduced portion at the lower end portion 1a of the lower tube 1, and the axle bracket 2 is screwed to the screw thread 1b (Paragraphs 11, 15, and 29; see annotated Fig. 2 below).
Applicant's claim of a “diameter-reduced portion that is reduced in diameter by plastic deformation by rolling” is a product-by-process claim. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself, and not dependent upon the method of production. See MPEP 2113. The product of Applicant’s product-by-process claim is the same as or an obvious variant of the process in Ishiguro.
Regarding claim 2, Ishiguro teaches wherein an outer diameter of the screw thread 1b in the lower tube 1 is equal to or smaller than an outer diameter of a portion above the diameter-reduced portion in the lower tube 1 (See annotated Fig. 2 below).
Regarding claim 3, Ishiguro teaches wherein the axle bracket 2 has a cylindrical portion 21 into which the lower end portion 1a of the lower tube 1 is inserted (Paragraph 29, Fig. 2), and the cylindrical portion 21 covers from a lower end of the lower tube 1 to a position exceeding the diameter-reduced portion (Paragraph 17, Fig. 2; the portion 21c of the cylindrical portion 21 exceeds the diameter-reduced portion.
Regarding claim 5, Ishiguro teaches the front fork further comprising:
a seal case S sandwiched between a lower end 1a of the lower tube 1 and the axle bracket 2 fitted to an inner periphery of the diameter-reduced portion, and fixed to the axle bracket 2 (Paragraphs 19-20, Figs. 1-3); and
a seal ring 6 provided on an outer periphery of the seal case S and brought into close contact with the inner periphery of the diameter-reduced portion of the lower tube 1 (Paragraphs 20-23, Figs. 2-3; seal portion 6 is hollow and lines the inner wall of cylindrical member 21, giving it a ring-shape; annular sealing lips 6a and 6b are part of the seal ring and come into close contact with the diameter-reduced portion).
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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiguro in view of Kagami (JP 2011085212).
Regarding claim 4, Ishiguro does not teach the radial thickness of the diameter-reduced portion being thicker than a radial thickness of a portion above.
However, Kagami teaches a damping bicycle front fork consisting of a lower tube and 2 an upper tube 1 (Abstract, Paragraph 21, Fig. 5 of Kagami), wherein a radial thickness from an inner periphery of a diameter-reduced portion (of the lower tube) to an outer periphery of a screw thread is thicker than a radial thickness of a portion (of the lower tube) above the diameter-reduced portion of the lower tube (Paragraph 32, See annotated Fig. 5 of Kagami below).
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 thickness of the diameter-reduced portion of Ishiguro to be thicker than a portion above as Kagami teaches in order to advantageously provide extra structural reinforcement to the reduced-diameter portion.
Additionally, and in the alternative, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)
Regarding claim 6, Ishiguro teaches a front fork (Paragraphs 10 and 16) comprising:
an upper tube 4 (Paragraph 10);
a lower tube 1 that is relatively movable in an axial direction with respect to the upper tube 4 (Paragraphs 10-11); and
an axle bracket 2 screwed to an outer periphery of a lower end portion 1a of the lower tube 1 (Paragraphs 15-16, Fig. 2),
wherein the lower tube 1 has a diameter-reduced portion of which an inner diameter is reduced from an upper side at a lower end portion 1a (See annotated Fig. 2 below), and
a screw thread 1b provided on an outer periphery of the diameter-reduced portion and to which the axle bracket 2 is screwed (Paragraphs 11, 15, and 29; see annotated Fig. 2 below), and
Ishiguro does not teach a radial thickness from an inner periphery of the diameter-reduced portion to an outer periphery of the screw thread is thicker than a radial thickness of a portion above the diameter-reduced portion of the lower tube.
However, Kagami teaches a damping bicycle front fork consisting of a lower tube and 2 an upper tube 1 (Abstract, Paragraph 21, Fig. 5 of Kagami), wherein a radial thickness from an inner periphery of a diameter-reduced portion (of the lower tube) to an outer periphery of a screw thread is thicker than a radial thickness of a portion (of the lower tube) above the diameter-reduced portion of the lower tube (Paragraph 32, See annotated Fig. 5 of Kagami below).
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 thickness of the diameter-reduced portion of Ishiguro to be thicker than a portion above as Kagami teaches in order to advantageously provide extra structural reinforcement to the reduced-diameter portion.
Additionally, and in the alternative, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiguro in view of Noguchi (JP 2016200256) and Levey (CN-1508450).
Regarding claim 7, Ishiguro teaches a method for manufacturing a front fork (Paragraphs 10 and 16) including:
an upper tube 4 (Paragraph 10);
a lower tube 1 that is relatively movable in an axial direction with respect to the upper tube 4 (Paragraphs 10-11); and
an axle bracket 2 screwed to an outer periphery of a lower end portion 1a of the lower tube 1 (Paragraphs 15-16, Fig. 2),
the method comprising:
a diameter reduction step of reducing a diameter of the lower end portion 1a of the lower tube 1 (See annotated Fig. 2 below; the lower end portion of the lower tube has a reduced diameter from an upper portion of the tube); and
a screw forming step of forming a screw thread 1b on an outer periphery of the diameter-reduced portion (Paragraphs 11, 15, and 29).
Ishiguro does not teach the method for manufacturing a front fork comprising “reducing a diameter of the lower end portion of the lower tube by plastic deformation to form a diameter-reduced portion”.
However, Noguchi teaches a method for manufacturing a reduced diameter portion 3c of a cylinder 3 comprising forming the reduced diameter portion 3c by plastic deformation of a part of the cylinder 3 (Paragraph 34 of Noguchi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the method of manufacture of Noguchi for the undisclosed method of forming the small diameter portion of Ishiguro and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and advantageously reduced the number of parts and the number of assembly steps (Paragraph 48 of Noguchi).
Ishiguro does not teach the method for manufacturing a front fork comprising “forming a screw thread on an outer periphery of the diameter-reduced portion by rolling”.
However, Levey teaches a method for forming a threaded fastener by rolling (Paragraph 7 of Levey).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the method of manufacture of Levey for the undisclosed method of forming the screw thread of Ishiguro and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and advantageously allowed the axle bracket to mount to the lower tube.
PNG
media_image1.png
724
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
875
775
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180087594 teaches a tubular damping bicycle front fork.
WO 2025158869 teaches a bicycle front fork with a tubular member that has a thicker small-diameter portion and a thinner large-diameter portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 5712722706. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/DREW J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights