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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 all recite the possessive pronoun “it”. The use of possessive pronouns leads to ambiguity as to what element(s) “it” refers back to thus rending the claim scope unclear.
Claim 2 recites, “the plate or foil is longitudinally extending with a length substantially corresponding to the longitudinal extension of the shell or shield of the saddle”. However, a review of the specification and drawings provides no quantitative way to determine the meets and bounds, and the drawings are not to scale. At best, it appears the only reasonable way to interpret ‘substantially” here would be 51% or more?
Claim 2 recites, “thin section”. This is a relative term.
Claim 2 recites, “pass-through type”. It is unclear what encompasses ‘type’. It appears striking ‘type’ from the claim would obviate the issue.
Claim 3 recites, “the entire length of the central portion”. This lacks antecedent basis, as the clause was first introduced in claim 2, however claim 3 depends from claim 1.
Claim 4 recites, “they”. See above.
Claim 5 recites, “the front portion”, “the rear portion”, and “the tail”. All lack antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites, “for intensifying the damping”. “intensifying” is relative, its unclear as to what meets and bounds of intensifying encompass. It’s recommended that striking that language may obviate the issue.
Claim 7 recites, “the screws”. However, screws are first introduced in claim 6, but claim 7 depends from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites, “at least one first pad”. However, claim 1 first introduces “one or more pads.” Thus, it is unclear what is being modified or added to. This creates a potential double inclusion situation, and leads to ambiguity.
Claim 8 recites, “the front portion”, “the rear portion”. These lack antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites, “comprises a single pad”. However, claim 1 introduces “one or more pads.” Thus, it is unclear what is being modified or added in addition with a “single pad”.
Claim 9 further recites, “a single pad extending for the entire length of the plate or foil” “the entire length” lacks antecedent basis, plus is this single pad in addition to the one or more pads is the single pad located on top of the one ore more pads? It is unclear.
Claim 9 recites, “possibly provide”. It is unclear if the single pad is actually present.
Claim 9 recites, “functional to a correct coupling” it is unclear what “correct coupling” means. Appears to be a potential grammar issue?
Claim 10 recites, “a lower front”. However, “a lower front” is first introduced in claim 1. Thus, it is unclear if this is a different portion or should refer back. This leads to a potential double inclusion issue.
Claim 10 recites, “the central portion”, “the anterior front”, “the same central portion facing”. These all lack antecedent basis.
Dependent claim not addressed are rejected based up dependencies.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cappeller (WO 2011/160978 in view of Giradi (US 5,536,065) and Lee (US 2006/0284458).
Re claim 1, Cappeller discloses an adapter (fig 4) comprising a plate or foil (fig 4) connected to the shell or shield (by way of example, figs 1,2 adapter of 4 is to be used with a shell) and interface means (fig 4) for said plate or foil comprising a pair of opposite and parallel ridges (138) longitudinally extended at outer side edges of the plate or foil designed to be cooperating with means for tightening with respect to a head of the seatpost tube, such as one as taught by Giradi (figs 1,2 that comprise a lower block (figs 1,2) adapted to couple to the head (figs 1,23) and comprising a pair of opposite and parallel edgings (figs 1,2) longitudinally extended and adapted to couple to the opposite and parallel ridges. As Cappeller doesn’t show a means for tightening, it would have been obvious to one of any skill that rides bikes at the time of the invention, to provide a means for tightening to enable the bike seat to be attached and longitudinally adjustable to a bike.
Cappeller as modified, fails to teach as disclosed by Lee a generally functionally equivalent ALTERNATIVE adapter/assembly (fig 3, elements 4 and 5), wherein said adapter comprising an element for damping vibrations (51 and/or 52) which comprises one or more pads stabilized onto the plate or foil (15) and arranged between a functionally equivalent plate type members (421,42, and/or 43,431) and a lower front of the shell or shield (fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify Cappeller to try an alternative way of attachment of a similar type device to a shell in order to reduce vibrations and potentially make for a more accessible means for attachment or re-attachment of a replacement shell or adapter etc. for broken or worn components.
Re 2. Cappeller as modified, teaches according to claim 1, characterized in that the plate or foil is longitudinally extended with a length substantially corresponding to the longitudinal extension of the shell or shield (fig 4) of the saddle, it has a thin section thickness (fig 4, its plate-like) and it has, in a vertical plane, a profile comprising a front portion, a central portion comprising at least one central opening of the pass-through type and with a longitudinal extension, a rear portion, and it has elastic properties (material has some level of elastic characteristics).
RE 3. Cappeller as modified, teaches according to claim 1, characterized in that the opposite and parallel ridges (fig 4) that are longitudinally extended substantially along the entire length of the central portion (fig 4), of the plate or foil and are formed at the outer side edges (fig 4) of said central portion.
RE 4. Cappeller as modified, teaches according to claim 3, characterized in that the opposite and parallel ridges (fig 4) are made in a single piece with the plate or foil (fig 4)
RE 5. Cappeller as modified, teaches according to claim 1, characterized in that the plate or foil is stabilized below the shell or shield with the front portion thereof at a tip of the shell or shield and with the opposite rear portion stabilized at the tail of the shell or shield. It is noted, as modified in claim 1, the attachment locations set forth in Lee correspond to attachment locations of Cappeller. It is blatantly clear to one of any skill, the limitations are met for claim 5 via the modification presented in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re 6. Cappeller as modified, teaches according to claim 5, but fails to explicitly teach the screws in the modification of claim 1. However, as clearly seen in Lee, screws 44 are used. As such it would have been obvious to one of any skill at the time of filing to use the screws of Lee as a means of attachment to attach the adapter and pads to the shell so the assembly remains together.
RE 8. Cappeller as modified, teaches according to claim 1, characterized in that it comprises at least one first pad (51 of Lee) coupled to the plate or foil at the front portion (fig 3 of Lee') and at least one second pad (522,523 of Lee) coupled to the plate or foil at the rear portion (fig 3 of Lee). Again as noted, this modification already is covered with claim 1.
RE 10. Cappeller as modified, teaches according to claim 1, characterized in that the lower block (figs 1,2 element 5 of Giardi) couples to a lower front of the central portion (as modified in claim 1') of the plate or foil on the opposite side with respect to the anterior front of the same central portion facing in the direction of the shell or shield and with the head of the seatpost tube, an upper block (figs 1,2 element 4 of Giardi) couples to an upper front of the central portion (as modified in claim 1') of the plate or foil on the opposite side with respect to the side for coupling said plate or foil with said lower block.
It is noted, as modified in claim 1, the interface locations set forth in combination correspond to interface locations of Cappeller. It is blatantly clear to one of any skill, the limitations are met for claim 10 via the modification presented in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cappeller (WO 2011/160978 in view of Giradi (US 5,536,065) and Lee (US 2006/0284458) and further in view of Shou, Xu (CN 201810691819).
Re 7. Cappeller as modified, teaches according to claim 1, characterized in that the adapter fails to teach as taught by Shou comprises further accessory elements, for intensifying the damping of the vibrations, applied at the screws (fig 5) for a fixing the plate or foil with respect to the saddle (fig 5) and comprising elastic washers (4) tightened between the screws (fig 5) and the plate or foil . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify Cappeller to include elastic washers in order to enhance vibration reductions between the shell and the plate member.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cappeller (WO 2011/160978 in view of Giradi (US 5,536,065) and Lee (US 2006/0284458) and further in view of Yim (KR 101638118
Re 9. Cappeller as modified, teaches according to claim 1, but fails to teach the shell has a single pad and central opening corresponding to said plate/foil. However, Yim discloses it is known to have a single pad (1200) characterized in that it comprises extended for the entire length of the plate or foil (1210,1120), stabilized onto said plate or foil, said single pad possibly provided with a central opening (1230a) which is functional to a correct coupling with a saddle provided with a central opening or channel with a prostate protection function. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify Cappeller to further include a single pad with opening in order to make the seat more comfortable for the rider and reduce pressure points on the prostate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua J Michener whose telephone number is (571)272-1467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30am - 4pm 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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
JOSHUA J. MICHENER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642