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 Objections
Claims 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: The second instance of “in” in the second line should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 8-21 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.
Regarding Claims 2, 8, 12-15, and 19-21, the term “flexural” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (for example specifying a threshold flexibility in m/N, in/lb, or ft/lb OR a threshold elasticity modulus in N/mm2, psi, or msi to allow for an objective distinction between a first class of materials/structures that may be characterized as “flexible” on one side of said threshold, and a second class of materials/structures that may be characterized as “rigid”/”non-flexible” on the opposite side of said threshold) , and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 9-11 and 16-18 are rejected due to their dependency upon rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hoogendoorn et al. (US 2015/0069735 A1) hereinafter, Hoog.
Regarding claim 1, Hoog teaches a two-wheel vehicle suspension linkage comprising:
a suspended body (112);
a first linkage assembly (119) comprising a first jointed connection (187) to the suspended body (Fig 8);
a second linkage assembly (622) comprising a second jointed connection (113) to the suspended body (Fig 8);
a swingarm body (114) comprising a third jointed connection (153) to the first linkage assembly and a fourth jointed connection (155) to the second linkage assembly (Fig 8); and
a shock assembly (120) configured to resist movement of the suspension linkage, wherein:
the swingarm body comprises a seatstay (158) rigidly connected to a chainstay (159, Fig 3); and
the first linkage assembly or the second linkage assembly constrains at least one of the third jointed connection or the fourth jointed connection to a migration path with a non-constant radius of curvature (Para [0108]).
Regarding claim 2, Hoog teaches that at least one of the first, second, third, or fourth jointed connections is a flexural connection. Because the connections are disclosed to be made of a solid material (see Para [0108] and/or Fig. 8), it is understood to possess a certain elastic/Young’s modulus E, the plate inherently featuring a flexural rigidity proportional with said modulus E (in other words the connection’s flexibility being a characteristic inverse to its rigidity). Absent a different Applicant-provided definition of “flexural”, the connections disclosed by Hoog are inherently elastic and/or flexible, because when subjected to any amount of bending, the connection flexes/bends in direct proportionality to the bending load/moment.
Regarding claim 4, Hoog teaches that at least one jointed connection (622) of the suspension linkage reverses direction as the shock assembly moves in a single direction (Para [0102]).
Regarding claim 7, Hoog teaches that a dynamic instantaneous velocity center (ICC) migration path moves rearward as a driven wheel axis migration path (Wheel Path) of the suspension linkage moves in a direction from an extended state towards a compressed state (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 15, Hoog teaches a two-wheel vehicle suspension linkage comprising:
a suspended body (112);
a first link (622) coupled to the suspended body (Fig 8), the first link comprising a flexural body (Because the link is disclosed to be made of a solid material (see Para [0108] and/or Fig. 8), it is understood to possess a certain elastic/Young’s modulus E, the link inherently featuring a flexural rigidity proportional with said modulus E (in other words the link’s flexibility being a characteristic inverse to its rigidity). Absent a different Applicant-provided definition of “flexural”, the link disclosed by Hoog are inherently elastic and/or flexible, because when subjected to any amount of bending, the link flexes/bends in direct proportionality to the bending load/moment); and
a swingarm (114) coupled to the first link at a first pivot (153), wherein a migration path of the first pivot reverses as the suspension linkage moves in a single direction between an extended state and a compressed state (Para [0102]).
Regarding claim 17, Hoog teaches that a dynamic instantaneous velocity center (ICC) migration path moves rearward as a driven wheel axis migration path (Wheel Path) of the suspension linkage moves in a direction from an extended state towards a compressed state (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 18, Hoog teaches that a second link (119) coupled to the suspended body, wherein: the second link is coupled to the swingarm at a second pivot (187, Fig 8); and the second pivot moves in a single direction as the suspension linkage moves in the single direction between the extended state and the compressed state (Para [00105]- [0106]).
Regarding claim 20, Hoog teaches that the flexural body provides a spring force that promotes movement of the swingarm to a more compressed state (pushes the piston shaft 306 into the cylinder body 314 as it is rotated in a clockwise direction, Para [0095]).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weagle (US 7,048, 292 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Weagle teaches a two-wheel vehicle suspension linkage comprising:
a suspended body (20+12);
a first link (60+62) coupled to the suspended body (Fig 3), the first link comprising a flexural body (Because the link is disclosed to be made of a solid material (see Col. 2, Lines 30-32 and/or Fig. 3), it is understood to possess a certain elastic/Young’s modulus E, the link inherently featuring a flexural rigidity proportional with said modulus E (in other words the link’s flexibility being a characteristic inverse to its rigidity). Absent a different Applicant-provided definition of “flexural”, the link disclosed by Hoog are inherently elastic and/or flexible, because when subjected to any amount of bending, the link flexes/bends in direct proportionality to the bending load/moment); and
a swingarm (28+30+32+34) coupled to the first link at a first pivot (64), wherein an anti-squat increases and then decreases as the suspension linkage moves in a direction from an extended state towards a compressed state (Col. 1, Lines 49-56).
Regarding claim 9, Weagle teaches that a dynamic instantaneous velocity center (DIVC) migration path (@ 84) moves rearward as a driven wheel axis migration path (DWAP) of the suspension linkage (90) moves in a direction from an extended state towards a compressed state Fig 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 11, Weagle teaches a second link (80+82) coupled to the suspended body, wherein: the second link is coupled to the swingarm at a second pivot (84); and the second pivot moves in a single direction as the suspension linkage moves in the single direction between the extended state and the compressed state (Fig 1 and 3).
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) 5, 6, 8-11, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoogendoorn et al. (US 2015/0069735 A1) in view of Weagle (US 7,048, 292 B2).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Hoog teaches the linkage of claims 1 and 15. However, Hoog does not teach the anti-squat feature.
Regarding claim 5, Weagle teaches that an anti-squat is greater when the suspension linkage is in an extended state than when the suspension linkage is in a compressed state (Col. 1, Lines 49-56).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Weagle teaches that an anti-squat increases and then decreases as the suspension linkage moves in a direction from an extended state towards a compressed state (Col. 1, Lines 49-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Hoog’s linkage, in view of Weagle, with an anti-squat that is greater when the suspension linkage is in an extended state than when the suspension linkage is in a compressed state, to achieve the desired amount of anti-squat for a better suspension performance.
Regarding claim 8, Hoog teaches a two-wheel vehicle suspension linkage comprising:
a suspended body (112);
a first link (622) coupled to the suspended body (Fig 8), the first link comprising a flexural body (Because the link is disclosed to be made of a solid material (see Para [0108] and/or Fig. 8), it is understood to possess a certain elastic/Young’s modulus E, the link inherently featuring a flexural rigidity proportional with said modulus E (in other words the link’s flexibility being a characteristic inverse to its rigidity). Absent a different Applicant-provided definition of “flexural”, the link disclosed by Hoog are inherently elastic and/or flexible, because when subjected to any amount of bending, the link flexes/bends in direct proportionality to the bending load/moment); and
a swingarm (114) coupled to the first link at a first pivot (153, Fig 8).
Regarding claim 9, Hoog teaches that a dynamic instantaneous velocity center (ICC) migration path moves rearward as a driven wheel axis migration path (Wheel Path) of the suspension linkage moves in a direction from an extended state towards a compressed state (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 10, Hoog teaches that a migration path of the first pivot (153 of 622) reverses as the suspension linkage moves in a single direction between the extended state and the compressed state (Para [0102]).
Regarding claim 11, Hoog teaches that a second link (119) coupled to the suspended body, wherein: the second link is coupled to the swingarm at a second pivot (187, Fig 8); and the second pivot moves in a single direction as the suspension linkage moves in the single direction between the extended state and the compressed state (Para [00105]- [0106]).
Regarding claim 13, Hoog teaches that the flexural body provides a spring force that promotes movement of the swingarm to a more compressed state (pushes the piston shaft 306 into the cylinder body 314 as it is rotated in a clockwise direction, Para [0095]).
However, Hoog does not teach the anti-squat feature.
Weagle teaches that an anti-squat increases and then decreases as the suspension linkage moves in a direction from an extended state towards a compressed state (Col. 1, Lines 49-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Hoog’s linkage, in view of Weagle, with an anti-squat that is greater when the suspension linkage is in an extended state than when the suspension linkage is in a compressed state, to achieve the desired amount of anti-squat for a better suspension performance.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weagle (US 7,048, 292 B2) in view of Alonzo (US 7,395,892 B2).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Weagle teaches the linkage of claim 8. However, Hoog does not teach the required spring force.
Regarding claim 12, Alonzo teaches that the flexural body (28) is in a free state at an instance in in the suspension travel of the suspension linkage (Fig 2A).
Regarding claim 14, Alonzo teaches that the flexural body (28) provides a spring force that resists movement of the swingarm to a more compressed state (Fig 2C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Hoog’s linkage, with the required spring force, to improve the suspension performance and rider comfort.
Claim(s) 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoogendoorn et al. (US 2015/0069735 A1) in view of Alonzo (US 7,395,892 B2).
Regarding claims 19 and 21, Hoog teaches the linkage of claim 15. However, Hoog does not teach the required spring force.
Regarding claim 19, Alonzo teaches that the flexural body (28) is in a free state at an instance in in the suspension travel of the suspension linkage (Fig 2A).
Regarding claim 21, Alonzo teaches that the flexural body (28) provides a spring force that resists movement of the swingarm to a more compressed state (Fig 2C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Hoog’s linkage, with the required spring force, to improve the suspension performance and rider comfort.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 3 recites that the first linkage assembly or the second linkage assembly constrains at least one of the third jointed connection or the fourth jointed connection to a migration path with a constant radius of curvature.
Since the prior art (e.g. Hoog and Weagle) teaches suspension linkage that lack said features, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter.
For illustration purposes, Fig 1.35B of the examined disclosure shows the combination of the constant and non-constant radius of curvature, which is different than the radius of curvature taught by the prior art of record (Fig. 6 of Hoog and Fig. 1 of Weagle, etc.).
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO-892 form teach two wheel suspension linkages of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAM SHABARA whose telephone number is (571)272-5495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/HOSAM SHABARA/Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights