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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baltes et al. (US 6,708,999 B1) hereinafter, Baltes.
Regarding claim 1, Baltes teaches a suspension, comprising:
an upper tube (22) telescopically engaged with a lower tube (24); and
a sag value generating assembly comprising:
a first sag value generating component (51) located relative to one of said upper tube and said lower tube (Fig 3); and
a second sag value generating component (52) slidably coupled about an outer diameter of said one of said upper tube and said lower tube (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 2, Baltes teaches a second upper tube (22) telescopically engaged with a second lower tube (24); and
a fork arch coupling said lower tube with said second lower tube (Fig 1), wherein said fork arch extends above said lower tube and said second lower tube a distance of at least twenty percent of a total stroke length of said suspension (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 11, Baltes teaches a front fork assembly (10), comprising:
a first upper tube (22) telescopically engaged with a first lower tube (24);
a second upper tube (22) telescopically engaged with a second lower tube (24);
a fork arch coupling said first lower tube with said second lower tube (Fig 1-3); and
a sag value generating assembly comprising:
a first sag value generating component (51) located relative to at least one of said first upper tube, said second upper tube, said first lower tube, or said second lower tube (Fig 3); and
a second sag value generating component (52) coupled with at least one of said first upper tube, said second upper tube, said first lower tube, or said second lower tube (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 19, Baltes teaches that said second sag value generating component is slidably coupled about an outer diameter of said one of said first upper tube and said second upper tube (Col. 4, Lines 38-39 and Fig 3).
Regarding claim 20, Baltes teaches a shock assembly, comprising:
an upper tube (22) telescopically engaged with a lower tube (24); and
a sag value generating assembly comprising:
a first sag value generating component (52) located relative to one of said upper tube and said lower tube (Fig 3); and
a second sag value generating component (52) slidably coupled about an outer diameter of one of said upper tube and said lower tube (Col. 4, Lines 38-39 and Fig 3).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elizaga (GB 2510103 A).
Regarding claim 1, Elizaga teaches a suspension, comprising:
an upper tube (INNER TUBE) telescopically engaged with a lower tube (OUTER TUBE); and
a sag value generating assembly comprising:
a first sag value generating component (MEASURING WINDOW) located relative to one of said upper tube and said lower tube; and
a second sag value generating component (POINTING DEVICE) slidably coupled about an outer diameter of said one of said upper tube and said lower tube (FIG).
Regarding claim 5, Elizaga teaches that said first sag value generating component is integrated with a cover (FORK PROTECTOR) of said shock assembly.
Regarding claim 20, Elizaga teaches a shock assembly, comprising:
an upper tube (INNER TUBE) telescopically engaged with a lower tube (OUTER TUBE); and
a sag value generating assembly comprising:
a first sag value generating component (MEASURING WINDOW) located relative to one of said upper tube and said lower tube; and
a second sag value generating component (POINTING DEVICE) slidably coupled about an outer diameter of one of said upper tube and said lower tube (FIG).
Regarding claim 22, Elizaga teaches that said first sag value generating component is integrated with a dust cover (FORK PROTECTOR+DUST CAP) of said shock assembly (FIG).
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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baltes et al. (US 6,708,999 B1) in view of Cox et al. (US 11,413,924 B2) hereinafter, Cox.
Regarding claim 21, Baltes teaches the assembly of claim 20. However, Baltes does not teaches that said first sag value generating component is built into an eyelet assembly.
Cox teaches adjuster assembly 200 built into an eyelet assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Baltes’s assembly, in view of Cox, with a first sag value generating component is built into an eyelet assembly, to adjust the rear suspension sag for better performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-10, 12-18, and 21 are 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: Claims 3-4 and 17-18 recites that said first sag value generating component is integrated with said arch.
Claims 6 and 12 recites that said sag value generating assembly further comprises: a capturable code coupled with at least one of said lower tube and said upper tube.
Since the prior art (Baltes and Elizaga) teaches mobile robot that lack said features, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter.
For illustration purposes, Fig 4B of the examined disclosure shows the sag generating assembly, which is different than the sag generating assembly taught by the prior art of record (Fig. 3 of Baltes and Fig. of Elizaga, 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.
Claims 7-10 and 12-16 are allowed as depending from an allowed parent claim (see above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shock sag value generating assemblies 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