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 .
Status of the Claims
Two preliminary amendments were filed, one on 1/26/26 and another filed 3/16/26. The preliminary amendment filed 3/16/26 is not entered because it appears to have been inadvertently filed in the incorrect application as a majority of the claim language would be considered to be new matter lacking support under 112(a). Examiner attempted to call attorney of record Coelho and other listed attorneys, however, the phone numbers listed appear to either be disconnected or require an extension to reach a human. Applicant should update contact information if it has changed. Therefore, Examiner is proceeding with entering the preliminary amendment filed 1/26/26 for the sake of compact prosecution.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2001/0040078 A1 to Gonzalez.
Regarding claim 1, Gonzalez discloses a suspension component (12) for a bicycle (Fig. 1 & [0034]), the suspension component comprising:
a steering tube (14) (Fig. 1 & [0034]);
an upper tube (30) and a lower tube (32) configured in a telescopic arrangement and together defining an interior space (50) (Fig. 2 & [0034] and [0036]);
a crown (16) coupling the steering tube (14) to the upper tube (30) (Fig. 1 & [0034]);
a shaft (66,366) extending into the interior space (50) (Fig. 2 and 12-13 & [0036] and [0064]-[0066] noting that the embodiment of Figs. 12-13 overlaps in scope to the first embodiment of Fig. 2 and so linking character references are used to aid in interpretation, e.g., 66 and 366 both represent the shaft);
a movable member (334) disposed in the interior space (50), the movable member (334) dividing the interior space (50) into a first chamber and a second chamber (Fig. 12 depicts a first chamber and second chamber on opposite sides of the piston 334); and
at least one spring (356a,356b) controlling movement of the movable member (334) relative to the shaft (366) in a first direction along an axis and in a second direction opposite the first direction (cf. Figs. 12 v 13 & to see movement of piston 334 relative to the shaft 366. See also [0036] and [0064]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Gonzalez further discloses wherein the shaft (66,366) extends through the movable member (334), and wherein the movable member (334) is slidable along the shaft (66,366) (cf. Figs. 12 v 13 & to see movement of piston 334 relative to the shaft 366. See also [0036] and [0064]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Gonzalez further discloses wherein the at least one spring (356a,356b) comprises a coil spring (356a,356b) (Figs. 12-13 & [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 1, Gonzalez further discloses wherein the shaft (366) comprises a flange, and wherein the at least one spring (356a/b) is axially constrained between the flange and a side of the movable member (334) (Figs. 12-13 & [0064]-[0066] disclose and depict that both springs are constrained on respective ends by either a flange of the shaft, e.g., disk 308 or transition between 366g and 366a, or the movable member 334).
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 1, Gonzalez further discloses wherein the at least one spring (356a/b) is compressed with movement of the movable member (334) in the first direction and wherein the at least one spring (356a/b) is tensioned with movement of the movable member (334) in the second direction (cf. Figs. 12 v 13 & to see movement of piston 334 relative to the shaft 366 and the cause/effect relationship on the springs. See also [0036] and [0064]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 1, Gonzalez further discloses further comprising a damper body (Fig. 12) disposed in the interior space, wherein the movable member (334) is a damper member (334) disposed in the damper body (Fig. 12), the damper member (334) including at least one feature (370,366g,366b) to control resistance to flow between the first chamber and the second chamber (Fig. 12 & [0066]).
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0057420 A1 to Jordan.
Regarding claim 1, Jordan discloses a suspension component (10) for a bicycle (Fig. 1 & [0013]), the suspension component comprising:
a steering tube (30); an upper tube (14) and a lower tube (16) configured in a telescopic arrangement and together defining an interior space (20,22,24); a crown (28) coupling the steering tube (30) to the upper tube (14) (Fig. 1 & [0013]);
a shaft (56) extending into the interior space (Figs. 2-3 & [0013] and [0016]);
a movable member (26) disposed in the interior space (20,22,24), the movable member (26) dividing the interior space (20,22,24) into a first chamber (22) and a second chamber (24) (Figs. 2-3 & [0013] and [0016]); and
at least one spring (63,80) controlling movement of the movable member (26) relative to the shaft (56) in a first direction along an axis and in a second direction opposite the first direction (Figs. 2-3 & [0013], [0014], and [0016] disclose the piston is slidable relative to the shaft 56 and the bumpers 63,80, i.e., spring because it absorbs impacts, control the movement of the floating piston by slowing it down, e.g., when coming into contact with the piston 54 or the end plate 48).
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Jordan further discloses wherein the shaft (56) extends through the movable member (26), and wherein the movable member (26) is slidable along the shaft (56) (Figs. 2-3 & [0013], [0014], and [0016]).
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 1, Jordan further discloses an air spring body disposed in the interior space (20,22,24), wherein the movable member (26) is a piston (26) comprising an outer seal gland retaining an outer seal (A) to divide the air spring body into the
PNG
media_image1.png
560
227
media_image1.png
Greyscale
first chamber (22) and the second chamber (24) (Annotated Fig. 3 & [0014]-[0015] disclose that parts 62 and 66 are air tight o-rings, although not specifically called out with reference characters, [0016] explicitly discloses the piston includes internal and external o-rings as well. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the parts annotated as A & B would be the disclosed piston internal and external seals and the piston is shaped to retain the seals.).
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 8, Jordan further discloses wherein the piston (26) further comprises an inner seal gland retaining an inner seal (B), the inner seal (B) to seal between the piston (26) and the shaft (56) (Annotated Fig. 3 & [0014]-[0015] see above rejection of claim 8).
Regarding claim 20, Jordan discloses a suspension component (10) for a bicycle (Fig. 1 & [0013]), the suspension component comprising:
an upper tube (14) and a lower tube (16) configured in a telescopic arrangement and together defining an interior space (Figs. 2-3 & [0013] depict an interior space);
an air spring body (20,22,24) disposed in the interior space (Figs. 2-3 & [0013] and [0016]);
a piston (26) disposed in the air spring body (20,22,24), the piston (26) dividing the air spring body (20,22,24) into a first chamber (22) and a second chamber (24) (Figs. 2-3 & [0013] and [0016]);
a shaft (56) extending into the air spring body (20,22,24) and movable relative to the piston (26) (Figs. 2-3 & [0013] and [0016]); and
at least one cushioning member (63,80) absorbing impulses between the piston (26) and the shaft (56) (Figs. 2-3 & [0013], [0014], and [0016] disclose the piston is slidable relative to the shaft 56 and the bumpers 63,80 control the movement of the floating piston by slowing it down, e.g., when coming into contact with the piston 54 or the end plate 48, noting that the rapid deceleration of the piston against the bumpers is interpreted as absorbing an impulse between the piston and the shaft).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez in view of US 2003/0051957 to Lemieux.
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 1, Gonzalez does not appear to disclose wherein the at least one spring (356a/b) comprises an elastomeric member.
Lemieux teaches that it was old and well known in the art of suspension design, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the at least one spring to comprise an elastomeric member (360,364) (Fig. 5 & [0078]-[0079]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted features of Lemieux with teaching of Gonzalez since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the elastomeric member of Lemieux for the coil spring of Gonzalez. Notably Lemieux explicitly states that elastomeric members are known substitutes for coil springs, e.g., see [0077]. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claims 4 and 12-15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan in view of US 2003/0001358 A1 to Becker et al (hereinafter Becker).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 1, Gonzalez does not appear to disclose wherein the at least one spring (63,80) comprises an elastomeric member.
Although Jordan discloses at least one bumper member, Jordan does not appear to explicitly disclose the material of the bumper member and therefore does not explicitly disclose an elastomeric member.
Becker teaches that it was old and well known in the art of bicycle suspension, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a bumper member to be an elastomeric member (72) (Fig. 3 & [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle suspension before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bumper disclosed by Jordan to incorporate for the at least one bumper member to be an elastomeric member as taught by Becker in order to provide a bumper made of an energy absorbing material, e.g., see [0041], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, Jordan discloses a suspension component (10) for a bicycle (Fig. 1 & [0013]), the suspension component comprising:
an upper tube (14) and a lower tube (16) configured in a telescopic arrangement (Fig. 1 & [0013]);
an air spring body (20,22,24) disposed in at least one of the upper tube (14) or the lower tube (16) (Figs. 2-3 & [0013]);
a piston (26) disposed in the air spring body (20,22,24), the piston (26) dividing the air spring body (20,22,24) into a first chamber (22) and a second chamber (24) (Figs. 2-3 & [0013] and [0016]);
a shaft (56) extending into the air spring body (20,22,24) (Figs. 2-3 & [0013] and [0016]); and
at least one [bumper] member (63,80) controlling movement of the piston (26) relative to the shaft in a first direction (Figs. 2-3 & [0013], [0014], and [0016] disclose the piston is slidable relative to the shaft 56 and the bumpers 63,80 control the movement of the floating piston by slowing it down, e.g., when coming into contact with the piston 54 or the end plate 48).
Although Jordan discloses at least one bumper member, Jordan does not appear to explicitly disclose the material of the bumper member and therefore does not explicitly disclose an elastomeric member.
Becker teaches that it was old and well known in the art of bicycle suspension, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a bumper member to be an elastomeric member (72) (Fig. 3 & [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycle suspension before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bumper disclosed by Jordan to incorporate for the at least one bumper member to be an elastomeric member as taught by Becker in order to provide a bumper made of an energy absorbing material, e.g., see [0041], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13, depending on claim 12, Jordan further discloses wherein the shaft (56) extends through the piston (26), and wherein the piston (26) is slidable along the shaft (56) (Figs. 2-3 & [0013], [0014], and [0016]).
Regarding claim 14, depending on claim 12, the modified combination of Jordan/Becker further discloses wherein the at least one elastomeric member comprises: a first elastomeric member (Jordan – 63/Becker - 72) controlling movement of the piston (Jordan - 26) relative to the shaft (Jordan - 56) in the first direction; and a second elastomeric member (Jordan – 80/Becker - 72) controlling movement of the piston (Jordan - 26) relative to the shaft (Jordan - 56) in a second direction opposite the first direction (Jordan – Figs. 2-3 & [0013], [0014], and [0016] disclose and depict the bumpers arrest travel of the floating piston 26 in opposite directions).
It would have been obvious to have modified Jordan in view of the teachings of Becker for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 12 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, depending on claim 14, the modified combination of Jordan/Becker further discloses wherein when the piston (Jordan - 26) is in a rest state, the first elastomeric member (Jordan - 63) is in a compressed state, and the second elastomeric member (Jordan - 80) is in a relaxed state (Jordan - Fig. 2 depicts the piston 26 in contact with the top out bumper 63 which is interpreted as depicting a compressed state of the bumper 63 during a top-out situation returning to an uncompressed state and the bumper 80 is uncompressed/relaxed. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation of “rest state” as being any period of time, even a moment, where an object is at rest, the depicted arrangement in Fig. 2 and as discussed in [0014] as the piston compressing the bumper, there would be a moment during a compression cycle where for at least one moment where the piston would be at “rest”.).
Regarding claim 18, depending on claim 12, the modified combination of Jordan/Becker further discloses wherein the at least one elastomeric member (Jordan – 63/Becker - 72) is in a compressed state when the piston (Jordan - 26) is in a rest state (Jordan - Fig. 2 depicts the piston 26 in contact with the top out bumper 63 which is interpreted as depicting a compressed state of the bumper 63 during a top-out situation returning to an uncompressed state. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation of “rest state” as being any period of time, even a moment, where an object is at rest, the depicted arrangement in Fig. 2 and as discussed in [0014] as the piston compressing the bumper, there would be a moment during a compression cycle where for at least one moment where the piston would be at “rest”.).
It would have been obvious to have modified Jordan in view of the teachings of Becker for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 12 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 19, depending on claim 12, the modified combination of Jordan/Becker further discloses wherein the at least one elastomeric member (Jordan – 63,80) is in a relaxed state when the piston (Jordan - 26) is in a rest state (Fig. 2 & [0017] discloses the piston is in an uncompressed and extended state, interpreted as being at rest and the bumper 80 is not contacted by the piston and there is interpreted as being in a relaxed state as depicted.).
It would have been obvious to have modified Jordan in view of the teachings of Becker for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 12 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan in view of Becker and further in view of US 6,322,059 B1 to Kelm et al (hereinafter Kelm).
Regarding claim 17, depending on claim 12, the modified combination of Jordan/Becker does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the elastomeric member includes a nitrile rubber pad.
Kelm teaches that it was old and well known in the art of piston design, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for an elastomeric member (84) includes a nitrile rubber pad (Fig. 6 & col 6 lns 15-24 teach the elastomeric bumper is optionally a nitrile rubber pad).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of piston before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bumpers disclosed by the modified combination of Jordan/Becker to incorporate for the elastomeric bumper to be a nitrile rubber pad as taught by Kelm in order to provide an elastomer successfully, e.g., see Kelm col 6 lns 15-24, to provide a durable and cost effective bumper material known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10, 16, and 22-25 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights