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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 26, 28, 37, 39, 47, 50, and 51 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 26, 28, 37, 39, 47, 50, and 51, the word “mould” should be changed to --mold--.
With respect to claim 5, “fibre-free” should be changed to --fiber-free--
With respect to claim 10, it appears it should depend from claim 9 instead of claim 7 and has been examined as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huck (USPub 2005/0035571).
With respect to claim 1, Huck discloses a main frame (A, B, C)) for a bicycle with a saddle (Abstract), as well as with a front wheel and a rear wheel (wheels coupled to A and D), which are arranged in one track, produced from a thermoplastic in a closed mould [0038], wherein it is designed as a one-piece hollow body (steel or aluminum mold comprising two cavities put together; [0038]) with a frame wall (injected polymer that surrounds the tin bismuth and remains after it is heated; [0038]) surrounding its cavity (cavity formed when tin bismuth melts away; [0038]), and in that the frame wall of the hollow body has a one-piece nature (once tin bismuth melts away, what is left is the hollow part made of the polymer; [0038]), which is produced by means of an externally heatable rotational mould. With respect to the limitation that it is “produced by a means of a rotational moulding in an externally heatable rotational mold,” this limitation is a method of forming an apparatus that is not germane to the issue of patentability itself, and therefor has not been given patentable weight.
With respect to claim 5, wherein the thermoplastic is fiber-free [0038].
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.
Claims 2-3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huck in view of Trimble et al. (WO8905753A1).
With respect to claim 2, Huck discloses the claimed invention discussed above but does not disclose wherein the hollow body has regions with different wall thickness of the frame wall. Trimble et al., however, disclose a bicycle frame that has regions with different wall thicknesses (page 31, lines 5-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Huck in view of the teachings of Trimble et al. to vary the wall thicknesses in order to save weight while keeping the strength where it is needed most.
With respect to claim 3, the recitation wherein the regions of different wall thickness of the frame wall “are generated by a heat input into the rotational mould from the outside which is different in regions” is a method of forming an apparatus that is not germane to the issue of patentability itself and therefore has not been given patentable weight.
With respect to claim 19, Huck discloses the claimed invention discussed above but does not disclose wherein the internal volume of the hollow body is at least partially provided with foam. Trimble et al., however, disclose using a foam in the internal volume of a hollow body frame member (page 29, lines 17-38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify Huck in view of the teachings of Trimble et al. to use a form in the internal volume to act as a pressing means to firmly press the walls against the inside surface of the mold.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huck.
With respect to claim 4, Huck discloses the claimed invention discussed above and that the frame wall is formed out of a plastic resin (claim 1) but does not disclose wherein the thermoplastic of the frame wall is selected from one of the following plastics: polypropylene (PP), preferably polyethylene (PE), particularly preferably and high-density polyethylene (HDPE). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Huck to use a plastic resin such as those above, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claims 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchu-shi (JPS6093579).
With respect to claim 6, Fuchu-shi discloses a main frame (Fig 1) for a bicycle with a saddle, as well as with a front wheel and a rear wheel, which are arranged in one track, produced from a resin (page 1, lines 15-16 of attached translation), wherein a main support (3) and a one-sided rear wheel support (4) are comprised in one piece (Fig 1 and page 1, lines 28-29 of attached translation), wherein the rear wheel support (5) is designed as a hollow body (page 1, lines 24-27 of attached translation), the rear wheel support (4) forms an encapsulating housing (9) for a drive means (12), and that the rear wheel support (4) includes a rear wheel receiver (25), wherein the main support (3) is designed hollow overall with opposite frame walls and is designed in one piece with the rear wheel support (page 1, lines 24-29 of attached translation), but Fuchu-shi does not disclose that the main frame is produced from a thermoplastic. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Fuchu-shi such that it is produced from a thermoplastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
With respect to claim 7, wherein the rear wheel receiver (25) is formed as two coaxial bearing openings (16), in that the coaxial bearing openings are arranged in the opposite frame walls of the rear wheel support (Figs 2-3).
With respect to claim 8, wherein the frame wall of the hollow body has a one-piece nature, and the limitation that it “is produced by means of a rotational moulding in an externally heatable rotational mould” is a method of forming an apparatus that is not germane to the issue of patentability itself, and therefor has not been given patentable weight.
Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchu-shi in view of Trimble et al. (WO8905753A1).
With respect to claim 9, Fuchu-shi discloses the claimed invention discussed above but does not disclose wherein the hollow body has regions with different wall thickness of the frame wall. Trimble et al., however, disclose a bicycle frame that has regions with different wall thicknesses (page 31, lines 5-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Fuchu-shi in view of the teachings of Trimble et al. to vary the wall thicknesses in order to save weight while keeping the strength where it is needed most.
With respect to claim 10, the recitation “wherein the regions of different wall thickness of the frame wall “are generated by a heat input into the rotational mould from the outside which is different in regions” is a method of forming an apparatus that is not germane to the issue of patentability itself and therefore has not been given patentable weight.
Claims 26, 29, 30, 32, 37, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cusak et al. (EP1958760B1).
With respect to claim 26, Cusack et al. disclose a front fork (14) for a bicycle, which has a saddle, and which is provided with a front wheel and a rear wheel, which are arranged single-tracked, produced from a plastic in a closed mould, wherein the front fork includes at least one fork leg (Figs 34-35) formed as a hollow fork body (Abstract) with a fork wall, and in that the fork wall of the hollow fork body (50) has a one-piece nature (Abstract), but Cusack et al. do not disclose that the front fork is produced from a thermoplastic. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Cusak et al. such that it is produced from a thermoplastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. The limitation that the fork body “is produced with a rotational moulding in an externally heatable rotational mould” is a method of forming an apparatus that is not germane to the issue of patentability itself, and therefor has not been given patentable weight.
With respect to claim 29, Cusack et al. disclose a front fork (14) for a bicycle, which has a saddle, and which is provided with a front wheel and a rear wheel, which are arranged single-tracked, formed in one piece from a plastic, comprising fork legs (232, 234) located on one side and having an upper end and a lower end (Fig 34) arranged symmetrically, wherein a receiving opening (212L, 212R) is provided in each case at the lower ends of the two fork legs, and wherein the receiving opening is adapted to hold a front axle (Figs 34-35), wherein a fork bridge region (230), to which, on one side, a fork arm (214) which is oriented upwards is attached, is formed at the upper end of the fork leg (Figs 34-35), but Cusack et al. do not disclose that the front fork is produced from a thermoplastic. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Cusak et al. such that it is produced from a thermoplastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
With respect to claim 30, wherein the fork arm (14) has an upper end (214), and in that the upper end of the fork arm is connected to a handlebar element [0047].
With respect to claim 32, wherein the receiving opening of the fork leg is configured for holding a front axle forms a downwardly open dropout, into which the front axle can be inserted from the side (Fig 35).
With respect to claim 37, the limitation that the one piece nature of the hollow fork body “is produced by means of a rotational moulding in an externally heatable rotational mould” is a method of forming an apparatus that is not germane to the issue of patentability itself, and therefor has not been given patentable weight.
With respect to claim 40, wherein a front axle is allocated as a structural component part (any element is interpreted as a structural component part, and the bicycle must have an axle to hold the front wheel).
Claims 27-28, 38, 39, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cusack et al. in view of Trimble et al. (WO8905753A1).
With respect to claims 27 and 38, Cusack et al. disclose the claimed invention discussed above but does not disclose wherein the hollow fork body has regions with different wall thickness of the fork wall. Trimble et al., however, disclose a bicycle frame that has regions with different wall thicknesses (page 31, lines 5-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Cusack et al. in view of the teachings of Trimble et al. to vary the wall thicknesses in order to save weight while keeping the strength where it is needed most.
With respect to claims 28 and 39, the recitation “wherein the regions of different wall thickness of the fork wall “are generated by a heat input into the rotational mould from the outside which is different in regions” is a method of forming an apparatus that is not germane to the issue of patentability itself and therefore has not been given patentable weight.
With respect to claim 50, Cusack et al. disclose the claimed invention discussed above but do not disclose wherein a foam is arranged in the cavity, and that the foam extends at least partially as a foam layer over the inside of the component part wall or completely fills the cavity as a foam filling. Trimble et al., however, disclose using a foam in the internal volume of a hollow body frame member (page 29, lines 17-38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify Cusack et al. in view of the teachings of Trimble et al. to use a form in the internal volume to act as a pressing means to firmly press the walls against the inside surface of the mold.
Claim 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cusack et al. in view of Broussard (USPub 2015/0360742).
With respect to claim 31, Cusack et al. disclose the claimed invention discussed above but does not disclose wherein the handlebar element is formed in one piece as part of the hollow fork body. Broussard, however, disclose an integral handlebar and fork assembly formed in one piece (Fig 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Cusack et al. in view of the teachings of Broussard to form the fork and handlebar integrally as part of the hollow fork body, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cusack et al. in view of Bartlett et al. (GB2414971A).
With respect to claim 33, Cusack et al. disclose the claimed invention discussed above but does not disclose further comprising a closure element with which the downwardly open dropout can be closed. Bartlett et al., however, disclose a closure element (112, 113) that closes a dropout (105, 106). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Cusack et al. in view of the teachings of Bartlett et al. to have closure elements to improve the rigidity and the securement of the axle as held in the dropouts.
Claims 47-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huck (USPub 2005/0035571) in view of Cusak et al. (EP1958760B1).
With respect to claims 47-48, Huck discloses the claimed invention discussed above but does not disclose the structure of the front fork. Cusak et al, however, disclose the structure of a front fork as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the invention of Huck in view of the teachings of Cusack et al. to have a front fork in combination with the main frame, since it was old and well known in the art to have both in order to provide a means to attach both front and rear wheels to the main frame while allowing the front wheel to be steerable. The limitation that the fork body “is produced with a rotational moulding in an externally heatable rotational mould” is a method of forming an apparatus that is not germane to the issue of patentability itself, and therefor has not been given patentable weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41-42 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.
Claim 51 is allowed. None of the prior art discloses pouring a thermoplastic material into a rotational mould having a negative shape of the main frame; closing the rotational mould; rotating about at least one axis while externally heating the rotational mould; solidifying the main frame; and opening the rotational mould to remove the main frame from the rotational mould.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-1362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 571-272-2706. 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.
DREW BROWN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DREW J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights