DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed on 8/25/25 was not entered because it was not properly signed, as indicated in the Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment mailed on 8/29/25. Therefore, the amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims from 8/25/25 are not entered.
The claim amendment filed on 9/12/25 was properly signed and is being examined. To expedite prosecution, the Remarks filed on 8/25/25 will be considered because the Remarks filed on 9/12/25 do not provide any arguments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/25/25 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it does not contain any references and is not signed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, inter alia, the drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84. Please see MPEP § 608.02 et seq. and Guide for Preparation of Patent Drawings (GFPOPD) attached. For example:
37 CFR 1.84(t) states:
Numbering of sheets of drawings. The sheets of drawings should be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, within the sight as defined in paragraph (g) of this section. These numbers, if present, must be placed in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin. The numbers can be placed on the right-hand side if the drawing extends too close to the middle of the top edge of the usable surface. The drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion. The number of each sheet should be shown by two Arabic numerals placed on either side of an oblique line, with the first being the sheet number and the second being the total number of sheets of drawings, with no other marking. (Emphasis added).
However, the sheet numbers such as “Sheet 1 of 4,” “Sheet 2 of 4,” etc. are smaller than the reference characters 18, 20, etc. In addition, the sheet numbers such as “Sheet 1 of 4,” “Sheet 2 of 4,” etc. should have been changed to “1/4,” “2/4,” etc. Please see Example 24 in GFPOPD;
37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) states:
Sectional views. The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines. If it is not possible to place reference characters outside the hatched area, the hatching may be broken off wherever reference characters are inserted. Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. A cross section must be set out and drawn to show all of the materials as they are shown in the view from which the cross section was taken. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. In the case of large areas, hatching may be confined to an edging drawn around the entire inside of the outline of the area to be hatched. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section. (Emphases added)
However, the sectional view FIG. 5 does not show proper material of the insert 30 as disclosed and/or claimed. In fact, e.g., claim 1 recites “a carbon fiber tube seated longitudinally within the titanium tube.” (Emphasis added). Nevertheless, the hatching in FIG. 5 shows that the insert 30 is made of metal in accordance with the conventional meaning of drawing symbols for draftsperson in MPEP § 608.02(IX) and/or p. A3-3 of GFPOPD. Please note that MPEP § 608.02(IX) states:
The following symbols should be used to indicate various materials where the material is an important feature of the invention. The use of conventional features is very helpful in making prior art searches. (Emphases added)
Here, the material is an essential feature of the claimed invention. Thus, Applicant is respectfully suggested to use the conventional drawing symbols shown in MPEP § 608.02(IX).
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because of the objections above. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action (OA) to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the term such as “Supersport,” “Motorcross” or “Loctite” (Spec. ¶¶ 3 and 27), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the reasons, inter alia, as follows:
(a) The specification is inconsistent with the drawings or vice versa. See 37 CFR 1.121(e). For example, the specification describes the carbon fiber tube 30; however, the hatching in FIG. 5 shows that the tube 30 is made of metal in accordance with the conventional meaning of drawing symbols for draftsperson in MPEP § 608.02(IX) and/or p. A3-3 of GFPOPD; and/or
(b) The brief description of the drawings should describe the section lines upon which the sectional view FIG. 5 is taken. Please see 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) and MPEP § 608.01(f).
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinney (US 11,110,984) in view of Boyer et al. (US 5,117,709) and Chen (US 2009/0049949).
Regarding claim 1, McKinney discloses a motorcycle handlebar (column 1 lines 21-22), comprising:
a tube (column 6 lines 51-54) having a motorcycle handlebar bend profile (Figure 6), including a straight center section (222) flanked by left and right hand sections (218 and 220), a left transition section (224) between the center section and the left hand section (Figure 6), and a right transition section (226) between the center section and the right hand section (Figure 6), a height (Figure 6, height from 222 to 218/220), and a rise (Figure 6, distance from 222 to 218/220); and
a straight tube (258) seated longitudinally entirely within the straight center section of the metal tube (Figure 7).
McKinney further discloses the handlebar tube is metal (column 6 lines 51-54) and the straight tube can be a polymer (column 9 lines 7-9) but does not disclose the handlebar tube is titanium, positive sweep, the height is greater than the rise, or the straight tube is carbon fiber.
Boyer et al. discloses a similar device that includes a titanium tube (column 6 lines 40-42) having a motorcycle handlebar bend profile (Figures 3 and 4), including a straight center section (30) flanked by left and right hand sections (60 and 70), a left transition section (40) between the center section and the left hand section (Figure 4), and a right transition section (50) between the center section and the right hand section (Figure 4), a height (Figure 3, height from 30 to 60), a rise (Figure 3, distance from 30 to 40/50), and a positive sweep (Figure 4), wherein the height is greater than the rise (Figure 3) for the purposes of providing a high strength material (column 6 lines 39-42) and for maximum benefit (column 6 lines 3-6) of increasing strength (column 5 lines 41-45). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s filing to modify McKinney by utilizing titanium, positive sweep, and the height is greater than the rise, as disclosed by Boyer et al., for the purposes of providing a high strength material which will reduce the possibility of failure and for maximum benefit of increasing strength. The handlebar profile also provides a more ergonomic fit for the rider.
Chen discloses a handlebar (1) with a carbon fiber tube (13, Paragraph 0017 line 8) seated longitudinally within a straight center section (11) of the tube (Figure 1) for the purpose of reinforcing the strength of the central portion of the handlebar (Abstract). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s filing to modify McKinney by utilizing carbon fiber, as disclosed by Chen, for the purpose of reinforcing the strength of the central portion of the handlebar. The examiner notes that carbon fiber also has a lower thermal conductivity and thermal expansion than aluminum and titanium.
Regarding claim 3, McKinney does not disclose the straight tube is permanently bonded to the tube. However, Chen discloses the carbon fiber tube is permanently bonded (Paragraph 0017 lines 10-11) to the tube for the purpose of securing the carbon fiber tube to prevent movement. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s filing to modify the combination by utilizing the carbon fiber tube permanently bonded to the titanium tube, as taught by Chen, for the purpose of securing the carbon fiber tube to prevent movement which could result in damage to the heating system.
Regarding claim 7, McKinney discloses a motorcycle handlebar (column 1 lines 21-22), comprising:
a metal tube (column 6 lines 51-54) having a center section (222) and a motorcycle handlebar bend profile (Figure 6); and
a straight tube (258) seated longitudinally entirely within the center section of the metal tube (Figure 7).
McKinney does not disclose the handlebar tube has a positive sweep or the straight tube is carbon fiber.
Boyer et al. discloses a similar device that includes a metal tube (column 6 lines 40-42) having a motorcycle handlebar bend profile (Figures 3 and 4) including a positive sweep (Figure 4) for the purposes of maximum benefit (column 6 lines 3-6) of increasing strength (column 5 lines 41-45). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s filing to modify McKinney by utilizing a positive sweep, as disclosed by Boyer et al., for the purpose providing maximum benefit of increasing strength. The handlebar profile also provides a more ergonomic fit for the rider.
Chen discloses a handlebar (1) with a carbon fiber tube (13, Paragraph 0017 line 8) seated longitudinally within a straight center section (11) of the tube (Figure 1) for the purpose of reinforcing the strength of the central portion of the handlebar (Abstract). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s filing to modify McKinney by utilizing carbon fiber, as disclosed by Chen, for the purpose of reinforcing the strength of the central portion of the handlebar.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinney (US 11,110,984) in view of Boyer et al. (US 5,117,709) and Chen (US 2009/0049949), as applied above, in further view of Flum et al. (US 6,668,681).
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses all of the limitations but does not disclose the titanium tube is made of Ti-3Al-2.5V alloy. However, Flum et al. discloses the titanium tube is made of Ti-3Al-2.5V alloy (column 4 lines 9-10) for the purpose of providing a material that is lightweight, durable, easy to manufacture with a high tensile strength (column 3 lines 4-8 and column 4 lines 9-11). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s filing to modify McKinney in view of Boyer et al. and Chen by utilizing Ti-3Al-2.5V alloy, as disclosed by Flum et al., for the purpose of providing a material that is lightweight, durable, easy to manufacture with a high tensile strength.
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses of the limitations but does not disclose a shot peened outer surface. However, Flum et al. discloses a shot peened outer surface (column 6 lines 23-27) for the purpose of providing a cosmetic finish (column 6 lines 23-27). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s filing to modify McKinney in view of Boyer et al. and Chen by utilizing a shot peened outer surface, as disclosed by Flum et al., for the purpose of providing a cosmetic finish which would be aesthetically pleasing.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinney (US 11,110,984) in view of Boyer et al. (US 5,117,708) and Chen (US 2009/0049949), as applied above, in further view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art.
Regarding claim 5, McKinney in view of Boyer et al. and Chen discloses all of the limitations but does not explicitly disclose the motorcycle handlebar bend profile is a CR mid bend profile that has dimensions described in Applicant's Spec. ¶ 22. See Toro Co. V. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (meaning of words used in a claim is not construed in a "lexicographic vacuum, but in the context of the specification and drawings") cited in MPEP § 2111.01. However, Applicant admitted that the CR mid bend profile is common or well known as seen in the heading "Table 2 Common Handlebar Bend Profiles for Offroad Motorcycles and ATVs" (emphasis added) in Spec. ¶ 22. See In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571, 184 USPQ 607, 611 (CCPA 1975) cited in MPEP § 2129. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s filing to change the dimensions of the combinations mid bend profile to be the dimensions of CR mid bend profile as taught or suggested by common knowledge in the art. See KSR and MPEP § 2144.03. See also non-precedential In re Cohen, No. 18-1609 (Fed. Cir. 05/01/2019) (optimization of the thickness of CVD seed layers would have been obvious).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that motorcycle handlebars are quite distinct from a bicycle handlebar including strength or material, dimensions, construction, and intended use. This is not found persuasive because both are handlebars intended to steer a two wheeled vehicle. While one might not consider using an actual handlebar from a bicycle on a motorcycle, they are related inventions with common overlap and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use advances in one type of handlebar for the other type. Additionally, this amounts an argument of bodily incorporation. One of ordinary skill in the art would know how to modify a handlebar to suit the intended application by considering the engineering requirements including all of the items listed in the applicant’s argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
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.
MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653