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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement filed by the Applicant listed below:
January 22, 2026
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims ,
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim as vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
Regarding Claims ,
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim as vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Lines .
However, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the phrase. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of this limitation, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, the phrases and the processor is to check one or more of the flags using a second process are grammatically unclear as to the intended functional relationships of the processor.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what this limitation is intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Lines .
However, this limitation is incomprehensible such that it is impossible to clearly understand the intended scope of the phrase. The examiner is unable to discern the intended scope of this limitation, how the claimed phrases are intended to relate to one another, nor construe this information in light of the instant disclosure.
Specifically, the phrase is grammatically unclear as to the intended functional relationship of the processor.
The Examiner is unable to ascertain what this limitation is intended to encompass. This renders the claim vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant rephrase the claimed limitation / phrase, without introducing any new matter, to more clearly articulate the intended scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites the limitation "" in Line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Dependent Claims ,
The claims ultimately depend from a claim that includes indefinite subject matter and are rejected for depending therefrom.
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by (), hereinafter “”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processor to at least:
determine at least one of a pitch angle, a yaw angle, or a roll angle of a bicycle; See at least ¶¶; () and
change a damping level of a damper of a suspension component of the bicycle based on the at least one of the pitch angle, the yaw angle, or the roll angle. See at least ¶¶; (); Fig 6
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one processor to change the damping level by activating a motion controller. See at least ¶¶; (); Fig 6
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the instructions, when executed, cause a motion controller to activate to change the damper between a first damping state and a second damping state based on other sensor data. See at least ¶¶; Abstract
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the other sensor data is pedaling data. See at least ¶¶; Abstract
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the instructions, when executed, determine whether a rider is currently pedaling the bicycle and activate the motion controller based on whether the rider is currently pedaling the bicycle. See at least ¶¶; Abstract
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to determine if a flag threshold is achieved, and cause the motion controller to activate to change the damper from the first damping state to the second damping state based on achieving the flag threshold. See at least ¶¶; Abstract; Figs. 3-6
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to receive wireless data indicating the at least one of the pitch angle, the yaw angle, or the roll angle, and use the wireless data to determine the at least one of the pitch angle, the yaw angle, or the roll angle. See at least ¶¶; (); Fig 6
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A suspension component for a bicycle, the suspension component comprising:
a damper operable in a low damping state and a high damping state; See at least ¶¶, 0052-0053, 0057-0059; Claim 1; Abstract
a motion controller operable to change the damper between the low damping state and the high damping state; See at least ¶¶ and
a processor to, based on sensor data, activate the motion controller to change the damper between the low damping state and the high damping state, See at least ¶¶; Abstract
wherein the processor is to, based on the sensor data, select values for one or more flags representative of parameters of a state of the bicycle and/or a riding environment of the bicycle, and wherein the processor is to select one of the low damping state or the high damping state based on the values of the one or more flags. See at least ¶¶; Abstract; Figs. 3-6
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the sensor data is from a sensor that detects pedaling of the bicycle. See at least ¶¶; Claim 1; Abstract
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further including a wireless transceiver to receive the sensor data from the sensor. See at least ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further including a sensor to detect vibration input to the suspension component, the sensor to output the sensor data. See at least ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the processor is to select values for the flags based on comparisons of the sensor data to thresholds. See at least ¶¶; Abstract; Figs. 3-6
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A suspension component for a bicycle, the suspension component comprising:
a damper operable in a low damping state and a high damping state; See at least ¶¶, 0052-0053, 0057-0059; Claim 1; Abstract
a motion controller () operable to change the damper between the low damping state and the high damping state; See at least ¶¶
one or more sensors remote or external to the suspension component generating sensor data; See at least ¶¶; Abstract and
a processor to, based on the sensor data, activate the motion controller to change the damper between the low damping state and the high damping state. See at least ¶¶; Abstract
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further comprising a wireless transceiver in communication with the motion controller and operable to wirelessly receive the sensor data from the one or more sensors remote or external to the suspension component. See at least ¶¶
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the processor is to, based on the sensor data, select values for one or more flags representative of parameters of a state of the bicycle and/or a riding environment of the bicycle, wherein the processor is to select one of the low damping state or the high damping state based on the values of the one or more flags. See at least ¶¶; Abstract; Figs. 3-6
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one processor to determine the at least one of the pitch angle, the yaw angle, or the roll angle based on acceleration data from an accelerometer.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to adapt a bicycle motor control in accordance with inclination. See at least Abstract; ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in to adapt a bicycle control system in accordance with detected inclination. See at least Abstract; ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein at least one of the one or more flags is a switchback flag, wherein the switchback flag is indicative of the bicycle turning through a switchback, and wherein the processor is to select the one of the low damping state or the high damping state based on a value of the switchback flag.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to enhance safety. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to enhance safety. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
17. The suspension component of claim 9,
wherein at least one of the one or more flags is a freefall flag, wherein the freefall flag is indicative of the bicycle being in a freefall state, and wherein the processor is to select the one of the low damping state or the high damping state based on a value of the freefall flag.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to apply appropriate adjustments to the damping characteristics of the shock absorber to absorb the shock of a sudden impending impact. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in to apply appropriate adjustments to the damping characteristics of the shock absorber to absorb the shock of a sudden impending impact. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Terminology
The Examiner notes that the following terms are utilized in Applicant’s specification as follows:
:
See Instant PgPub: ¶¶
See Instant PgPub: ¶¶
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747