DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D'Aluisio et al. US 9701293 B2.
Regarding independent claim 1, D’Aluisio et al. discloses [a control line router 235 for a headset of a bicycle] (Fig. 1-4; Col. 3, lines 32-64) comprising: [a barrier 250 disposed between a component of the bicycle 120 and a segment of a control line 395 within a headtube 30 of the bicycle.] (Fig. 3-4; Col. 8, lines 61-67; Col. 9, lines 1-9)
Regarding claim 3, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [wherein the component of the bicycle is a steerer tube 120 of a fork 35,] (Fig. 1-4; Col. 3, lines 51-64) and [the barrier 250 is configured to surround, at least in part, the steerer tube.] (Fig. 3-4; Col. 8, lines 61-67; Col. 9, lines 1-9)
Regarding claim 4, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [wherein the barrier 250 is a tapered tube 295 offset from the steerer tube 120, the tapered tube configured so that the tapered tube does not contact the steerer tube.] (Fig. 16; Col. 4, lines 42-58)
Regarding claim 5, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [wherein the barrier 250 is attached to any one or both of an upper cup 260 and a lower cup 255 of the headset of the bicycle.] (Fig. 3-4; Col. 8, lines 61-67; Col. 9, lines 1-9)
Regarding claim 6, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [wherein the barrier 250 contacts the steerer tube 120.] (Fig. 3-4; As shown in Fig. 3-4, D’Aluisio et al. illustrates wherein the barrier 250 contacts the steerer tube 120.)
Regarding claim 7, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [wherein the barrier 250 is configured to surround the segment of the control line 395.] (Fig. 4; As shown in Fig. 4, D’Aluisio et al. illustrates wherein the barrier 250 is configured to surround the segment of the control line 395.)
Regarding claim 8, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [wherein the barrier 250 extends into a top tube, a down tube, a stem, a fork, or any combination thereof.] (Fig. 3-4; As shown in Fig. 3-4, D’Aluisio et al. illustrates wherein the barrier 250 extends into the steerer tube 120 of the fork 35.)
Regarding claim 9, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [wherein the barrier 250 has an annular cross section.] (Fig. 15-16; As shown in Fig. 15-16, D’Aluisio et al. illustrates wherein the barrier 250 has an annular cross section.)
Regarding claim 10, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [wherein the barrier includes a seam 300 along a length of the barrier 250.] (Fig. 15; Col. 4, lines 42-58)
Regarding claim 16, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [wherein the control line is a hydraulic tube or a bowden cable.] (Fig. 5-6; Col. 5, lines 43-56)
Regarding independent claim 17, D’Aluisio et al. discloses [a device for a bicycle 10 comprising a barrier 250 disposed between one or more components in a headtube 30 of the bicycle.] (Fig. 3-4; Col. 8, lines 61-67; Col. 9, lines 1-9)
Regarding claim 18, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [wherein one of the one or more components is a steerer tube 120 of a fork 35,] (Fig. 1-4; Col. 3, lines 51-64) and [the barrier 250 is configured to surround a section of the steerer tube.] (Fig. 3-4; Col. 8, lines 61-67; Col. 9, lines 1-9)
Regarding claim 19, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [wherein one of the one or more components is a control line 395, the barrier 250 is configured to surround the segment of the control line 395.] (Fig. 4; As shown in Fig. 4, D’Aluisio et al. illustrates wherein the barrier 250 is configured to surround the segment of the control line 395.)
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 (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 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, 11-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Aluisio et al. in view of Lechevallier et al. US 20200398921 A1.
Regarding claim 2, D’Aluisio et al. does not discloses wherein the barrier is flexible.
Lechevallier et al. teaches [wherein the barrier is flexible.] (Fig. 3-5; Paragraph 0025)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the flexible barrier of Lechevallier with the control line router of D’Aluisio et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the barrier to conform to the geometry of the components within the headtube, thus maintaining separation between the control line and bicycle components to reduce interference and wear.
Regarding claim 11, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [wherein the barrier 250 comprises: a control line sheath 310 configured to surround, at least in part, the segment of the control line 395.] (Fig. 3-4 and 15-16; As shown in Fig. 3-4, D’Aluisio et al. illustrates wherein the barrier 250 comprises: a control line sheath 310 configured to surround, at least in part, the segment of the control line 395.)
D’Aluisio et al. does not disclose the barrier comprising: a steerer tube sheath configured to surround, at least in part, a steerer tube of a fork.
Lechevallier et al. teaches [wherein a steerer tube sheath 110 configured to surround, at least in part, a steerer tube of a fork.] (Fig. 3-6; Paragraph 0031)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the steerer tube sheath of Lechevallier et al. with the control line router of D’Aluisio et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for both the steerer tube and the control line to be individually protected from contact with surrounding bicycle components, thus reducing friction and noise while improving durability and cable routing within the head tube.
Regarding claim 12, D’Aluisio et al. does not disclose wherein the barrier is made of one or a combination of a plastic, a polymer, a carbon fiber composite, a composite, PTFE, an elastic material, or a metal.
Lechevallier et al. teaches [wherein the barrier is made of one or a combination of a plastic, a polymer, a carbon fiber composite, a composite, PTFE, an elastic material, or a metal.] (Fig. 3-5; Paragraph 0025)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the barrier material of Lechevallier et al. with the control line router of D’Aluisio et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the barrier to be formed from materials having suitable flexibility, durability, and wear resistance for use within the bicycle headtube, thus improving protection of the control line and nearby bicycle components.
Regarding claim 20, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [wherein the barrier 250 comprises: a second sheath 310 configured to surround a segment of a control line 395.] (Fig. 3-4 and 15-16; As shown in Fig. 3-4, D’Aluisio et al. illustrates wherein the barrier 250 comprises: a control line sheath 310 configured to surround, at least in part, the segment of the control line 395.)
D’Aluisio et al. does not disclose the barrier comprising a first sheath configured to surround a section of a steerer tube of a fork.
Lechevallier et al. teaches [a barrier comprising a first sheath 110 configured to surround a section of a steerer tube of a fork.] (Fig. 3-6; Paragraph 0031)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the steerer tube sheath of Lechevallier et al. with the control line router of D’Aluisio et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for both the steerer tube and the control line to be individually protected from contact with surrounding bicycle components, thus reducing friction and noise while improving durability and cable routing within the head tube.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Aluisio et al. in view of Lechevallier et al. and further in view of Man US 20130076000 A1.
Regarding claim 13, D’Aluisio et al., as modified, further discloses [the barrier having an outer wall.] (Fig. 15-16; Col. 4, lines 42-58)
D’Aluisio, as modified, does not disclose the outer wall including a friction reducing coating, wherein the friction reducing coating comprises any one or a combination of a PTFE coating, a wet lubricant, or a dry lubricant.
Man teaches [the outer wall including a friction reducing coating, wherein the friction reducing coating comprises any one or a combination of a PTFE coating, a wet lubricant, or a dry lubricant.] (Paragraph 0150)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the friction reducing coating of Man with the control line router of D’Aluisio, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for reduced friction between the barrier and the bicycle components, thus minimizing wear, facilitating relative movement during steering, and improving the durability and performance of the control line routing system.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Aluisio et al. in view of Horiuchi US 7396032 B2.
Regarding claim 14, D’Aluisio et al. further discloses [the control line router comprising a cap 500,] (Fig. 2-8; Col. 7, lines 5-17) [the cap having one or more ports 570, 575 extending through the cap, wherein the control line 395 extends through the cap via the one or more ports;] (Fig. 4, Col. 7, lines 18-41) [wherein the control line router further comprising an upper cup 260 having a clearance configured to allow for radial and/or rotational clearance for the control line.] (Fig. 3-4 and 18; Col. 5, lines 4-13)
D’Aluisio et al. does not disclose wherein the cap extends a steerer tube of a fork.
Horiuchi teaches [wherein the cap extends a steerer tube of a fork.] (Fig. 2; Col. 5, lines 1-6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the cap and steerer tube configuration of Horiuchi with the control line router of D’Aluisio et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the steerer tube to extend through the cap while permitting the control line to be routed through the cap via the ports, thus providing a compact and integrated headset assembly that accommodates steering movement and internal control line routing.
Regarding claim 15, D’Aluisio et al., as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including the upper cup recited in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. CN 208021647 U – comprises a frame comprising transverse and installed under the transverse upright, and is sleeved on the stem outside of the protection cover, the protection cover and the stem forming the pipeline channel and a wiring harness through the pipeline passage wirings. Thus, the frame can realize the complete harness wiring, avoid the harness is exposed, so as to avoid the wiring harness and the other structure to interfere and protect the wiring harness from being damaged and prolongs the using life of the harness.
Süsse US 10926827 B2 – comprises a bicycle fork including a fork shaft configured to be rotatably borne by headset bearings in a head tube of a bicycle frame so as to rotate about a steering axis. The fork shaft includes a cylindrical fork shaft segment that is disposed eccentrically with respect to the steering axis. The cylindrical fork shaft segment is a right circular cylinder having a hollow interior, a cylindrical inner surface and a central longitudinal axis that lies within a symmetry plane of the bicycle frame and extends parallel to the steering axis. The central longitudinal axis of the cylindrical fork shaft segment is spaced apart from the steering axis in a direction of eccentricity that points in an opposite direction with respect to a forward direction of travel of the bicycle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 7:30 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, 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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights