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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 9, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2 recites the limitation “the direction” which should be changed to “a direction”.
Claim 2, line 2 recites the limitation “the angle” which should be changed to “an angle”.
Claim 9, line 3 recites the limitation “of cables” which should be changed to “of the cables”.
Claim 12, line 3 recites the limitation “an outer ring within a bearing” which should be changed to “the outer ring within the bearing”
Claim 12, line 3 recites the limitation “a cylindrical outer wall” which should be changed to “the cylindrical outer wall”.
Claim 12, line 4 recites the limitation “an inner race” which should be changed to “the inner race”.
Claim 12, line 5 recites the limitation “an inner ring” which should be changed to “the inner ring”.
Claim 12, line 6 recites the limitation “a conical outer wall” which should be changed to “the conical outer wall”.
Claim 12, lines 6 – 7 recites the limitation “a conical inner wall” which should be changed to “the conical inner wall”.
Claim 13, line 2 recites the limitation “a second recess” which should be changed to “the second recess”.
Claim 13, line 3 recites the limitation “a first recess” which should be changed to “the first recess”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 – 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "like" renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1, line 15 recites the limitation “it”, however, “it” renders the claim indefinite and unclear as to what “it” refers to.
Claim 13, line 1 recites “the method according to claim 11”, however, claim 11 refers to “the bicycle compression ring assembly” and not to a method. Therefore, it is unclear and indefinite as to what method is being referred to.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the step of making the position of a second recess" in lines 1 – 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. (US 8,662,517 B2) in view of Coaplen (US 2009/0028637 A1).
For claim 1, King et al. ‘517 discloses a bicycle compression ring assembly, configured to connect a bearing of the direction of a bicycle between a fork tube 11 and a frame 12, comprising:
an open outer ring 23 comprising [an inner wall and an outer wall] (fig. 5), [where said inner wall comprises at least a conical length] (fig. 5) and [said outer wall comprises a cylindrical wall] (fig. 5, wherein a portion of the outer wall is cylindrical);
an open inner ring 24 comprising [an outer wall and an inner wall] (fig. 5), [where said outer wall comprises at least a conical length] (fig. 5) and [said inner wall comprises a cylindrical wall configured to abut against an outer surface of the fork tube] (fig. 6B),
[where the conical length of the outer wall of the inner ring and the conical length of the inner wall of the outer ring have essentially the same conicity] (as best understood in fig. 6B) [such that, when the assembly is mounted, the inner ring fits into the outer ring in a wedge-like manner and compresses it against the bearing] (fig. 5); but does not explicitly disclose
the cylindrical wall of the outer wall is configured to abut against an inner race of the bearing of the direction of the bicycle.
Coaplen discloses a compression ring 3 comprising [a flange extending downward from a main body] (fig. 3); [a bearing cup 1 receives either a cartridge bearing or a pair of bearing races] (page , paragraph [0015]); and [a cylindrical wall of the outer wall is configured to abut against an inner race of the bearing] (fig. 7)].
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 outer ring flange of Coaplen with the outer ring of King et al. ‘517 with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for proper axial and radial forces, thus improving overall attachment.
For claim 12, King et al. ‘517 modified as above discloses a method for installing a bicycle compression ring assembly comprising the following steps:
[fitting an outer ring within a bearing such that a cylindrical outer wall of the outer ring makes contact with an inner race of the bearing] (in view of the modification above, wherein the modified outer ring with flange makes contact with an inner race of the bearing);
[introducing an inner ring inside the outer ring in a longitudinal direction, such that a conical outer wall of said inner ring abuts against a conical inner wall of the outer ring] (fig. 5); and
[applying a pre-charge in the longitudinal direction, such that said inner ring is introduced further into the outer ring and the sliding of the conical outer surface of the inner ring against the conical inner surface of the outer ring causes a radially outward oriented force that compresses the outer ring against the inner race of the bearing] (fig. 5 of King et al. ‘517 and fig. 2 of Coaplen).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. (US 8,662,517 B2) in view of Coaplen (US 2009/0028637 A1), and further in view of Mairesse et al. (US 5,374,145).
For claim 2, King et al. ‘517 modified as above does not explicitly disclose the bicycle compression ring assembly where the angle of conicity of the conical length of the inner wall of the outer ring and of the conical length of the outer wall of the inner ring is between 20º and 30º.
Mairesse discloses a part 5 of base 1 and a ring 5 having a conicity of 20%] (col. 5, lines 30 – 31).
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 conicity of Mairesse with the inner wall of the outer ring and the outer wall of the inner ring of King et al.’517 modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved overall axial displacement, thus reducing overall wear and tear on the compression ring.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. (US 8,662,517 B2) in view of Coaplen (US 2009/0028637 A1), and further in view of King et al. (US 20220204118 A1).
For claim 8, King et al. ‘517 modified as above does not explicitly disclose the bicycle compression ring assembly where the inner wall of the outer ring comprises a first recess having a reduced thickness configured to allow for the passage of cables towards the inside of the fork tube.
King et al. ‘118 discloses an outer ring 130 comprising an aperture 136; [cable 180 passes through the aperture of the compression ring] (page 3, paragraph [0032]).
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 recess of King et al. 118’ with the inner wall of the outer ring of King et al.’517 modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for routing cables anywhere within the bicycle frame to an exit closer to a desired derailleur or brake, thus providing for force-reducing or force-cancelling relief or relief-structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 7, 9 – 11, and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose:
For claim 3 – 5: the inner ring is divided into a first portion and a second portion physically separate and configured to be installed in diametrically opposed positions;
For claim 9 – 11 and 13: the outer wall of the inner ring comprises a second recess having a reduced thickness and configured to allow for the passage of cables towards the inside of the fork tube.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20030121357 – comprising a head set assembly comprising a pressing ring having an inclined outer surface 1F; the inclined outer surface engaged with an annular inclined surface of an upper race; and
DE-20004844 – comprising a bearing set having an upper bearing cover and a tapered ring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacob D. Knutson whose telephone number is (571)270-5576. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 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.
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.
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights