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
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the telescopic suspension fork according to claim 1 on a motorcycle…” should read “the telescopic suspension fork according to claim 1 is provided on a motorcycle…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 5-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krugman (US 20180304952) in view of Krugman and Murakami (US 20160280315).
Regarding claim 1, Krugman teaches a telescopic suspension fork 110 comprising two telescopic fork legs ([0034] and [0061], Fig. 21), each with an outer tube 208, 210 having an axial longitudinal extension and an inner tube 204, 206 axially displaceable relative thereto in the direction of the axial longitudinal extension and has an axial longitudinal extension ([0034]), wherein one of the telescopic fork legs is a telescopic suspension fork leg with a spring device 406 ([0062], Fig. 4), and the other telescopic fork leg is a telescopic damper fork leg having:
a damper device 408 ([0062], Fig. 4); and
wherein the telescopic suspension fork 110 has a displacement measuring device 2104 for detecting a distance travelled by the axial displacement of the inner tube of the telescopic damper fork leg relative to the outer tube ([0051]), wherein the displacement measuring device 2104 has a magneto-operational sensor device 2102 and at least one magnet device 2100 at a radial distance from the sensor device 2102 ([0132], Fig. 21).
Krugman teaches that the magneto-operational sensor device 2102 is disposed along the length of the lower leg 208, but does not expressly teach wherein the displacement measuring device has a magneto-operational sensor device in an interior space of the piston rod.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the mounting location of the magneto-operational sensor device so that it is in an interior space of the piston rod, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would advantageously shield components of the sensor device from debris and wear and tear that could happen if the device were mounted on the outside of the leg, or within the pneumatic chamber.
Krugman as modified teaches what appears to be a piston arranged on a piston rod within the telescopic damper fork leg (See annotated Fig. 4 below). Krugman does not expressly teach that this component is a piston.
However, Murakami teaches a telescopic vehicle front fork with a damping leg 10a ([0020], Fig. 2 of Murakami) comprising: a piston arranged on a piston rod 60 ([0035]-[0036], Fig. 2 of Murakami).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify he modified telescopic suspension fork of Krugman to have a piston on a piston rod within the damping fork leg as Murakami teaches in order to advantageously provide a variable damping device to a front fork ([0008] of Murakami).
Regarding claim 2, Krugman as modified teaches wherein:
the inner tube 206 of the telescopic damper fork leg has an end region arranged in the outer tube 210 ([0061]), and the end region has a cap device through which the piston rod passes ([0061], See annotated Fig. 4 below).
Krugman as modified discloses the claimed invention except for “the magnet device is rotationally fixed on an outer circumferential region of the cap device”; however, Krugman does teach “a magnet 2100 is coupled to the first upper leg 204 near the bottom end 400 of the first upper leg 204. In other examples, the magnet 2100 may be disposed in another location on the first upper leg 204.” ([0132]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the mounting location of the magnet so that it is rotationally fixed on an outer circumferential region of the cap device, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would advantageously optimize space by moving the magnet away from the outside wall of the upper leg, where it could interfere with the sliding engagement of the inner and outer tubes.
Regarding claim 5, Krugman teaches wherein the sensor device 2104 detects the three-dimensional magnetic field of the magnet device 2100 moving relative to sensor device 2104 ([0131]-[0132]; all magnets produce a three-dimensional magnetic field).
Krugman teaches wherein the sensor device 2104 is mounted on the leg ([0132], Fig. 21). Krugman does not teach wherein the sensor device is on the rotational axis of the piston rod; however, Krugman does teach that the positions of the magnets or the sensors may be moved or disposed in another location on the leg ([0132]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the sensor device of Krugman on the rotational axis of the piston rod, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would advantageously position the sensor device within the fork leg, protecting the sensor device from outside impacts.
Regarding claim 6, Krugman as modified teaches wherein the sensor device has an acceleration sensor for detecting the acceleration of the body of a motorcycle ([0031]).
Regarding claim 7, Krugman teaches wherein the telescopic suspension fork leg has:
a cap 302 at a second end region lying opposite in the longitudinal direction of the telescopic suspension fork leg for sealing the upper tube 206, provided with an O-ring 512 on a surface lying opposite the end region 404 of the lower tube 210 ([0068], Fig. 3).
Krugman teaches a wheel attachment feature 212, such as a hole or dropout, at one end region 404 ([0056], Fig. 4) but does not expressly teach a fist clamp, for a front wheel axle of the motorcycle, at one end region, nor does Krugman teach the upper tube being the outer tube and the lower tube being the inner tube.
However, Murakami teaches a motorcycle telescopic front fork suspension 10 ([0019] of Murakami) wherein the suspension fork leg 10a has:
a first clamp 90, for a front wheel 213 axle 212 of the motorcycle 200, at one end region ([0019] and [0046], Fig. 2 of Murakami); and
an upper tube 20 that is an outer tube, and a lower tube 30 that is an inner tube of the suspension fork leg 10a ([0033], Fig. 2 of Murakami).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the clamp of Murakami for the dropouts of Krugman and the results of the substitution would have operated as predictable and advantageously attached the vehicle axle to the suspension front fork ([0046] of Murakami). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified telescopic suspension fork of Krugman to have the upper tube be the outer tube, and the lower tube be the inner tube as Murakami teaches and the modified suspension fork leg would have operated as predictable and advantageously provided a simple damping telescopic suspension system (Abstract of Murakami).
Regarding claim 8, Krugman teaches wherein:
the telescopic suspension fork leg has, at an end region, a passage for receiving a push rod 414 (See annotated Fig. 10 below); and
the spring device 406 ([0057], “The spring system may employ a spring element, such as a coil spring”) is supported at one end region on the push rod 414 ([0062], “The spring system 406 is disposed within and/or otherwise defined by an interior cavity or space 410 of the first upper and lower legs 204, 208 bounded by the walls of the first upper and lower legs 204, 208.”) and is supported at an opposite other end region on a sleeve-shaped body 300 in the inner tube ([0065], Figs. 4-5).
Krugman teaches that an end region 404 of the telescopic suspension fork leg has a cap portion with a passage for receiving a push rod (See annotated Fig. 10 below), but does not teach the cap portion being a distinct, separate component.
However, Murakami teaches a telescopic front fork suspension 10 wherein a telescopic suspension fork leg 10a has, at an end region of the tube 20, a cap 40 with a passage for receiving a push rod 60 ([0033]-[0035], Fig. 2 of Murakami), and the cap 40 is a separate component from the tube 20 ([0034], Fig. 2 of Murakami).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified telescoping front fork of Krugman to have the cap portion be a separate component from the tube as Murakami teaches in order to advantageously gain access to the inside of the fork leg.
See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
Regarding claim 10, Krugman as modified does not teach wherein the fork leg has a solenoid.
However, Murakami teaches wherein a telescopic damper fork leg 10b has an electrically actuatable solenoid 390 ([0029] and [0092], Fig. 5 of Murakami).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified telescopic front fork of Krugman to have the solenoid and its corresponding electrical connectors of Murakami in order to advantageously actuate the damping force and adjust the flow resistance of oil within the damper fork leg ([0092] and [0123] of Murakami).
Regarding claim 11, Krugman as modified teaches wherein the connection means comprise an electrical connection cable for energizing the electrically actuatable solenoid ([0092] of Murakami; cable 311 provides power to solenoid 390).
Regarding claim 12, Krugman as modified teaches the telescopic suspension fork further comprising at least one fork bridge configured to receive the telescopic fork legs (Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 13, Krugman teaches that the telescopic suspension fork is provided on a bicycle or other vehicles since it advantageously cushions impacts and other disturbances ([0003], Fig. 1), but Krugman does not expressly teach the suspension fork being provided on a motorcycle.
However, Murakami teaches a motorcycle telescopic fork suspension 10 which is provided on a motorcycle 200 comprising a front wheel 213, a rear wheel 220, a rider’s saddle 218, and a drive unit 216 ([0021]-[0024], Fig. 1 of Murakami).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the modified telescopic suspension fork of Krugman into the motorcycle of Murakami and the results of substitution would have been predictable and advantageously cushioned impacts on the motorcycle of Murakami as it is driven over bumps, ruts, rocks and other obstacles ([0003]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krugman in view of Krugman and Murakami, and further in view of Köpke (US 20190376814) and Byczkowski (US 20180106641)
Regarding claim 3, Krugman as modified teaches wherein: the sensor device 2104 is elongate, containing an elongate circuit board ([0036] and [0132]) mounting Hall sensors ([0131]) along the longitudinal direction of the circuit board ([0132], Fig. 21).
Krugman as modified does not expressly teach the hall sensors being arranged at a distance from each other, in an interior recess within an elongate housing.
However, Köpke teaches a telescoping suspension position monitoring system which comprises hall effect sensors arranged at a distance from each other ([0082]-[0083] of Köpke; “Where a plurality of sensors is employed, each can be individually identified” and “The Hall Effect sensors may be equally or unequally distributed.”) in an elongate housing 14 ([0082], Fig. 4 of Köpke).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hall effect sensor assembly of Köpke for the hall effect sensor assembly of Krugman and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and advantageously provided a position monitoring system which is compact, affordable, and lightweight ([0011] of Köpke).
Krugman as modified does not expressly teach the circuit board and hall sensors being encapsulated with a potting compound.
However, Byczkowski teaches wherein a circuit board and hall effect sensor assembly can be sealed in place by a potting material 150 ([0020] of Byczkowski).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify he modified sensor assembly of Krugman/Köpke to encapsulate the hall sensors and the circuit board in a potting compound as Byczkowski teaches in order to advantageously protect the components from outside moisture ([0020] of Byczkowski).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krugman in view of Krugman and Murakami, and further in view of Nyce (US 6401883).
Regarding claim 4, Krugman as modified teaches wherein the housing comprises a polymeric material ([0052] of Köpke), but does not expressly teach that the housing shape or that the housing comprises plastic.
However, Nyce teaches a vehicle suspension strut with a position sensor 210 (Col. 6, lines 9-11 of Nyce) comprising a housing 32 (Col. 3, lines 9-15 of Nyce) which a circular end face on both opposite end regions, and one of the end faces has a passage configured to receive electrical connection means 53 (Fig. 2 of Nyce).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified sensor assembly of Krugman/et.al. to have the housing configuration of Nyce in order to advantageously make the position sensor with low manufacturing costs (Col. 1, lines 27-31 of Nyce).
Additionally, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Krugman as modified discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein the housing comprises a plastic material”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the housing from a plastic polymer, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krugman in view of Krugman and Murakami, and further in view of Anderson (US 20160377141).
Regarding claim 9, Krugman does not teach wherein the telescopic damper fork leg is a twin rod damper.
However, Anderson teaches a front fork damping system ([0008], Fig. 1 of Anderson) wherein:
a telescopic damper fork leg is a twin rod damper 300 with a second rod 340 in a damper tube 354 ([0036], [0041] and [0044], Figs. 3B-4C of Anderson; the damping piston 300 comprises twin rods 302, 340 connected to pistons 316, 332 within damper tube 354); and
the second rod 340, supported on the damper piston 332 has an outer diameter smaller than the outer diameter of a piston rod 302 ([0044], Figs. 4B-4C of Anderson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified telescopic suspension fork of Krugman to use the twin rod damper of Anderson in order to advantageously provide a system that enables independent adjustment of low speed and high speed compression ([0033] of Anderson).
PNG
media_image1.png
891
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
875
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200376915 teaches a solenoid-actuated damper.
US 20120018265 teaches a telescoping bicycle front fork with a damping leg.
US 20120018265 teaches a damping bicycle front fork.
US 20100066051 teaches a suspension front fork with a damper, cap, and suspension leg.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm EST.
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 5712722706. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights