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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of examination, the claimed “skewer (92)” is being interpreted to encompass an axle, consistent with the Specification at [Para. 0009 ln. 1, which discloses that the skewer “Referring to FIGS. 1 through 4, a mudguard 91 is attached to a frame 93 of a bicycle by a skewer (or “axle”) 92”]. Under this broadest reasonable interpretation, a prior art axle meets the claimed “skewer” limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 1510603 A Pawsat (Pawsat).
PNG
media_image1.png
506
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
351
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Pawsat discloses a bracket (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) including: a primary U-shaped element (Annotated Pawsat Fig. B) including two branches (Annotated Pawsat Fig. B) and an arched section (Annotated Pawsat Fig. B) formed between the branches (Annotated Pawsat Fig. B), wherein the arched section (Annotated Pawsat Fig. B) of the primary U-shaped element (Annotated Pawsat Fig. B) is connected to a mudguard (Annotated Pawsat Fig. B); two collars (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) respectively secured to the branches (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) of the primary U-shaped element (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A), wherein the collars (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) receive two sections of a skewer (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A); and two nuts (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) engaged with two threaded sections of the skewer (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A).
Regarding claim 5, Pawsat discloses a secondary U-shaped element (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) with two branches (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) and an arched section (Annotated Pawsat Fig. B) formed between the branches (Annotated Pawsat Fig. B) of the secondary U-shaped element (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A), wherein the branches (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) of the secondary U-shaped element (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) are respectively connected to the branches (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) of the primary U-shaped element (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A), wherein the arched section (Annotated Pawsat Fig. B) of the secondary U-shaped element (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) is connected to the mudguard (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A).
Regarding claim 6, Pawsat discloses each of the branches (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) of the primary U-shaped element (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) extends at an angle (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) from the corresponding branch (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) of the secondary U-shaped element (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1510603 A Pawsat (Pawsat) in view of US 8075010 B2 Talavasek (Talavasek).
PNG
media_image3.png
505
835
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Pawsat discloses the collars (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A) and the corresponding nut (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A).
Pawsat fails to disclose a washer. However, Talavasek teaches a washer (Annotated Talavasek Fig. A) that can be placed between each of the said collars and the said corresponding nut.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pawsat’s collar and nut arrangement by incorporating a washer between each collar and the corresponding nut, as taught by Talavasek, in order to distributed the clamping load evenly across the collar surface and prevent damage to the collar during tightening of the nut. Such a modification would not produce any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would reduce loosening of the nut over time due to vibration, thereby improving the securement and longevity of the assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Pawsat discloses the collars (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A).
Pawsat fails to disclose two washers respectively on two sides of each of the collars. However, Talavasek teaches two washers (Annotated Talavasek Fig. A) that can be placed respectively on two sides of each of the said collars.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Pawsat, as modified by Talavasek, by incorporating two washers respectively on two sides of each collar, as taught by Talavasek, in order to distribute the clamping load evenly on both faces of the collar and prevent the collar from being marred or deformed by direct contact with adjacent components during assembly and tightening. Such a modification would not produce any unexpected results. Moreover, doing so would provide a more secure and stable connection by preventing lateral shifting of the collar along the skewer/axle.
Regarding claim 4, Pawsat discloses the nuts (Annotated Pawsat Fig. A).
Pawsat fails to disclose that each of the nuts includes a lever. However, Talavasek teaches a nut including a lever (Annotated Talavasek Fig. A), but only teaches a single lever-actuated nut on one end of the skewer/axle, and does not disclose that each of the two nuts includes a lever.
Courts have held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected results is produced (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).” Here, Talavasek discloses a lever-actuated nut on one section of the skewer. Duplicating this lever-actuated nut structure to the second, opposing nut would provide the additional benefit of enabling tool-free actuation and removal from either side of the assembly, without producing any new or unexpected results.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the lever-actuated nut structure as taught by Talavasek such that each of the two nuts of Pawsat, as modified by Talavasek, includes a lever, in order to allow a user to tighten or loosen either nut without requiring a separate tool, thereby improving ease of assembly and disassembly from both sides of the bracket. Such a modification is merely a duplication of an essential working part and would not produce any new or unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 9283809 B2, US 7976041 B2, US 6435533 B1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASA F SOLOMON whose telephone number is +1 571-272-8379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9am-5pm 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at +1 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of the 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.
/ASA FRANKLIN SOLOMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights