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 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.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browning (US 5509674) in view of Przykucki (US 10894572 B2).
In regards to claim 1: Browning teaches a suspension system for a bicycle (Abstract), the suspension system comprising:
a first, elongate tubular body (10) defining a hollow interior (See Figure 2, Tube 9 is received within tube 10);
a second, elongate tubular body (9) configured to slide linearly within the first, elongate tubular body (See Figure 2, column 3 lines 4-6: “The suspension tube 9 is received within steering tube 10 and can slide therein”);
a rod (24) disposed partially within the hollow interior (See Figure 2);
a cap (26) coupled to the first, elongate tubular body, wherein the rod extends into the cap (Shown in Figure 2).
Browning fails to teach a magnet coupled to the rod, wherein the magnet is positioned within the cap and outside of the hollow interior; and
a sensor coupled to the cap, and wherein the sensor is configured to detect rotational displacement of the magnet.
However, Przykucki teaches a rotary sensor arrangement for a magnet (Generally shown in Figure 2) with a magnet (165) coupled to a rod (160, Column 4 lines 24-25: “A magnet 165 is, directly or indirectly, attached to shaft 160.”), wherein the magnet is positioned within a cap (105, see Figure 2) and not within a hollow interior of any attached structure, and a sensor (170) coupled to the cap (Shown in Figure 2), and wherein the sensor is configured to detect rotational displacement of the magnet (Column 4 lines 48-53: “A circuit 170, which is also described below, is attached to the housing. The circuit 170 performs several functions. First, the circuit includes a magnetic field sensor (e.g., a magnetometer) that senses changes in the magnetic field of the magnet 165. As the magnet 165 rotates (e.g., pivots) relative to the housing 105, the direction of the magnetic field changes.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cap magnetic rotary sensor arrangement as in Przykucki with the cap assembly of Browning with the magnet attached to the rod of Browning for detecting the rotational displacement of the magnet in order to determine the linear displacement of the second body relative to the first of Browning so as to allow a user to better fine-tune the suspension assembly to more accurately provide damping adjustment based on the specific needs of the user.
In regards to claim 19: The suspension of claim 16 is taught by Browning in view of Przykucki. The combination further teaches wherein the sensor is a rotary sensor configured to detect a rotational displacement of the magnet (See quotes from Column 4 of Przykucki directly above).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browning (US 5509674) in view of Przykucki (US 10894572 B2) and further in view of Krugman (US 10807670). The suspension system of claim 16 is taught by Browning in view of Przykucki. The combination further teaches a bicycle (generally shown in Figure 1 of Browning) having a front fork (6 of Browning). The combination fails to teach wherein the suspension system is disposed at least partially within the front fork.
However, Krugman teaches a bicycle (Generally shown in Figure 1) with suspension systems (406 and 408) disposed in the front fork (110, See Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the suspension of Browning and Pryzykucki in the front fork of the bicycle as in Krugman to provide additional damping and shock absorption on either side of the wheel thereby increasing the comfort and safety provided to the user by the suspension system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed. Claim 1 recites “wherein linear movement of the second body within the hollow interior along the axis is configured to cause rotational displacement of the rod about the axis.” The prior art fails to teach this limitation in the claims. References such as Browning (US 5509674), Mack (US 5449155), Nichols (US 2019/0092421 A1), Gilbert (US 2021/0317891 A1), and Sakagawa (US 2022/0041234) teach linear movement of a body within a hollow interior caused by a rotational motion of a threaded rod. However, none of the references teach the opposite as claimed wherein the rod is caused to rotate in response to linear movement of the second body. The Nichols reference specifically teaches away from such “back driving”. Additionally, it would not be reasonable or obvious to modify any of the above mentioned references in this way, and doing so would render many of them unusable as many of them use the rotational motion to adjust the linear position of the second body and then lock it in a preferred position for use. Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1 and are considered allowable.
Claims 17 and 18 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.
Claim 17 recites wherein the second body includes a piston engaged with an external thread of the rod. While the rod of Browning does include an external thread, and Browning does have a piston, the piston of Browning does not engage with the thread of the rod of Browning. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation, nor would it be obvious to modify the rod and piston of Browning in such a manner. Furthermore, doing so would likely render the suspension of Browning unusable for its intended purpose. Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and is found to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sugawara (US 2024/0034429 A1) teaches a suspension assembly on the front fork of a bike with an electrically controlled piston rod. Burgess (US 2017/0082142 A1) teaches a front fork suspension assembly with a spiral bearing. Barefoot (US 2016/0290432) teaches a threaded adjuster for controlling fluid flow in a shock absorber. Miyoshi (US 2003/0132601 A1) teaches a computer controlled locking shock absorber. Marking (US 6311962 B1) teaches a shock absorber with a threaded adjustment bolt.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL R HYMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0389. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 7:30-4:30.
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.
/ABIGAIL R HYMEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights