No-Fork project, bicycle geometry hacked

In bicycledesign the constructions around the front and rear wheel have always looked unnecessary complicated

As in all engineering, the structure is a matter of compromise. The conventional fork with multiple separate parts welded together does seem to be complex to manufacture, but a cheap and nasty unicrown has only 3 parts* and two welds (fork ends are just the blade tube squashed flat), where the No-Fork has at least 2 parts and one weld (the leg and the tube at the base to take the axle), so in terms of simplifying manufacture, you have little if any advantage. At each step of design, tooling, component manufacture, assembly and finishing, we can argue back and forth over the points of difference and the costs incurred, but the market has already made the final calculation - conventional frames are very cheap to mass produce, and allow for cheap components (hubs, brakes, drivetrain) to complete the bicycle. I am sometimes surprised by the choices made on BSOs, but every part, and its effect on the final assembled article, will have been analysed to the last cent. Many alternative forms of bicycle frame exist in the prior art, yet we keep building diamonds with two pairs of stays and two fork blades where economy of manufacture is of high concern. The only place where this is not the case is in the structural replacement of the top tube with a much larger down tube in some step-through designs.

Where the conventional fork scores is in economy of material - supporting the wheel on both sides allows the axle to form part of the overall fork structure, so the desired mechanical properties are achieved with less metal. Taking your example of the Eiffel Tower, it would have been a much simpler structure if it were just a single conical tube, but it would have used such a vast amount of material that the huge expense of manufacturing and assembling the thousands of beam elements in the actual structure ends up being cheaper. In other words, the conventional design is not unnecessarily complicated, it is exactly as complicated as it needs to be, no more and no less.

All of which is irrelevant - your project does not introduce us for the first time to single sided forks and stays, so whatever claims there are for such things are a matter for the many previous implementations, which go back almost as far as the two sided structure. If your patent is to succeed, your claim must lie in the matter of inclining the wheel axles. You must demonstrate that it hasn't been done before (novelty test), that it solves a problem which exists in the conventional designs (objective technical problem test), and that any competent bicycle engineer would not have come to the same solution to the problem (non-obviousness test).

The objective technical problem test is where you are consistently evasive. Since your decision to incline the wheel axles seems to be the only source of a problem (i.e. it doesn't even exist until you came along), the problem/solution question seems to come down to this:
Problem: How would one construct a bicycle which handled like a convention design, presuming that the wheel axles were inclined
Solution: Adjust the steering geometry to neutralise camber-steer
I think the solution fails the non-obviousness test, since any competent bicycle engineer would have come to the same solution when presented with the stated problem (it is not necessary, in patent law, to conclude that any competent bicycle engineer would never have created the problem in the first place :-) )

*Some primitive forks are even made in just 2 parts, with both blades formed by a single U-shaped component