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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102010018138 to Antrag auf Nichtnennung.
Regarding claim 1, Antrag teaches an electric bicycle 1 (Figure 1) driven by electric power (electric motors 3, 5,), the electric bicycle comprising: a front wheel 17 drivable by a front wheel electric motor 3 that has a battery 23 as a power supply; a rear wheel 19 drivable by a rear wheel electric motor 5 that has a battery 9 as a power supply; pedals 38 for inputting pedaling force of a driver to at least one of the front wheel or the rear wheel; at least one travel operator (throttle 27, 29, 37, 38) that inputs a desired travel state of the driver; a front wheel controller 9 (Figure 2) that controls a rotation of the front wheel electric motor in accordance with a situation of the front wheel and an input from the travel operator; and a rear wheel controller 7 that controls a rotation of the rear wheel electric motor in accordance with a situation of the rear wheel and an input from the travel operator, wherein two electric motors, the front wheel electric motor and the rear wheel electric motor, are provided, at least one of the front wheel or the rear wheel is driven by the corresponding electric motor and a load of at least one of the front wheel electric motor or the rear wheel electric motor is reduced by the pedaling force of the driver (see translation, page 7, lines 5-8, “If the driver pedal torque (61) applies to the rear wheel, this can be taken into account … electrical drive torque (97) on the rear wheel is reduced by this percentage”). The front and rear wheels are driven by “hub motors” 3 (see page 5, line 24) which, by definition, are motors mounted to the rotation shafts of the driven wheels. DE ‘138 also teaches that input from the user can be from at least one travel operator (throttle) independent of the rotation of the pedals (input is from manual actuation of a throttle or other input, page 3, lines 22-24; a combination of user inputs is not required; on page 5, last 3 lines, the driver’s request is “controlled by one or more gas actuation elements 41, 42, 57, 61”, one for requesting the front wheel drive torque and another 42 for rear wheel drive torque).
Regarding claim 6, Antrag teaches all of the elements of the claim, as set forth above, and at least one of the front wheel controller or the rear wheel controller performs regeneration control (see Antrag translation, page 6, lines 21-32).
Regarding claim 7, at least one of the front wheel controller or the rear wheel controller performs the regeneration control in accordance with a traveling situation of the electric bicycle (in response to detected lack of traction, brake actuation, reverse pedaling, etc.; see page 6, lines 16-31).
Regarding claims 15-17, Antrag teaches a number of different control strategies including control of the front and rear motors substantially equally, providing more torque using the front motor and providing more torque using the rear motor (see Figures 3-5, description of control strategies on pages 7 and 8 of the Antrag translation).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 8-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102010018138 to Antrag auf Nichtnennung.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 8- 12, Antrag teaches a brake lever (page 6, lines 26-27, Antrag translation) a wheel brake lever that inputs a braking amount of the wheel, wherein at least one of control, by the front wheel controller, of the rotation of the front wheel electric motor in accordance with a braking amount command from the front wheel brake lever, or control, by the rear wheel controller, of the rotation of the rear wheel electric motor in accordance with the braking amount command from the front wheel brake lever is performed. Antrag is silent regarding a front brake lever and a rear brake lever. However, front and rear brake levers for actuating front and rear mechanical brakes are old and well-known elements and are conventionally provided on all types of cycles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Antrag electric bicycle with front and rear brake levers for actuating front and rear mechanical brakes, with a reasonable expectation of success, as is old and well known and conventionally provided on bicycles in order to ensure the safety of the rider and to initiate regenerative braking of the type taught by Antrag. It would also have been obvious to use either or both of the brake levers to provide input for controlling either or both of the wheel motors, as a matter of routine engineering design selection for the purpose of controlling the motors for the regenerative braking function taught by Antrag.
Regarding claims 13-14, the brake levers perform as regeneration switches.
Regarding claim 18, Antrag teaches a pedal torque measuring means (torque sensor on the crank mechanism (38), page 5, lines 33-34) that measure a pedaling force torque from the pedals, wherein the front wheel controller and the rear wheel controller control such that the pedaling force torque measured by the pedal torque measuring means is used to determine the desired motor output. It does not specifically refer to the crank torque and a value obtained by summing torque of the front wheel electric motor and torque of the rear wheel electric motor have a predetermined ratio. However, the total motor torque output is the sum of the front and rear torques. If the pedal torque is used to determine total motor torque output, it would have been obvious to set the total motor torque at a predetermined ratio relative to the pedal torque in order for the pedal torque to reliably and predictably set the torque output.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Antrag does not explicitly say that the controller sets the front and rear motor velocities or total torque at a predetermined value. However, motors speed and torque is conventionally limited to avoid burning out the motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to limit the motor speeds and total motor torque using the motor controllers to predetermined speed or torque levels, as is well known, in order to prevent damage to the motors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the presently claimed invention is a moped, which is a vehicle that can operate both with and without pedaling, but DE’138 is not necessarily a moped. The examiner disagrees. DE’138 shows, in Figure 3, a division of power inputs. Between points A and B, a combination of motor input 93 and user input 93 drives the bicycle. The pedal power 97 (related to pedal torque 61) then decreases to zero at between points B and C and the motor input 93 increases for a particular total drive torque 91. At point C no pedal power is output. A chain connection between the pedal crank and rear wheel also means that the bicycle can be powered by the pedal alone, if necessary. Therefore, the vehicle taught by DE’138 is drivable by either motor or pedal power, as a moped.
Applicant also argues that DE’138 is unclear as to whether the throttle lever/grip is provided in addition to or alternatively to the cadence sensor 37 or torque sensor attached to the crank mechanism. The examiner disagrees. In numerous instances in the disclosure, DE’138 teaches that desired output is manually requested using a throttle or pedal torque, not a throttle in combination with pedal torque, at least with respect to certain embodiments (for example, see page 3, lines 22-24, “drive torque is requested via a manual actuation…throttle-grip” or another input; page 5, lines 33-35 and 45-47, driver’s request “is controlled by one or more gas actuation elements (41, 42, 57, 61)”, etc.). Therefore, DE’138 unambiguously teaches requesting torque output using just the throttle(s).
Applicant also argues that DE’138 does not disclose that when the driver applies pedal force a load of one of the wheel motors is reduced by the pedaling force. The examiner disagrees. Figure 3 of DE’138 shows that, for a given requested total torque output 91, pedal force reduces the load of at least one motor. In Figure 3, for example between points B and C, rear motor torque 93 is increased as pedal force 97 is decreased for a relatively constant total torque 91, indicating that the pedal input reduces the load on the motor for a given output. Therefore, claim 1, in particular, is believed to be anticipated by DE’138.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/