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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding objections to the specification:
The specification was objected to due to an informality. The Applicant amended the specification to correct the informality, therefore the objection was withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §112:
Claims 24-26 were rejected as being indefinite. The Applicant amended claim 24 to correct the indefiniteness, therefore the rejections were withdrawn.
Regarding rejections of the claims under §§102 and 103:
Claims 13-14, 21, and 24 were rejected as being anticipated by Tang. Claims 15-16 were rejected as being obvious over Tang in view of Edwards. Claim 17 was rejected as being obvious over Tang in view of Edwards and Kim. Claims 18-20 were rejected as being obvious over Tang in view of Tochigi. Claim 22 was rejected as being obvious over Tang in view of Greven. Claim 23 was rejected as being obvious over Tang in view of Greven and Liu. Claim 25 was rejected as being obvious over Tang in view of Buehler. Claim 26 was rejected as being obvious over Tang in view of Ma. The Applicant amended claims 13, 15, 17, 22, 24, and 26 and added new claims 27-28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that the radially projecting portion near 72 is not shown or described in sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider it equivalent to the claimed radially projecting shaft shoulder of the bottom bracket shaft. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A shoulder is formed in the step to the right of the radial protrusion near the clutch 72. The clutch is then connected to the shaft in that region wherein in FIG. 2 there appears to be an objected between the two as well as detailed in paragraph [0005]). Therefore, that claim limitation is taught by Tang. The Applicant also argued that Edwards does not teach the steel sprag outer race 21 being an adapter separate of a freewheel clutch. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The bending end portion of the flex spline 17 seen in FIG. 10 is attached to the outer race 21 of the clutch via its end and a bolt 22. Therefore, that claim limitation is taught by Edwards.
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.
(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.
Claims 13-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WIPO Publication No. 2016/086526 to Tang et al. (hereinafter Tang; provided by Applicant on 9/22/022).
Regarding claim 13, Tang teaches a drive unit for a manually driven vehicle, namely a bicycle or an EPAC (Paragraph [0001]), comprising:
a housing (FIG. 2, 1);
a bottom bracket shaft (FIG. 2, 2), the bottom bracket shaft comprising a shaft shoulder (FIG. 2, radially projecting portion near 72) projecting radially outward;
an electric auxiliary drive (FIG. 2, 5);
an output shaft (FIG. 2, 6) designed as a hollow shaft, the output shaft arranged coaxially with the bottom bracket shaft, the output shaft partially surrounding the bottom bracket shaft in an axial direction (Paragraph [0030]); and
a first freewheel clutch (FIG. 2, 7) adjacent to a second freewheel clutch (FIG. 2, 8) along the axial direction, the first and second freewheel clutches acting on the output shaft (FIG. 2; 6, 7, 8) and arranged radially between the bottom bracket shaft and the output shaft (FIG. 2; 2, 6, 7, 8), the first freewheel clutch being radially coupled to the bottom bracket shaft via the shaft shoulder of the bottom bracket shaft (Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 14, Tang teaches the drive unit of claim 13, wherein the first freewheel clutch couples the bottom bracket shaft to the output shaft (FIG. 2: 7 couples 2 to 6), and the second freewheel clutch couples the electric auxiliary drive to the output shaft (FIG. 2: 8 couples 10 to 6).
Regarding claim 21, Tang teaches the drive unit of claim 13, wherein the bottom bracket shaft is mounted rotatably on a housing cover (FIG. 2, left end of 1) by a first bearing (FIG. 2, 101), and the bottom bracket shaft is mounted on the output shaft by a second bearing (FIG. 2, 102).
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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0391822 to Edwards et al. (hereinafter Edwards).
Regarding claim 15, Tang teaches the drive unit of claim 13.
Tang does not teach the electric auxiliary drive comprising an adapter, a harmonic drive with a flex spline, and the flex spline is coupled to the second freewheel clutch via the adapter.
However, Edwards teaches a harmonic drive (FIG. 10; 16, 17, 18) with a flex spline (FIG. 10, 17), the flex spline coupled to a clutch via an adapter (FIG. 10; end of 17, 22, 21).
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 drive unit of Tang with the harmonic drive of Edwards as a harmonic drive has a compact form factor due to its coaxial shaft arrangement.
Regarding claim 16, Tang in view of Edwards teaches the drive unit of claim 15, wherein Edwards further teaches the adapter being annular (FIG. 10, 21).
Claims 17 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Korean Patent No. 1426903 to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 17, Tang in view of Edwards teaches the drive unit of claim 15, wherein Edwards further teaches the flex spline comprising a coupling section via which the flex spline is connected to the adapter in a connecting region (Paragraph [0124]).
Tang in view of Edwards does not teach one or both of an interference fit and an adhesive bond being formed in the connecting region.
However, Kim teaches a flex spline (FIG. 3, 230) connected to an adapter via an interference fit (Paragraph [0039]).
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 drive unit of Tang in view of Edwards with the interference fit of Kim as it provides a secure connection between components without any additional connecting components required.
Regarding claim 27, Tang in view of Edwards teaches the drive unit of claim 15, wherein the harmonic drive comprises a harmonic drive (FIG. 10; 16, 17, 18) further comprising a wave generator (FIG. 10, 16) and a cylindrical outer bushing (FIG. 10, 24), the flex spline being radially between the wave generator and the cylindrical outer bushing (FIG. 10; 17, 16, 24).
Tang in view of Edwards does not teach the wave generator having rolling bearings.
However, Kim teaches a wave generator (FIG. 1, 10) having rolling bearings (FIG. 1, bearings along 10).
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 drive unit of Tang in view of Edwards with the rolling bearings of Kim to further reduce the rotational friction of the drive unit.
Regarding claim 28, Tang teaches a drive unit for a manually driven vehicle, namely a bicycle or an EPAC (Paragraph [0001]), comprising:
a housing (FIG. 2, 1);
a bottom bracket shaft (FIG. 2, 2);
an electric auxiliary drive (FIG. 2, 5);
an output shaft (FIG. 2, 6) designed as a hollow shaft, the output shaft arranged coaxially with the bottom bracket shaft, the output shaft partially surrounding the bottom bracket shaft along an axial direction (Paragraph [0030]); and
a first freewheel clutch (FIG. 2, 7) adjacent to a second freewheel clutch (FIG. 2, 8) along the axial direction, the first and second freewheel clutches acting on the output shaft (FIG. 2; 6, 7, 8) and arranged radially between the bottom bracket shaft and the output shaft (FIG. 2; 2, 6, 7, 8).
Tang does not teach the electric auxiliary drive comprising a harmonic drive with a flex spline, the flex spline having a coupling section, the flex spline being coupled to the second freewheel clutch via the coupling section; and one or more rolling bearings on the coupling section for radially mounting the flex spline.
However, Edwards teaches a harmonic drive (FIG. 10; 16, 17, 18) with a flex spline (FIG. 10, 17), the flex spline having a coupling section (FIG. 10; end of 17, 22), the flex spline coupled to a clutch via the coupling section (FIG. 10; end of 17, 22, 21).
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 drive unit of Tang with the harmonic drive of Edwards as a harmonic drive has a compact form factor due to its coaxial shaft arrangement.
Tang in view of Edwards does not teach one or more rolling bearings on the coupling section for radially mounting the flex spline.
However, Kim teaches a flex spline (FIG. 1, 20) having rolling bearings (FIG. 1, leftmost bearings along 10) on a coupling section for radially mounting the flex spline.
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 drive unit of Tang in view of Edwards with the rolling bearings of Kim to further reduce the rotational friction of the drive unit.
Claims 18-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Japanese Patent No. 2002-213429 to Tochigi.
Regarding claim 18, Tang teaches the drive unit of claim 13.
Tang does not teach the bottom bracket shaft comprising a first shaft part connectable to a separate second shaft part.
However, Tochigi teaches a shaft comprising a first shaft part (FIG. 1, 10) connectable to a separate second shaft part (FIG. 1, 20).
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 drive unit of Tang with the first and second shaft parts of Tochigi as it may be simpler to construct and join two separate shaft parts to form a shaft rather than create a singular shaft piece.
Regarding claim 19, Tang in view of Tochigi teaches the drive unit of claim 18, wherein Tochigi further teaches the first shaft part being fastened to the second shaft part by a screw connection (Fig. 1, 34a; Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 20, Tang in view of Tochigi teaches the drive unit of claim 19, wherein Tochigi further teaches the screw connection being centrally arranged with the first and second shaft parts (FIG. 1; 34a, 10, 20).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0118304 to Greven et al. (hereinafter Greven).
Regarding claim 22, Tang teaches the drive unit of claim 13.
Tang does not teach a sensor system, the sensor system configured for detection of torque applied to the bottom bracket shaft at the shaft shoulder.
However, Greven teaches a sensor system (FIG. 1, 90), the sensor system configured for detection of torque applied to a shaft shoulder (Paragraph [0035]).
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 drive unit of Tang with the sensor system of Greven as it would help assist the user of the manually driven vehicle to operate the vehicle (Paragraph [0006]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Greven and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0210349 to Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 23, Tang in view of Greven teaches the drive unit of claim 22.
Tang in view of Greven does not teach the sensor system comprising one or more strain gauges or one or more magnetostrictive measuring elements.
However, Liu teaches a torque sensor system for a bicycle with a strain gauge (FIG. 1, A2).
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 drive unit of Tang with the strain gauge of Liu as a strain gauge can accurately detect torque transmission (Paragraph [0047]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 24, Tang teaches the drive unit of claim 13, further comprising a sleeve (FIG. 2, 301) pushed or pressed on the bottom bracket shaft, wherein the sleeve comprises a socket section (FIG. 2, 301, radially widest section) for axially fixing one or more rolling bearings (FIG. 2, middle bearings).
Tang does not teach the rolling bearings being of a flex spline of a harmonic drive of the electric auxiliary drive.
However, Kim teaches a harmonic drive (Paragraph [0016]) with a flex spline (FIG. 1, 20) connected to rolling bearings (FIG. 1, bearings on 20) connected to a shaft (FIG. 1, 10).
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 drive unit of Tang in view of Edwards with the flex spline and bearings of Kim to provide a more efficient gear reducing action for the drive unit (Paragraph [0017]-[0018]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of German Patent No. 101 04 588 to Buehler et al. (hereinafter Buehler).
Regarding claim 25, Tang teaches the drive unit of claim 24.
Tang does not teach the sleeve forming a sealing surface for a sealing point between the bottom bracket shaft and a stator carrier, the bottom bracket shaft guided through the sealing surface.
However, Buehler teaches a shaft (FIG. 2, 2) having a sleeve (FIG. 2, 13) forming a sealing surface for a sealing surface (FIG. 2, 10) between the shaft and a stator carrier (FIG. 2, outer housing), the bottom bracket shaft guided through the sealing surface (FIG. 2, shaft penetrates through surface).
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 drive unit of Tang with the sealing surface of Buehler to prevent the ingress of liquids into the drive unit and potentially damage components.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of WIPO Publication No. 2016/045181 to Ma.
Regarding claim 26, Tang teaches the drive unit of claim 24.
Tang does not teach one or both of:
a line guide being formed on or in the sleeve, the line guide configured such that electrical lines for power transmission or signal transmission between a sensor system for torque measurement and an electronic unit are received in the line guide; and
one or more slip rings for the one or both of the power transmission or the signal transmission between the electronic unit and the sensor system for torque measurement are attached on the sleeve.
However, Ma teaches a sleeve (FIG. 1, 3) on a shaft (FIG. 1, 1) having a line guide (FIG. 1, 301) formed on the sleeve, configured such that electrical lines (FIG. 1, 301, wires) for power transmission or signal transmission between a sensor system for torque measurement (FIG. 1, 4) and an electronic unit (FIG. 1, left side) are received in the line guide.
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 drive unit of Tang with the line guide of Ma to reduce the radial size of the drive unit by incorporating features into the shaft sleeve.
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 JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834