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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/arguments, see pages [5, 6, and 15-17], filed 9/3/25, with respect to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of the claims [2 and 9-12] have been withdrawn. The claim, drawing, and specification objections are withdrawn due to the amendments filed 9/3/25.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The drawing and abstract/specification amendments are accepted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because 25 in Fig. 1 is not clearly labeled with symbol or text to show what it is meant to represent (examiner recommends the applicant put inverter or converter next to 25 or inside the blank box). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al (JP 2014045551 A) in view of Nagai et al (JP H0950826 A)
Independent Claim 1, Ikeda teaches a battery pack (Fig. 1) for an electric bicycle (9, abstract), the battery pack (10) comprising:
a battery which is rechargeable (abstract 10 has secondary/rechargeable cells 1);
a charge FET including a parallel diode connected in series with the battery (71); and
a control circuit configured to control turning on and off of the charge FET (element with dotted line in Fig. 1, including [4, 51-57, 5, 6, 73, 74]), wherein the control circuit includes:
a discriminating circuit configured to detect a bicycle-mounted state and a charger-connected state (55, 56, VCC, 57, 85); and
a memory configured to store a full charge voltage of the battery (RAM 53, ROM 52, esp. 53, ¶[28] states a voltage when the battery is fully charged, ¶’s [26-28, esp. 28])
the control circuit is configured to:
in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the bicycle- mounted state (¶’s [24, 26, 32, 33, 44, esp. 32, 33, 44]); and
Ikeda is silent to in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the charger-connected state, stop charging the battery by switching the charge FET to turn off the charge FET upon detecting that a voltage of the battery charged by a charger becomes higher than the full charge voltage; and in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the bicycle- mounted state, turn off the charge FET regardless of a voltage of the battery.
Nagai teaches in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the charger-connected state, stop charging the battery by switching the charge FET to turn off the charge FET upon detecting that a voltage of the battery charged by a charger becomes higher than the full charge voltage (¶[23]); and in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the bicycle- mounted state, turn off the charge FET regardless of a voltage of the battery (¶’s [07, 12, 15, 24, 25, esp. 25]). Nagai teaches this control via the detection of the external control signal and prevention of overcharging serves to provide improved safety (¶’s [06, 12, 74])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ikeda with Nagai to provide improved safety.
Dependent Claim 4, the combination of Ikeda and Nagai teaches the control circuit includes an A/D converter configured to convert the voltage of the battery into a digital signal, and the control circuit is configured to calculate the voltage of the battery by processing the digital signal converted by the A/D converter (A/D converter 4, ¶’s [22, 26] of Ikeda).
Dependent Claim 5, the combination of Ikeda and Nagai teaches the charge FET is a MOSFET including a parasitic diode as the parallel diode (Ikeda, ¶’s [23-26, 29]).
Dependent Claim 6, the combination of Ikeda and Nagai teaches the battery is a lithium-ion battery (¶[01] describes the battery as lithium ion battery in Nagai, where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that lithium ion batteries are reliable and quick for charging and discharging of devices, official notice taken).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al (JP 2014045551 A) in view of Nagai et al (JP H0950826 A), further in view of Tanaka et al (USPGPN 20190084426)
Dependent Claim 7, the combination of Ikeda and Nagai teaches an electric bicycle comprising: the battery pack according to claim 1 (Ikeda abstract); and a driving motor (Ikeda 91) connected to the battery pack via a control converter (Ikeda 92).
Ikeda is silent to the driving motor configured to supply a charging current to the battery pack during regenerative braking of the bicycle.
Tanaka teaches the driving motor configured to supply a charging current to the battery pack during regenerative braking of the bicycle (motor 105, ¶[113], abstract, with 1030 as the generator, see pages 5 & 6 of the non-final rejection mailed 9/3/25 for analogous subject matter to the present application, Ikeda, and Nagai). Tanaka teaches this control allows for improved safety and improved battery life for control of regenerative and loss braking (¶’s [213, 250-254]), where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that regenerative breaking helps to improve the efficiency of a system by allowing power to be recycled during braking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ikeda in view of Nagai with Tanaka to provide improved efficiency, life, and safety.
Dependent Claim 8, the combination of Ikeda and Nagai teaches an electric bicycle comprising: the battery pack according to claim 1 (Ikeda abstract); and a driving motor (Ikeda 91) connected to the battery pack via a control converter (Ikeda 92).
Ikeda is silent to a regenerative braking power generating mechanism configured to charge the battery pack with an electromotive force of the driving motor.
Tanaka teaches a regenerative braking power generating mechanism configured to charge the battery pack with an electromotive force of the driving motor (motor 105, ¶[113], abstract, with 1030 as the generator, see pages 5 & 6 of the non-final rejection mailed 9/3/25 for analogous subject matter to the present application, Ikeda, and Nagai). Tanaka teaches this control allows for improved safety and improved battery life for control of regenerative and loss braking (¶’s [213, 250-254]), where a person having ordinary skill in the art understands that regenerative breaking helps to improve the efficiency of a system by allowing power to be recycled during braking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ikeda in view of Nagai with Tanaka to provide improved efficiency, life, and safety.
Claims 3, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al (JP 2014045551 A) in view of Eguchi (USPN 5982145, hereinafter Egu) and Nagai et al (JP H0950826 A)
Independent Claim 3, Ikeda teaches a battery pack (Fig. 1) for an electric bicycle (9, abstract), the battery pack (10) comprising:
a battery which is rechargeable (abstract 10 has secondary/rechargeable cells 1);
a charge FET including a parallel diode connected in series with the battery (71); and
a control circuit configured to control turning on and off of the charge FET (element with dotted line in Fig. 1, including [4, 51-57, 5, 6, 73, 74]), wherein the control circuit includes:
a discriminating circuit configured to detect a bicycle-mounted state and a charger-connected state (55, 56, VCC, 57, 85); and
a memory configured to store a full charge voltage of the battery (RAM 53, ROM 52, esp. 53, ¶[28] states a voltage when the battery is fully charged, ¶’s [26-28, esp. 28])
the control circuit is configured to:
in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the bicycle-mounted state (¶’s [24, 26, 32, 33, 44, esp. 32, 33, 44]);
in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the charger-connected state (¶’s [24, 26, 32, 33, 44, esp. 32, 33, 44]).
Ikeda is silent to a threshold current of a load current (overcurrent state protection is described in ¶[03]); in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the load-mounted state, cause the charge FET to turn on or off depending on the load current supplied to the electric load from the battery, wherein the control circuit turns off the charge FET when the load current is smaller than the threshold current; and the control circuit turns on the charge FET when the load current is larger than the threshold current, and in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the charger-connected state, cause the charge FET to turn on or off depending on the voltage of the battery, the control circuit stops charging the battery by switching the charge FET to turn off the charge FET upon detecting that the voltage of the battery charged by a charger is higher than the full charge voltage.
Nagai teaches in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the charger-connected state, the control circuit stops charging the battery by switching the charge FET to turn off the charge FET upon detecting that the voltage of the battery charged by a charger is higher than the full charge voltage (¶[23]); and in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the load- mounted state, turn off the charge FET regardless of a voltage of the battery (¶’s [07, 12, 15, 24, 25, esp. 25]). Nagai teaches this control via the detection of the external control signal and prevention of overcharging serves to provide improved safety (¶’s [06, 12, 74])
Ikeda is silent to a threshold current of a load current (overcurrent state protection is described in ¶[03]); in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the load-mounted state, cause the charge FET to turn on or off depending on the load current supplied to the electric bicycle from the battery, wherein the control circuit turns off the charge FET when the load current is smaller than the threshold current; and the control circuit turns on the charge FET when the load current is larger than the threshold current.
Egu teaches a threshold current of a load current (Fig. 3 S7 is described to be stored on a recording media, i.e. memory, see title); in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the load-mounted state, cause the charge FET to turn on or off depending on the load current supplied to the electric bicycle from the battery, wherein the control circuit turns off the charge FET when the load current is smaller than the threshold current (structure of Fig. 2, see Figs. 3 & 9, where Col 12 L51 to Col 13 L69, “d-passive” mode); and the control circuit turns on the charge FET when the load current is larger than the threshold current (structure of Fig. 2, see Figs. 3 & 8, e.g. s73 of Fig. 8 and s7 of Fig. 3, where Col 12 L51 to Col 13 L69, “active” mode;
Fig. 3, S7 yes or no, with S1 representing the detection of the load mounted state).
Egu teaches this serves to improve the safety/protection of the circuit (Col 6 L33-44), simplicity (Col 15 L5-11), and reliability (Col 13 L41-52 & Col 15 L11-29)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ikeda in view of Nagai with Egu to provide improved reliability, safety, and simplicity.
Dependent Claim 13, the combination of Ikeda and Nagai teaches the control circuit includes an A/D converter configured to convert the voltage of the battery into a digital signal, and the control circuit is configured to calculate the voltage of the battery by processing the digital signal converted by the A/D converter (A/D converter 4, ¶’s [22, 26] of Ikeda).
Dependent Claim 14, the combination of Ikeda and Nagai teaches the charge FET is a MOSFET including a parasitic diode as the parallel diode (Ikeda, ¶’s [23-26, 29]).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al (JP 2014045551 A) in view of Nagai et al (JP H0950826 A), further in view of Tanaka et al (USPGPN 20190084426)
Dependent Claim 15, the combination of Ikeda and Nagai teaches an electric bicycle comprising: the battery pack according to claim 1 (Ikeda abstract); and a driving motor (Ikeda 91) connected to the battery pack via a control converter (Ikeda 92).
Ikeda is silent to the driving motor configured to supply a charging current to the battery pack during regenerative braking of the bicycle.
Tanaka teaches the driving motor configured to supply a charging current to the battery pack during regenerative braking of the bicycle (motor 105, ¶[113], abstract, with 1030 as the generator, see pages 5 & 6 of the non-final rejection mailed 9/3/25 for analogous subject matter to the present application, Ikeda, and Nagai). Tanaka teaches this control allows for improved safety and improved battery life for control of regenerative and loss braking (¶’s [213, 250-254]), where one of ordinary skill in the art understands that regenerative breaking helps to improve the efficiency of a system by allowing power to be recycled during braking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ikeda in view of Nagai with Tanaka to provide improved efficiency, life, and safety.
Dependent Claim 16, the combination of Ikeda and Nagai teaches an electric bicycle comprising: the battery pack according to claim 1 (Ikeda abstract); and a driving motor (Ikeda 91) connected to the battery pack via a control converter (Ikeda 92).
Ikeda is silent to a regenerative braking power generating mechanism configured to charge the battery pack with an electromotive force of the driving motor.
Tanaka teaches a regenerative braking power generating mechanism configured to charge the battery pack with an electromotive force of the driving motor (motor 105, ¶[113], abstract, with 1030 as the generator, see pages 5 & 6 of the non-final rejection mailed 9/3/25 for analogous subject matter to the present application, Ikeda, and Nagai). Tanaka teaches this control allows for improved safety and improved battery life for control of regenerative and loss braking (¶’s [213, 250-254]), where a person having ordinary skill in the art understands that regenerative breaking helps to improve the efficiency of a system by allowing power to be recycled during braking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ikeda in view of Nagai with Tanaka to provide improved efficiency, life, and safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 9-12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Independent Claim 2, the prior art discloses a battery pack for an electric bicycle, the battery pack comprising: a battery which is rechargeable; a charge FET including a parallel diode connected in series with the battery; and a control circuit configured to turning on and off of controlling the charge FET, wherein the control circuit includes: a discriminating circuit configured to detect a bicycle-mounted state and a charger-connected state; and a memory configured to store a full charge voltage of the battery and a threshold voltage lower than the full charge voltage, and the control circuit is configured to: in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the charger-connected state, cause the charge FET to turn on or off depending on whether the voltage of the battery is higher than the full charge voltage, wherein the control circuit stops charging the battery by switching the charge FET to turn off the charge FET upon detecting that the voltage of the battery charged by a charger becomes higher than the full charge voltage; the prior art fails to disclose the further inclusion of and combination with the control circuit is configured to: in response to the discriminating circuit detecting the bicycle-mounted state, cause the charge FET to turn on or off depending on whether a voltage of the battery is higher than the threshold voltage, wherein the control circuit turns off the charge FET where the voltage of the battery is higher than the threshold voltage; and the control circuit turns on the charge FET where the voltage of the battery is lower than the threshold voltage.
Dependent Claims 9-12 are allowed for their dependence upon Claim 2. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights