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 filed January 8, 2026, regarding the claim objections (page 9) and the 103 rejection of claim 5 (page 15) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102 and 103 rejections of the claims (pages 9-16) have been fully considered but are not persuasive (excepting those directed toward claim 5, as discussed above) for the following reasons, therefore the related rejections have been maintained:
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 10, para. 4: “In Mavic…”) that Mavic does not teach a second connector unit as claimed because the Second Key 233 and other parts of Mavic that make up a second connector unit (233, 234 and 235) are not mountable on a dropout of the electric bicycle, the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that the Second Key 233 is illustrated as fixed- i.e. mounted- in the dropout feature of Rear Leg 21 in Figs. 4, 6, & 7; see also the 102 rejection of claim 1 below. For similar reasons Housing 211 is considered ‘mountable’ on a dropout.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 10, para. 4: “In Mavic…”) that Mavic does not teach that a first connecting part is arranged on an axial end of a housing of an electric motor, the examiner disagrees, pointing to the 102 rejection of claim 1 below. The examiner further notes that, if the applicant intends this limitation to be understood as the first connecting part being rigidly attached to a motor housing, that this is not considered to be supported by the description of the instant application. The first connecting part 10a of the instant application is understood to remain stationary with respect to the bicycle frame while the hub 8/ housing of electric motor 3 spins with the rear wheel 6 (para. [0025]), and para. [0027] further describes first connecting part 10a as being fixed to a stator of electric motor 3 and not a housing.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 13, para. 2: “Line drawing…”) that Mavic as modified by Van Druten does not teach the claimed form fitting connection between first and second connecting elements as restricting relative movement towards an electric motor, the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that the Dropout Recess 33 of Van Druten (equated as a first connecting element) is restricted from moving towards the motor by the Adapter 3 (the second connecting element) as illustrated in Fig. 12. Also, the two parts are restricted from moving along the same direction in that they are arranged between the dropouts of the Frame 31, and Adapter 3 is at least partially held in such a position by the form-fitted connection between it and Dropout Recess 33.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second slots of claims 30 and 31, the at least two first and second slots of claim 31 and the channel of claim 32 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The first and second slots of claims 30 and 31, the at least two first and second slots of claim 31 and the channel of claim 32 are not described in the written description. If the applicant feels that these features are described and indicated in description, albeit under different names, the claims should be amended to use the terminology consistent with the description. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 has been amended to include all of the limitations of claim 28, which depends on claim 1, but claim 28 was neither cancelled nor amended such that it further limited claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The first and second slots of claims 30 and 31, the at least two first and second slots of claim 31 and the channel of claim 32 are neither described in the written description nor clearly labeled in the drawings. If the applicant feels that these features are described and indicated in description and drawings, albeit under different names, the claims should be amended to use the terminology consistent with the description. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 30-32 are rendered indefinite as they recite features not clearly found in the written specification, see the related objections and rejections above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected parent claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10-13, 15, 21-22, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MAVIC (FR-3083205-B1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment and/ or deviations from the previous office action, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15, (having similar limitations, with minimum distinctions {as indicated below}), MAVIC teaches a motor device for an electric bicycle (Para. [0001]), comprising:
an electric motor (Electric Assist Motor 4, Fig. 1) having an axis of rotation (Axis X, Fig. 1);
a first connector unit (the combination of First Key 43 and Positive Polarity Wire 41, Fig. 7 and Capsule 134, Para. [0066]) {having [claim 1]/ including [claim 15]} a first motor connector (First Key 43, Fig. 7) and a first connecting part (Bracket 13, Fig. 6) {which surrounds the first motor connector (43) regionally and outwardly (Bracket 13 surrounding the First Key 43 as illustrated in Fig. 6) [claim 1 only]}, wherein the first connector unit (41, 43 and 134) is mounted on the electric motor (Para. [0066] teaches that the First Key 43 is located on a Hub 1 and Para. [0037] teaches that Electric Assist Motor 4 is in the Hub 1, such that the First Key 43 is considered to be mounted to the Electric Motor 4) and is electrically {conductively [claim 1 only]} connected to the electric motor (4) via the first motor connector (Para. [0066] teaches that the First Key 43 is electrically connected to the electric motor via a Positive Polarity Wire 41); and
a second connector unit (the combination of Second Key 233, Positive Polarity Wire 231, Insulating Sheath 234 and Elastic Means 235, Fig. 7) {having [1]/ including [15]} a second motor connector (Second Key 233, Fig. 7) and a second connecting part (Housing 211, Fig. 7), {wherein an electrical conductive connection can be established and released directly between the first motor connector (43) and the second motor connector (Para. [0066] teaches First Key 43 and Second Key 233 having an electrical contact and an Elastic Means 235 to constrain them together is such a way that it is understood that the connection can be establish and released) [claim 1 only]};
wherein between the first connecting part (13) and the second connecting part (211) {a form-fitted connection transversely to the axis of rotation (X) can be established and released [claim 1]/ are releasably connectable to one another via a form-fitted connection transverse to the axis of rotation (X) [claim 15]} (Bracket 13 and Housing 211 establishing a form-fitted connected in a transverse plane to the axis of rotation Axis X as illustrated in Figs. 6 & 7, the connection being considered form-fitted in that the shape Bracket 13 and Housing 211 are substantially similar in form where they meet in a manner that facilitates the two parts fitting together), {and wherein, when the form-fitted connection between the connecting parts is established and released, the electrical conductive connection between the motor connectors can be established and released (Para. [0059] teaches that the electrical connection and a mechanical connection are simultaneously performed); and wherein the second connector unit (233, etc.) is mountable on a dropout (the dropout feature of Rear Legs 21 as illustrated in Fig. 4) of the electric bicycle (the Second Connector Unit 231, 233, 234 and 235 being illustrated as fixed- i.e. mounted- in the dropout feature of Rear Leg 21 in Figs. 4, 6, & 7) [claim 1 only]};
{and wherein the first connecting part is arranged on an axial end of a housing (Rotary Sub-Assembly 12, Fig. 1) of the electric motor (Bracket 13 being disposed toward an end of Axis X of Rotary Sub-Assembly 12 of Electric Assist Motor 4 such that it is understood to be arranged on an axial end of said Rotary Sub-Assembly 12) [claim 15 only]}.
Regarding Claim 3, MAVIC further teaches that the electric motor (4) is configured to be rigidly fixed to a rear wheel of the electric bicycle (Para. [0026] and Fig. 1 teach the Electric Assist Motor 4 being fixed in a rear wheel of a bicycle).
Regarding Claim 7, MAVIC further teaches that the second connector unit (231, 233, 234 and 235) includes a carrier (Housing 211, Figs. 6 & 7) which surrounds the second connecting part (211) and the second motor connector (233) at least in regions towards the electric motor (Housing 211 extending beyond the area that forms a connecting part such that it surrounds the connecting part and further surrounding the Second Key 233 in at least the region into the page in Fig. 6 which is disposed toward the Electric Assist Motor 4 as understood by Figs. 1, 6, & 7).
Regarding Claim 10, MAVIC further teaches an axle through passage (the hole in 13 Bracket 13, Fig. 6, hereafter: “ATP”) configured to receive a thru axle (Shaft 111, Fig. 1) the axle through passage (ATP) defining the axis of rotation (Axis X, Fig. 6) of the electric motor (Shaft 111 being disposed along Axis X of Electric Assist Motor 4 as illustrated in Fig. 1) and extending through the electric motor (4), the first connecting part (13), and the second connecting part (Shaft 111 extending through Electric Assist Motor 4 as illustrated in Fig. 1 and through Bracket 13 and Housing 211 as illustrated in Figs. 6 & 7).
Regarding Claim 11, MAVIC further teaches that the second connector unit (231, 233, 234 and 235) contains a second battery connector (Para. [0037] teaches a battery terminal- i.e. a battery connector) for connecting the second connector unit (231 et al.) to a first battery connector of a battery of the electric bicycle (Para. [0066] teaches Second Key 233 being connected to a battery and Para. [0037] teaches a connection to a battery terminal which would require a battery terminal connector- i.e. a first battery connector); and the second battery connector (the terminal) is electrically conductively connected to the second motor connector (233) via a cable (Para. [0066] teaches Second Key 233 being connected to the battery via Positive Polarity Wire 231).
Regarding Claim 12, MAVIC teaches a connector unit arrangement (the apparatus illustrated in Figs. 6 & 7, described in Paras. [0065]- [0066] as a positive polarity connection) for the motor device of claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above), the connector unit arrangement comprising: the first connector unit (41, 43 and 134) and the second connector unit (the connector unit illustrated in Figs. 6 & 7 being comprised of the First Key 43, Positive Polarity Wire 41, and Capsule 134 which comprise a first connector unit and the Second Key 233, Positive Polarity Wire 231, Insulating Sheath 234 and Elastic Means 235 which comprise a second connector unit as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 1 above);
wherein a form-fitted connection can be established and released between the second connector unit (231 et al.) and the first connector unit (41, 43 and 134) via displacement of the first connector unit (41, 43 and 134) and/ or the second connector unit (231 et al.) in a direction transverse to the axis of rotation (Para. [0064] teaches a connection between Bracket 13 and Housing 211 their shapes being described as complementary to each other, and Figs. 6 & 7 illustrate the connection such that it is understood to be established a released in a direction transverse to Axis X, the connection being made for the electric motor as taught in Para. [0065]); and
wherein, when the form-fitted connection is produced and released, an electrical conductive connection can be established and released between the second connector unit (231 et al.) and the first connector unit (41, 43 and 134) for the electric motor (Para. [0059] teaches that the electrical connection and a mechanical connection are simultaneously performed).
Regarding Claim 13, MAVIC teaches an electric bicycle (Bicycle Frame 2, Fig. 1, electric in that it has Electric Assist Motor 4, Fig. 1), comprising: the motor device of claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above);
a rear wheel (Para. [0026] and Fig. 1 teach a rear wheel);
a dropout (the dropout feature of Rear Legs 21 as illustrated in Fig. 4) supporting the rear wheel (as understood by Figs. 1 & 4); and
a battery (Para. [0037]);
wherein the electric motor (4) with the first connector unit (41, 43 and 134) is fixed to the rear wheel (Para. [0026] and Fig. 1 teach the Electric Assist Motor 4 being fixed in a rear wheel of a bicycle) and the second connector unit is fixed to the dropout (the Second Connector Unit 231, 233, 234 and 235 being illustrated as fixed in the dropout feature of Rear Leg 21 in Figs. 4, 6, & 7); and
wherein the electric motor (4) is electrically conductively connected to the battery via the second connector unit (Para. [0066] teaches Second Key 233 being connected to the battery, that the First Key 43 is electrically connected to the electric motor, and that the First and Second Keys 43 & 233 are electrically connected together).
Regarding Claim 21, MAVIC further teaches that the first connecting part (13) is a protective cover extending partially around and protecting the first motor connector (Bracket 13 surrounding First Key 43 as illustrated in Figs. 6 & 7, such that it is understood to cover and protect the First Key 43).
Regarding Claim 22, MAVIC further teaches that the first motor connector (43) and the second motor connector (233) are pluggable into one another and unpluggable from one another to establish and release the electrical conductive connection therebetween (the Bracket 13 forms a plug which is received- i.e. plugged-into Housing 211 as understood from Figs. 6 & 7 and Para [0064], and Para. [0065] teaches that this forms an electrical connection between First and Second Keys 43 & 233).
Regarding Claim 26, MAVIC further teaches that the first connecting part (13) and/or the second connecting part (211) include a through opening (the hole in 13 Bracket 13, Fig. 6, hereafter: “ATP”) configured to receive a thru axle (Shaft 111 extending through Bracket 13 as illustrated in Figs. 1, 6, & 7).
Regarding Claim 27, MAVIC further teaches that the axis of rotation (X) passes through the first connecting part (13) and/or the second connecting part (211) (Axis X passing through both Bracket 13 and Housing 211 as illustrated in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 28, MAVIC further teaches that the first connecting part (13) is arranged on an axial end of a housing (Rotary Sub-Assembly 12, Fig. 1) of the electric motor (Bracket 13 being disposed toward an end of Axis X of Rotary Sub-Assembly 12 of Electric Assist Motor 4 such that it is understood to be arrange on an axial end of said Rotary Sub-Assembly 12; see the corresponding claim objection above).
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.
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 4, 6, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAVIC in view of VAN DRUTEN (US-20230049132-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, MAVIC further teaches a first form-fitting element (Bracket 13, Fig. 6) and a second form-fitting element (Housing 211, Fig. 7; Bracket 13 and Housing 211 considered form-fitting in that they fit together as illustrated in Figs. 6 & 7 and their shapes are described as complementary to each other in Para. [0064]), wherein:
the first form-fitting element (13) is formed on the first connecting part (the form-fitting elements of Bracket 13 being integral to itself) and the second form- fitting element (211) is formed on the second connecting part (the form-fitting elements of Housing 211 being integral to itself); and
the first (13) or second form-fitting element is insertable into the second (211) or first form-fitting element transversely to the axis of rotation (Bracket 13 fitting in Housing 211 as illustrated in Figs. 6 & 7) to establish the form-fitted connection (the established connection illustrated in Figs. 6 & 7 and taught in Para. [0064]) and restrict relative movement between the first connecting part (13) and the second connecting (211) part in a direction [transvers to] the electric motor (as illustrated in Fig. 6).
MAVIC does not teach that the form-fitted connection restricts movement toward the electric motor.
VAN DRUTEN teaches, in another bicycle with a motor (bicycle: Abstract; motor: Para. [0114]), a form-fitted connection that restricts relative movement between first (Dropout Recess 33, Fig. 8) and second (Adapter 3, Fig. 4) connecting parts in a direction toward an electric motor (the movement between Dropout Recess 33 and Adapter 3 being restricted in a direction toward Motor 116B by the connection between the two parts as illustrated in Figs. 7 & 12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MAVIC and VAN DRUTEN in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MAVIC’s motor device such that a form-fitted connection restricts movement toward an electric motor as suggested by VAN DRUTEN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of securing a motor assembly in an axial direction that would beneficially make more robust system.
Regarding Claim 6, MAVIC does not teach that the first and second guide rails are each aligned non-parallel to one another.
VAN DRUTEN teaches first guide rails (the edges of Dropout Recess 33, Fig. 8) in a bicycle dropout (Dropout Recess 33 being disposed in a bicycle dropout as taught by Para. [0102] and as illustrated in Fig. 8) and second guide rails (the edges of Adapter 3 that insert into Dropout Recess 33, Figs. 4 & 7) that are aligned non-parallel to one another and approach one another radially inwards towards the axis of rotation (the edges of Dropout Recess 33 being disposed at a Dropout Angle 34 to each other- i.e. non-parallel- as illustrated in Fig. 8 and discussed in Para. [0108], the Dropout Angle 34 being arranged such that the edges approach each other in a direction that is disposed radially with respect an axis through Hole 30 about with a wheel of the bicycle is understood to rotate, as illustrated in Fig. 8; and the edges of Adapter 3 having a corresponding shape to the edges of Dropout Recess 33).
VAN DRUTEN further teaches that the Dropout Angle 34 of the Dropout Recess 33 is such that a hub with disc can be placed without the disc jamming against a caliper (Para. [0108]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MAVIC and VAN DRUTEN in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MAVIC’s motor device such that a first and second guide rail are each aligned non-parallel to one another as suggested by VAN DRUTEN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing an angled dropout recess such that assembly of a hub would be less likely to jam, as taught by VAN DRUTEN and discussed above, that would beneficially make more user-friendly system.
Regarding Claim 29, MAVIC teaches a motor device for an electric bicycle (Para. [0001]), comprising:
an electric motor (Electric Assist Motor 4, Fig. 1) including an axis of rotation (Axis X, Fig. 1);
a first connector unit (the combination of First Key 43 and Positive Polarity Wire 41, Fig. 7 and Capsule 134, Para. [0066]) including a first motor connector (First Key 43, Fig. 7) and a first connecting part (Bracket 13, Fig. 6), the first connector unit (41, 43 and 134) electrically connected to the electric motor (4) via the first motor connector (Para. [0066] teaches that the First Key 43 is electrically connected to the electric motor via a Positive Polarity Wire 41);
a second connector unit (the combination of Second Key 233, Positive Polarity Wire 231, Insulating Sheath 234 and Elastic Means 235, Fig. 7) including a second motor connector (Second Key 233, Fig. 7) and a second connecting part (Housing 211, Fig. 7);
a first form-fitting element (Bracket 13, Fig. 6) protruding from the first connecting part (a protrusion being formed in Bracket 13 as illustrated in Fig. 6); and
a second form-fitting element (Housing 211, Fig. 7; Bracket 13 and Housing 211 considered form-fitting in that they fit together as illustrated in Figs. 6 & 7 and their shapes are described as complementary to each other in Para. [0064]) protruding from the second connecting part (a portion of Housing 211 protruding around Bracket 13 as illustrated in Fig. 6);
wherein the first motor connector (43) and the second motor connector (233) are pluggable into one another and unpluggable from one another in a direction extending transverse to the axis of rotation (X) to establish and release a direct electrical connection therebetween (Para. [0066] teaches First Key 43 and Second Key 233 having an electrical contact and the connection being made by an Elastic Means 235 to constrain them together in such a way that it is understood that the connection can be establish and released- i.e. plugged and unplugged); and
wherein the first form-fitting element (13) and the second form-fitting element (211) are releasably engageable with one another and (Bracket 13 fitting in Housing 211 as illustrated in Figs. 6 & 7).
MAVIC, as modified above, does not teach that the form-fitted connection restricts movement toward the electric motor, but VAN DRUTEN teaches such a connection (see the 103 rejection of claim 4 above for the teachings of VAN DRUTEN and motivation to combine them with the motor device of MAVIC, as modified).
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAVIC in view of WEN (CN-207078277-U).
Regarding Claim 23, MAVIC does not teach that the first motor connector projects from the first connecting part and into the second motor connector.
WEN teaches, in another power connection arrangement for an electric vehicle (Abstract), a first motor connector (First Contact Block 133, Fig. 13) that projects from a first connecting part (First Fixed Block 12, Fig. 13) and is disposed at least partially within a second motor connector (Second Fixed Block 22, Fig. 8) when the first connecting part (12) and a second connecting part (Second Conductive Part 231, Fig. 8) are connected (Para. [0045] teaches that the First and Second Fixed Blocks 12 & 22 are fitted together to make an electrical connection, the Second Fixed Block 22 having recesses arranged such that First Contact Block 133 will be disposed partially within it as illustrated in Figs. 8 & 13).
The second motor connector (22) of WEN is arranged such that it comprises at least one screw (Para. [0011] teaches a screw cooperating with a screw hole) connecting the second motor connector (22) and a carrier (Connecting Block 211, Fig. 8, considered a carrier in that it supports a plurality of parts, including Second Fixed Block 22 as illustrated in Fig. 8; the Connecting Block 211 having screw holes disposed to cooperate with corresponding screw holes in Pressing Block 212 that would work together to connect the Second Fixed Block 22 to the Connecting Block 211 as illustrated in Fig. 8) (note: these teaching relate to claim 24 discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MAVIC and WEN in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MAVIC’s motor device such that a first motor connector projects from a first connecting part and into a second motor connector as suggested by WEN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of arranging electrical contacts such that they project into a corresponding connector that would beneficially ensure a reliable electrical connection.
Regarding Claim 25, MAVIC does not teach a plug connection between the first and second battery connectors.
WEN teaches a plug connection (the connection between First and Second Fixed Blocks 12 & 22 forming a plug connection in that First Contact Block 133 projects- i.e. plugs- into Second Fixed Block 22 as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 23 above) between a battery (Power Supply Unit 17, Fig. 3, taught as being comprised of a battery in Para. [0047]) and a motor (Para. [0052] teaches that the Power Supply Unit 1, which comprises Power Supply Unit 17 as illustrated in Fig. 3, is connected to Motor 32 by the connection formed by First and Second Conduction Portions 13 & 23, which are comprised in First and Second Fixed Blocks 12 & 22, respectively, as illustrated in Figs. 3 and 8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MAVIC and WEN in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MAVIC’s motor device such that the first and second battery connectors are connected by a plug connection as suggested by WEN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a connection that is easy to make and break that would beneficially make a more user-friendly device.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAVIC in view of ANDO (US-20100301711-A1).
Regarding Claim 32, MAVIC does not teach a channel or that the first and second motor connectors are pluggable along the channel.
ANDO teaches, in a generator device for a bicycle (Abstract), a second connecting part (Connector Cover 38, Fig. 4) which includes a channel (the hole/ channel formed through Connector Cover 38, Fig. 4) configured to receive at least a portion of a first connecting part (Protruding Portion 36c, Fig. 4) and guide movement of a first connector unit (Connector Body 36, Fig. 4) relative to a second connector unit (Connector Cap 37, Fig. 4); and a first motor connector (Terminal 54, Fig. 4) and a second motor connector (a respective Terminal “54-37”to Terminal 54 being illustrated as a part of Connector Cap 37, Fig. 4) are pluggable into one another and unpluggable from one another in a longitudinal direction of the channel (Terminal 54 of Connector Body 36 and Terminal 54-37 of Connector Cap 37 being pluggable as illustrated in Fig. 4 and discussed in Para. [0038]) via adjusting the first connecting part (36c) through the channel toward the second motor connector (Protruding Portion 36c being inserted through the hole/ channel formed through Connector Cover 38 to engage with Terminal 54-37 of Connector Cap 37 as illustrated in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MAVIC and ANDO in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MAVIC’s motor device to include a channel as suggested by ANDO. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a guiding feature for an electrical connection that would beneficially make a more user-friendly device.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAVIC and VAN DRUTEN in view of ANDO (US-20100301711-A1).
Regarding Claim 30, MAVIC further teaches at least one second slot (Housing 211 forming a slot, Fig. 7), configured to receive the first form-fitting element (Housing 211 receiving Bracket 13 as illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7).
MAVIC does not teach a first slot configured to receive the second form-fitting element.
VAN DRUTEN teaches at least one first slot (Drop Out Recess 33, Fig. 8) configured to receive a second form-fitting element (Dropout Recess 33 receiving Adapter 3, Figs. 4 & 7), the at least one first slot (33) at least partially defined by and between a first connecting part (the dropout “DO” where Drop Out Recess 33, Fig. 8) and a first form-fitting element (Drop Out Recess 33 being formed in the dropout, Fig. 8 and being between it and Tooth 27 of Cam 5, Fig. 5); and at least one second slot (Support Surface 23 of Adapter 3, Fig. 3) configured to receive the first form-fitting element (Tooth 27 of Cam 5, Fig. 5, being received by Support Surface 23 of Adapter 3 as taught in Figs. 11a and 11b and Para. [0102]), the at least one second slot (23) at least partially defined by and between a second connecting part (Face 13, Fig. 3) and the second form-fitting element (Support Surface 23 being defined by Face 13 and Adapter 3 as illustrated in Fig. 3); wherein, when the first form-fitting element (27) and the second form-fitting element (3) are engaged, the first form-fitting element (27) is arranged in the at least one second slot (Tooth 27 being arranged in Support Surface 23 as illustrated in Figs. 11a and 11b) and the second form-fitting element (3) is arranged in the at least one first slot (Adapter 3 being arrange in Dropout Recess 33, Figs. 4 & 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MAVIC, VAN DRUTEN, and ANDO in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MAVIC’s motor device, as modified, to include a first slot configured to receive the second form-fitting element as suggested by ANDO. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a guiding feature for an electrical connection that would beneficially make a more user-friendly device.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAVIC, VAN DRUTEN, and ANDO in view of Kline (US-20020098933-A1).
Regarding Claim 31, MAVIC, as modified above, does not teach that each of the first and second slots include two slots.
Kline teaches, in related teachings of a bicycle frame dropout (Abstract), at least one slot including two slots (Grooves 1 of Dropout 2 being a plurality of grooves- i.e. slots, Fig. 1), a first form-fitting element (Washer -unlabeled, hereafter: “W”, Fig. 2) including two first guide rails (Grooves 5, Fig. 2) that each project into a respective slot of the two slots when the first form-fitting element (W) and a second form-fitting element (Dropout 2, Fig. 1) are engaged (Grooves 5 of Washer W engaging- i.e.- projecting into- Grooves 1 of Dropout 2 as taught in Para. [0010]).
Kline further teaches that the grooves advantageously create a significant amount more surface area than conventionally smooth dropouts and washers which makes a stronger connection between the wheel and the frame (Para. [0010]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MAVIC, VAN DRUTEN, ANDO, and Kline in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MAVIC’s motor device, as modified, such that each of the first and second slots include two slots as suggested by Kline. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing more surface area to beneficially makes a stronger connection between the wheel and the frame as taught by Kline and discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 is not made because the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art of record. Every element of the claims are not taught by any of the references individually and the prior art of record fails to permissibly teach the overall combination as claimed. Even if one could construe the prior art of record such that the combination disclosed each and every limitation of the claims, the ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references in reference to themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The closest prior art of record, MAVIC, as highlighted above, generally discloses a motor device with similar components of independent claim 1, and when combined with VAN DRUTEN, further teaches a form-fitted connection that restricts movement towards an electric motor.
However, the combination of MAVIC and VAN DRUTEN does not specifically disclose guide rails that protrude from first and second connecting parts transversely to an axis of rotation of a motor, as claimed.
WEN and ANDO disclose other claimed elements, as discussed above. However none of these, individually or combined, make up for all of the deficiencies of MAVIC and VAN DRUTEN because at a minimum no combination of the aforementioned prior art discloses the transversely protruding guide rails.
Even if each and every element of the present invention were taught individually by the aforementioned references, combining the references as an ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references present in the aforementioned references themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For at least these reasons, claim 5, as far as it includes all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (i.e.- claim 4), is indicated as reciting allowable subject matter.
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 TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611