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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered.
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Instant claim 1 now recites a hinge mechanism. However, it is unclear if the embodiment of figure 8 (specific to instant claims 8 and 9) are provided with a hinge mechanism.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 19, the limitation “during continuous movement of the wheel” is not found in the specification, and as such it is unclear what the applicant intends to define with respect to this limitation. As best understood by the Office, this limitation merely requires that during motion of wheel an eddy current resistance is formed when the permanent magnet is placed near the conducting disc, or when the electromagnet is turned on. However, it is not clear that the system is in continuous operation when the wheel is rotating, since some figures show the permanent magnets moved away from the conducting disc. Is it the intent of the applicant that whenever the wheel is rotating, or moving, that the apparatus is maintaining a desired wattage? This would be accomplished only by continued interaction between the magnet element and the conducting disc. However, the specification is silent on this issue.
Claims 2-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected due to their dependence upon claims 1, 12 and 19.
Regarding claim 1 line 9, it is unclear if the recitation “a wheel” is intended to reference the previously recited wheel (line 2), or another wheel.
Claims 2-11 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 10 line 3, it is unclear if the recitation “a hinge mechanism” is intended to reference the previously recited hinge mechanism (clm. 1 lines 10-11), or is another hinge mechanism.
Regarding claim 11 line 2, it is unclear if the recitation “a hinge mechanism” is intended to reference the previously recited hinge mechanism (clm. 1 lines 10-11), or is another hinge mechanism.
Regarding claim 12 line 9, it is unclear if the recitation “a wheel” is intended to reference the previously recited wheel (line 2), or another wheel.
Claims 13-18 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 12.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the wheel" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is rejected due to its dependence upon claim 19.
Regarding claim 19 line 16, it is unclear if the recitation “a frame” is intended to reference the previously recited frame (cl. 19 lines 14-15), or another frame.
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 –
Claim(s) 12-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 10 2014 0096439 to Jeong et al.
Re-claim 12, Jeong et al. disclose an apparatus, comprising: a wheel 200 attached to frame 100 of a human powered vehicle, the wheel has a tire, the vehicle moves forward upon rotation of the tire, a conducting disc 310 is attached to the wheel via a central hub (see 210, and as is common a hub is provided with roller bearings), the conducting disc rotates with the wheel about a rotational axis of the wheel, a magnet holding bracket (entire structure 332, 340 and 331) is attached to the frame (via rails 331, see annotated figure below), the holding bracket is attached to a portion of the frame that overlaps the wheel of the human powered vehicle (the rails are part of the holding bracket and overlap the wheel, the bracket is disposed in a plane that overlaps a plane of the wheel when viewed along the wheel axis), the magnet holding bracket holds at least one magnet 320, the magnet holding bracket further comprises a hinge mechanism (such as associated with links 342) that facilitate movement of the magnet holding bracket, the magnet holding bracket is positioned relative to the conducting disc 310, the conducting disc intersects a magnetic field of the magnet (see abstract) during continuous movement of the wheel. This condition will exist when the magnet is positioned adjacent the conducting disc and when the wheel is rotating, and thus sufficient to anticipate the claim language, as the instant specification is silent regarding this recited feature.
PNG
media_image1.png
449
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 13, the rails 331 removably hold the magnet.
Re-claim 14, either the roller bearing of the hub or any support structure between the conducting disc and magnet holding bracket is interpreted as a bearing.
Re-claim 16, the rails 331 as part of the holding bracket are fixedly attached to the frame and are thus stationary. In addition, one can simply leave the magnet position fixed relative to the conducting disc, thus the bracket portions 340 are stationary.
Re-claim 17, slider 332 which carries the magnet is moveable relative to the conducting disc 310.
Re-claim 18, the magnet holding bracket (such as part of slider 332) comprise a first side (adjacent left side disc 310) and a second side (adjacent right side disc 310), the first side and the second side each have a receptacle (or opening) to hold the at least one magnet 320 (see figure 3).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2013 217 885 A1 to Rink et al. in view of CA 2702640 A1 to Keiser.
Re-claim 1, Rink et al. teach an apparatus, comprising: a wheel 10 attached to frame 8 of a human powered vehicle 2, the wheel has a tire, the vehicle moves forward upon rotation of the tire, a conducting disc 38 is attached to the wheel via a central hub (see figures 1 and 2, and as is common a rotating wheel is supported by a hub, generally provided with roller bearings), the conducting disc rotates with the wheel about a rotational axis of the wheel, a magnet holding bracket 26 (see figure 2 and figure below, the box-like structure holding the magnet 40 must be attached to the frame for support) is attached to the frame, the bracket is attached to a portion of the frame (such as a front fork) that overlaps the wheel of the human powered vehicle, the magnet holding bracket holds at least one magnet 40, the bracket is positioned relative to the conducting disc 38, the conducting disc intersects a magnetic field of the magnet (see figure 2 and abstract). Rink et al. further teach the use of a permanent magnet requiring movement relative to the conductive disc for varying the resistance (rather than an electromagnet, see page 2 paragraph 5), and a controller (i.e. control unit 20) connected to the magnet (eddy current brake).
However, Rink et al. fail to teach the magnet holding bracket comprising a hinge mechanism configured to facilitate movement of the magnet holding bracket, or the controller configured to input a desired wattage to be maintained by the human powered vehicle, through adjustment of a positioning of the magnet based at least in part on the desired wattage.
Keiser teaches an eddy current brake as part of an exercise bicycle having a controller 42 configured to input a desired wattage to be maintained by the human powered vehicle, through adjustment of a positioning of a magnet (see paragraphs 69-71) based at least in part on the desired wattage (i.e. power), during continuous movement of the wheel (and conducting disc). Keiser further teaches a magnet holding bracket 74 that holds at least one magnet 70/72, the holding bracket comprises a hinge mechanism to facilitate movement of the bracket (see figures 6A and 6B, note the bracket is rotated as necessary). This provides a means of maintaining a consistent eddy current braking action in accordance with a desired power or wattage value, as would be desired during training sessions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apparatus of Rink et al. with a controller and magnet holding bracket capable of maintaining a consistent wattage and position of the magnets relative to the conducting disc as shown and taught by Keiser, thus improving control of the eddy current brake apparatus and thereby maintain a consistent operation.
Re-claim 2, Rink et al. teach the use of a permanent magnet (see page 2 paragraph 5 “the magnet can also be designed as a permanent magnet”).
Re-claim 3, Rink et al. teach the use of an electromagnet (see page 2 paragraph 5).
Re-claims 4 and 5, the wheel of Rink et al. is supported by a bearing (or hub) that will have a roller bearing as known in the art. Roller bearings allow relative rotation between two elements.
Re-claim 6, Rink et al. teach how the permanent magnet is moved towards the conductive element 38 to effect an eddy current braking action. The varied distance determines the level of eddy current braking.
PNG
media_image2.png
510
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 7, Keiser further teaches in figure 6C the magnet holding bracket arrangement and a maximum travel (such as the toothed external gear), this limits the movement of the magnet holding bracket relative to the conducting disc.
Re-claim 11, Keiser further teaches the adjustable magnet bracket comprising a pivot fender structure connected to the hinge mechanism, the structure pivots toward and away from the conducting disc, see figures 6A-6C, and covers a portion of the conducting disc when engaged with the disc (i.e. moved to a position over the disc).
Re-claim 19, Rink et al. teach a system, comprising: a computing device 20 comprising a processor and a memory; at least one processor circuit with a memory comprising instructions, that when executed by the processor circuit, causes the at least one processor circuit to at least: adjust a position of at least one magnet 40 in a magnet holding bracket relative to a conducting disc 38 to minimize a differential (between a set speed and determined speed, related to power exerted by the user, see “ the brake control unit 20 a speed of the pedelec 2 detected during a ride downhill and the eddy current brake signals 30 so modulated that the pedelec 2 keeps its speed at a certain value” ), the conducting disc rotates about a rotational axis of a wheel 10 attached to a frame 8 of the human powered vehicle, the magnet holding bracket is attached to a portion of the frame 8 that overlaps the wheel.
However, Rink et al. fail to teach the controller receiving an actual wattage from a power meter attached to the human powered vehicle, the actual wattage corresponding to an exertion output value expended by a rider during forward movement of the human powered vehicle; determine a differential between a desired wattage and the actual wattage, and maintain the desired wattage during continuous movement of the wheel (interpreted as rotation of the wheel, it is noted that the instant specification fails to disclose this limitation in detail and is presumed to mean wheel rotation).
Keiser teaches an eddy current brake as part of an exercise bicycle having a controller 42 configured to input a desired wattage to be maintained by the human powered vehicle, through adjustment of a positioning of a magnet (see paragraphs 69-71) based at least in part on the desired wattage (i.e. power), during continuous movement of the wheel (and conducting disc), this would require a differential determination between a desired and actual wattage (or power). Keiser further teaches a magnet holding bracket 74 that holds at least one magnet 70/72 and adjustment of the magnet position (such as using control unit 42, paragraph 70). This provides a means of maintaining a consistent eddy current braking action in accordance with a desired power or wattage value, as would be desired during training sessions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apparatus of Rink et al. with a controller and magnet holding bracket capable of maintaining a consistent wattage and position of the magnets relative to the conducting disc as shown and taught by Keiser, thus improving control of the eddy current brake apparatus and thereby maintain a consistent operation.
Re-claim 20, Keiser further teaches stored values (paragraph 61), distance traveled and wattage values (see at least paragraphs 57 and 64). From this data one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been capable of generating wattage-per-distance records for storage and for later use.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rink et al. in view of Keiser as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 7,585,258 to Watson et al.
Re-claims 8 and 9, Watson et al. teach a magnet holding bracket with a moveable tray 216, with a receptacle for the at least one magnet, an actuator 228 is connected to a shaft 230, the moveable tray connected to the shaft, thus using the actuator to move the tray and magnet. This provides a means of varying the distance of the magnet relative to the conducting disc, and would serve as a substitute actuating structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have looked to Watson et al. and the use of an actuator and moveable tray system when having used a permanent magnet in the apparatus of Rink et al., thus providing a means of varying the distance of the permanent magnet relative to the conducting disc to achieve the desired level of eddy current braking.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rink et al. in view of Keiser as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of DE 202 19 162 U1 to Strauch.
Rink et al. fail to teach the moveable magnet holding bracket comprising a clamshell bracket having a pair of sides connected by a hinge with the conducting disc located between the sides, and the sides configured to pivot toward or away from the disc.
Strauch teaches an eddy current brake having a magnet holding bracket 2 comprising a clamshell bracket having a pair of sides connected by a hinge (actuator 7) with the conducting disc 4 located between the sides, the sides pivot toward or away from the disc (using an actuator, see “the actuator 7 is an adjusting screw 7 which varies the respective distance A of the permanent magnet 5a, 5b from the rim 4”). This merely provides one possible manner from which one could variably position the magnets relative to the conducting disc. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the apparatus of Rink et al. with a clamshell actuating mechanism of the type taught by Strauch, thus allowing the user or controller to vary the distance of the magnets relative to the conducting disc.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. in view of Keiser.
Jeong et al. teach a controller 346 that automatically controls the position of the magnet relative to the conducting disc to maintain a set parameter (such as speed). However, Jeong et al. is silent regarding maintaining a desired wattage.
Keiser teaches a control unit connected to an eddy current brake for maintaining various set parameters, including power or wattage. This provides a means for controlling the magnet position based upon a desired wattage and level of exercise, which is can be extended to a wheelchair unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control apparatus of Jeong et al. with a wattage selection capability as taught by Keiser, thus providing the wheelchair user the ability to exercise and maintain a desired power or wattage level.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Rink, the structure shown in the figure that encompasses the magnet 40 is the magnet holding bracket, as the magnet must be held by some physical feature. In addition, the magnet holding bracket must be supported with respect to the frame, otherwise the holding bracket would simply fall to the ground. It is unclear how the applicant can contend that the outlined box area containing the magnet is neither a magnet holding bracket nor is not attached to the frame. The applicant should not expect figures to show well known structure, or means of attachment, as these features are common in the art and do not require full and concise illustrations. It should be noted that a magnet holding bracket by itself does not convey any specific form or structure, and is understood to be any type of support structure. Rink further teaches that the magnet may be moved toward (see page 2 paragraph 5 “…to be brought to the electrically conductive element…”, which implies movement) or away from the conducting disc when using a permanent magnet, as opposed to an electromagnet.
Regarding the recitation “continuous movement of the wheel”, this feature is not found within the originally filed specification, and as such it is not clear from the specification that the interaction between the magnet and the conducting disc is in continuous operation. In fact at least figure 11 shows a situation in which the magnets are removed from the conducting disc, and as such a desired wattage would not be maintained. It is the position of the Office that the remarks regarding this limitation are not fully supported, and is thus merely interpreted as when the wheel is rotating and the magnet is placed within the field of the conducting disc, then a wattage (or resistance) is produced, or when the electromagnet is provided with current. Thus it is within the scope of the cited prior art, that the interaction between the magnet and conducting disc can be continuous.
Regarding claim 13, Rink describes various means of holding the magnet, including placing the magnet within a brake pad structure. This alone would show support for the receptacle. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize the magnet must be held in place on the bracket structure in some manner, including a receptacle. Any attachment of the magnet to the support structure would require a receptacle, or holding area. It is further noted that the prior art clearly shows well known receptacle holding structures for magnets that are part of an eddy current brake system, as this feature is not new and is well known to those skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 14, bearing elements are well known in the art, particularly for reducing friction between two relatively moving parts, such as a wheel hub and support shaft. It is the position of the Office that persons of ordinary skill in the art have some understanding of a bicycle structure.
With regards to Jeong, the magnet is held by a magnet holding bracket, which again is any structure intended for holding the magnet. As for the operation of the wheelchair, this remark has no bearing on the rejection. The Office is merely applying art to the claim as presented. The applicant should keep in mind that the claim language stands on itself, and is not restricted to the specification, nor should the specification be read into the claim. The bracket is interpreted as the entire structure associated with the magnet.
Regarding Rink in view of Watson, the remarks are moot, as this rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendments to claims 1-9, 19 and 20.
Regarding Jeong in view of Watson, the remarks are moot, as this rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendments to claims 1, 2, 4-9, 19 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung teaches an eddy current brake having a clamshell actuation apparatus. Hendrick shows a brake disc connected to a wheel hub of a bicycle. Huang shows an eddy current brake arrangement.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi, can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
March 11, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616