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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The support for Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1 is supported by at least Page 4 Lines 3-5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “being suitable for multiple types of motor systems after processing”. It is currently unclear whether the “processing” as claimed is referring to the later recited “motor mount forming step” or some other processing step. If the claim is intended to refer to the “motor mount forming step” as the “processing”, then it is unclear how the processing can simultaneously be used to make the frame suitable for multiple types of motor systems (plural) and also a pre-determined motor system (singular).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 7-12 recite “supporting unit”: (A) the term uses the generic term “unit”; (B) the “unit” does not have a function. Therefore, the limitation “supporting unit” fails prong (B) of the analysis and will not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20180065705A1) in view of Choi ‘587 (US20150048587A1) further in view of Chang (EP3521153A1).
Claim 1
Choi (US20180065705A1) teaches a manufacturing method of a bicycle frame unit (Figure 1 teaches a bicycle frame (100) that is made by combining a left (100a) and right (100b) panel (¶0047) via welding (¶0048).), and the manufacturing method comprising: a pressing step: pressing one or more sheets to form two casing parts that are overlappable (¶0048 teaches the panel parts (100a, 100b) are made from press molding. ¶0009 teaches the use of a plate material for the parts.), wherein each one of the two casing parts has a motor mount segment (Figure 1 shows a motor mount segment (120) that is part of the frame (100). The frame is made from two halves that are welded together. Therefore, the two parts (100a, 100b) have a portion of the motor mount (120).) and a connecting edge (Figure 2 shows that the two parts (100a, 100b) have a connecting edge (200).), the motor mount segment has a side plate, and the connecting edge matches with the connecting edge of the other casing part (See annotated Figure 1 below.);
PNG
media_image1.png
798
898
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated version of Choi Figure 1
an abutting step: abutting the connecting edges of the two casing parts to form an abutting line (Figure 2 shows the two parts (100a, 100b) are abutted at a bonding portion (200) that is a line.); a connecting step: connecting the two casing parts along the abutting line (¶0048 teaches that welding occurs along the abutting line (200).) such that the motor mount segments of the two casing parts are connected and form a motor mount prestructure being suitable for multiple types of motor systems after processing (The claim does not specify the what the claimed “processing” entails or positively recite the processing step. The claim also does not disclose what qualifies the motor mount as being suitable for the intended purpose. Therefore, Choi teaches a motor mount area (120) that is a space between halves of the frame where motors are to be placed and mounted. After further processing (drilling mounting holes for instance), the area is suitable for multiple types of motors depending on the mounting hole locations.) having the two side plates of the motor mount segments, a front portion, a top portion connected with the front portion and between the two side plates, and a motor-installation space formed between the two side plates and the top portion (Figure 1 and the annotated version above show that the motor mount prestructure (120) is formed to have a top, front, side, and interior volume portion for receiving the motor (130). The Figure teaches by illustration that there are sidewalls and that the interior of said sidewalls is hollow. This hollow space is a motor mount area having the claimed arrangement of walls/plates/portions.)
Choi does not explicitly disclose that the side plates are flat. However, Figure 2 shows the two halves (100a, 100b) of the frame pre-structure have flat sides in the area of the battery.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to shape the sidewalls of the motor mounting area (120) of Choi to be flat as claimed because the reference indicates that the two parts have flat sidewalls in other locations, and applicant has not described a specific motivation in the specification for choosing the shape of the flat side plates. It is noted that the remarks filed 01/12/2026 state that there is no support from the written specification for the flat side plates and the support is only found in the drawings. See MPEP 2144.04 (I) or MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) – Changes in Shape.
Choi does not explicitly disclose the sheets are made from metal.
However, Choi ‘587 (US20150048587A1) teaches making a bicycle frame portion out of metal. (¶0025 teaches press forming of frame units for a bicycle. ¶0007 teaches the use of various metals.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known metal material of Choi ‘587 to the plate of Choi in order to use a material that increases rigidity and safety. (See Choi ‘587 ¶0007)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known metal material of Choi ‘587 to the plate of Choi because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The predictable result is the plate of Choi will be made from metal.
Choi does not disclose a motor mount forming step: cutting the two side plates of the motor mount prestructure in compliance with a pre-determined motor system so as to form a bicycle frame unit with a motor mount.
However, Chang (EP3521153A1) teaches a motor mount forming step: cutting the two side plates of the motor mount prestructure in compliance with a pre-determined motor system so as to form a bicycle frame unit with a motor mount. (¶0032 teaches a processing step for the formed bicycle frame member where a milling machine is used to create a motor holder and hole matched with the motor.) Chang also discloses that the motor mount prestructure is formed of side plates and an upper plate (¶0032). The side of the tube is shown as having flat side plates in Figure 3.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known motor mount forming technique of Chang to the bicycle frame manufacturing method of Choi in order to match the installation of the motor. (Chang ¶0032)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known motor mount forming technique of Chang to the bicycle frame manufacturing method of Choi because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the method of Choi will include a custom cutting/milling step to accommodate a specific motor.
Claim 2
Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang teaches the manufacturing method as claimed in claim 1, wherein in the pressing step, forming each one of the two casing parts to have a downtube segment connected to the motor mount segment in one-piece (Choi Figure 1 shows the frame (100) as an integral structure that includes a downtube segment connected to the motor mount. ¶0009 teaches the frame is made from two (left and right) portions to one another.); and in the connecting step, connecting the downtube segments of the two casing parts as a downtube portion which is connected with the front portion of the motor mount prestructure. (Figure 2 shows the bonding portion (200) is where the two parts (100a, 100b) are connected. Since the final product of the frame includes a downtube portion, and two segments on the two parts are interpreted as being connected to form said portion. Figure 1 shows that the downtube part is connected to the front portion of the motor mount via the top portion of the motor mount.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20180065705A1) in view of Choi ‘587 (US20150048587A1) and Chang (EP3521153A1), as applied in Claim 2, further in view of Raffaele (US2729466A).
Claim 3
Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang teaches the manufacturing method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the shell has the two casing parts (Choi, 100a/b) and a head tube part (Choi, Item 157), and the motor mount segment of each one of the two casing parts is connected to the corresponding downtube segment away from the head tube part (Choi, Figure 1 shows the motor mount segments of each part (100a/b) is connected to the opposite end of the downtube segment from the head tube part (157).).
Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang does not explicitly disclose in the pressing step, pressing one said metal sheet to form a shell being one-piece, in the abutting step, folding the shell about the head tube part to abut the two casing parts for the following connecting step.
However, Raffaele (US2729466A) teaches in the pressing step (Col. 2, Lines 17-20 teach the use of molds to shape the blank of material. This is a pressing step.), pressing one said metal sheet to form a shell being one-piece (Figure 1 teaches a blank that is one piece.), wherein the shell having the two casing parts and a head tube part connected between the downtube segments of the two casing parts (Figures 1-3 show that the blank is folded about a line that extends through where the “head tube part” (hole (G) where the seat sleeve (H) is mounted). The two “casing parts” are the mirror portions of the material on either side of the head tube part.); in the abutting step, folding the shell about the head tube part to abut the two casing parts for the following connecting step (Figure 2 teaches the blank in Figure 1 is folded about the head tube part (G) to abut portions of the blank for a connecting step. Col. 2, Lines 55-60 teach that mirror portions of the blank are welded together to form a sleeve.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivation to combine the known single sheet and folding method of Raffaele with the manufacturing method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang in order to provide a bicycle frame element requiring a minimum of stamping and forming operations (See Raffaele Col. 1, Lines 20-25). This is applicable to Choi, which is teaches at least two separate stamping/forming operations to form the two different portions (100a/b).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known single sheet and folding method of Raffaele with the manufacturing method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the starting material in Choi will be a single blank hinged at the head tube portion. The welding will occur along the abutting line (200) where the two blank mirror halves meet.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20180065705A1) in view of Choi ‘587 (US20150048587A1) and Chang (EP3521153A1), as applied in Claim 2, further in view of Kugele (US20210354774A1).
Claim 4
Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang teaches the manufacturing method as claimed in claim 1, wherein in the motor mount forming step, cutting the two side plates (Chang, Figure 1 shows a motor (3) that fits into a portion of the frame (1). Figure 1 shows the motor holder (2) is formed as an arc structure with sidewall openings. ¶0032 teaches these chamfering and hole forming processes are done via cutting.)
Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang does not explicitly disclose the cutting is laser cutting.
However, Kugele (US20210354774A1) teaches a method of cutting bicycle frame components via cutting, including laser cutting. (¶0071 teaches the cutting of a right/left frame part via laser cutting.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known laser cutting technique of Kugele to the cutting method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang in order to use a method that allows for easy manufacturing of recessed portions in bicycle frame portions (See ¶0071 of Kugele) Kugele also discloses this is equivalent to milling (See ¶0071 of Kugele).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known laser cutting technique of Kugele to the cutting method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 5
Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang teaches the manufacturing method as claimed in claim 2, wherein in the motor mount forming step, cutting the two side plates (Chang, Figure 1 shows a motor (3) that fits into a portion of the frame (1). Figure 1 shows the motor holder (2) is formed as an arc structure with sidewall openings. ¶0032 teaches these chamfering and hole forming processes are done via cutting.)
Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang does not explicitly disclose the cutting is laser cutting.
However, Kugele (US20210354774A1) teaches a method of cutting bicycle frame components via cutting, including laser cutting. (¶0071 teaches the cutting of a right/left frame part via laser cutting.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known laser cutting technique of Kugele to the cutting method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang in order to use a method that allows for easy manufacturing of recessed portions in bicycle frame portions (See ¶0071 of Kugele) Kugele also discloses this is equivalent to milling (See ¶0071 of Kugele).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known laser cutting technique of Kugele to the cutting method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20180065705A1) in view of Choi ‘587 (US20150048587A1), Chang (EP3521153A1) and Raffaele (US2729466A), as applied in Claim 3, further in view of Kugele (US20210354774A1).
Claim 6
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Raffaele teaches the manufacturing method as claimed in claim 3, wherein in the motor mount forming step, cutting the two side plates (Chang, Figure 1 shows a motor (3) that fits into a portion of the frame (1). Figure 1 shows the motor holder (2) is formed as an arc structure with sidewall openings. ¶0032 teaches these chamfering and hole forming processes are done via cutting.)
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Raffaele does not explicitly disclose the cutting is laser cutting.
However, Kugele (US20210354774A1) teaches a method of cutting bicycle frame components via cutting, including laser cutting. (¶0071 teaches the cutting of a right/left frame part via laser cutting.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known laser cutting technique of Kugele to the cutting method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Raffaele in order to use a method that allows for easy manufacturing of recessed portions in bicycle frame portions (See ¶0071 of Kugele) Kugele also discloses this is equivalent to milling (See ¶0071 of Kugele).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known laser cutting technique of Kugele to the cutting method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Raffaele because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20180065705A1) in view of Choi ‘587 (US20150048587A1) and Chang (EP3521153A1), as applied in Claim 1/2, further in view of Mamon (US5323950A) and Eller (US20230066986A1)
Claim 7
Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang teaches the manufacturing method as claimed in claim 1, wherein in the connecting step, connecting the two casing parts along the abutting line via welding. (Choi, ¶0048 and Figures 1-2 teach a line (bonding portion, 200) where the two casing parts (100a/b) are abutted and welded.)
Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang does not disclose the manufacturing method comprises a supporting unit deploying step: deploying a supporting unit between the two casing parts before the connecting step; and a supporting unit removal step: removing the supporting unit from the two casing parts after the connecting step; and, wherein the supporting unit supports parts of the two casing parts near the abutting line.
However, Mamon (US5323950A) teaches a supporting unit deploying step (Figures 1 and 4 teach an expandable mandrel (10) that is inserted into a pipe to be welded (Col. 4, Lines 39-41).): deploying a supporting unit between the two casing parts before the connecting step (Col. 4, Lines 39-41 teach the expandable mandrel is placed in the pipe prior to welding. When the two portions of Choi are brought together in the abutting step, they resemble a pipe.); and a supporting unit removal step: removing the supporting unit from the two casing parts after the connecting step (Col. 4, Lines 55-57 teach that after the welding occurs, the mandrel is deflated and removed.); and, wherein the supporting unit supports parts of the two casing parts near the abutting line. (Figure 4 shows the mandrel (10) supports the pipes near the abutting line (where the weld (48) is located).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known internal support technique of Mamon to the forming and welding method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang in order to provide a reinforcement during welding (See Col. 2, Lines 14-16) by providing physical contact pressed against the inner circumference of the tubing of the workpiece (See Col. 2, Lines 19-23).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known internal support technique of Mamon to the forming and welding method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang does not disclose connecting the two casing parts along the abutting line via filler-free welding.
However, Eller (US20230066986A1) teaches connecting bicycle frame parts along an abutting line via filler-free welding. (¶0006 teaches the use of friction stir welding that uses a non-consumable rotating tool for welding. ¶0012 teaches the method involves using friction stir welding assembly a bicycle frameset.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known friction stir welding technique of Eller to the production method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang in order to use a welding technique that has significant quality and cost benefits. (See Eller ¶0006.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known friction stir welding technique of Eller to the production method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 8
Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang teaches the manufacturing method as claimed in claim 2, wherein in the connecting step, connecting the two casing parts along the abutting line via welding. (Choi, ¶0048 and Figures 1-2 teach a line (bonding portion, 200) where the two casing parts (100a/b) are abutted and welded.)
Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang does not disclose the manufacturing method comprises a supporting unit deploying step: deploying a supporting unit between the two casing parts before the connecting step; and a supporting unit removal step: removing the supporting unit from the two casing parts after the connecting step; and, wherein the supporting unit supports parts of the two casing parts near the abutting line.
However, Mamon (US5323950A) teaches a supporting unit deploying step (Figures 1 and 4 teach an expandable mandrel (10) that is inserted into a pipe to be welded (Col. 4, Lines 39-41).): deploying a supporting unit between the two casing parts before the connecting step (Col. 4, Lines 39-41 teach the expandable mandrel is placed in the pipe prior to welding. When the two portions of Choi are brought together in the abutting step, they resemble a pipe.); and a supporting unit removal step: removing the supporting unit from the two casing parts after the connecting step (Col. 4, Lines 55-57 teach that after the welding occurs, the mandrel is deflated and removed.); and, wherein the supporting unit supports parts of the two casing parts near the abutting line. (Figure 4 shows the mandrel (10) supports the pipes near the abutting line (where the weld (48) is located).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known internal support technique of Mamon to the forming and welding method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang in order to provide a reinforcement during welding (See Col. 2, Lines 14-16) by providing physical contact pressed against the inner circumference of the tubing of the workpiece (See Col. 2, Lines 19-23).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known internal support technique of Mamon to the forming and welding method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang does not disclose connecting the two casing parts along the abutting line via filler-free welding.
However, Eller (US20230066986A1) teaches connecting bicycle frame parts along an abutting line via filler-free welding. (¶0006 teaches the use of friction stir welding that uses a non-consumable rotating tool for welding. ¶0012 teaches the method involves using friction stir welding assembly a bicycle frameset.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known friction stir welding technique of Eller to the production method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang in order to use a welding technique that has significant quality and cost benefits. (See Eller ¶0006.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known friction stir welding technique of Eller to the production method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587 and Chang because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20180065705A1) in view of Choi ‘587 (US20150048587A1), Chang (EP3521153A1) and Raffaele (US2729466A), as applied in Claim 3, further in view of Mamon (US5323950A) and Eller (US20230066986A1).
Claim 9
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Raffaele teaches the manufacturing method as claimed in claim 3, wherein in the connecting step, connecting the two casing parts along the abutting line via welding. (Choi, ¶0048 and Figures 1-2 teach a line (bonding portion, 200) where the two casing parts (100a/b) are abutted and welded.)
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Raffaele does not disclose the manufacturing method comprises a supporting unit deploying step: deploying a supporting unit between the two casing parts before the connecting step; and a supporting unit removal step: removing the supporting unit from the two casing parts after the connecting step; and, wherein the supporting unit supports parts of the two casing parts near the abutting line.
However, Mamon (US5323950A) teaches a supporting unit deploying step (Figures 1 and 4 teach an expandable mandrel (10) that is inserted into a pipe to be welded (Col. 4, Lines 39-41).): deploying a supporting unit between the two casing parts before the connecting step (Col. 4, Lines 39-41 teach the expandable mandrel is placed in the pipe prior to welding. When the two portions of Choi are brought together in the abutting step, they resemble a pipe.); and a supporting unit removal step: removing the supporting unit from the two casing parts after the connecting step (Col. 4, Lines 55-57 teach that after the welding occurs, the mandrel is deflated and removed.); and, wherein the supporting unit supports parts of the two casing parts near the abutting line. (Figure 4 shows the mandrel (10) supports the pipes near the abutting line (where the weld (48) is located).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known internal support technique of Mamon to the forming and welding method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Raffaele in order to provide a reinforcement during welding (See Col. 2, Lines 14-16) by providing physical contact pressed against the inner circumference of the tubing of the workpiece (See Col. 2, Lines 19-23).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known internal support technique of Mamon to the forming and welding method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Raffaele because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Raffaele does not disclose connecting the two casing parts along the abutting line via filler-free welding.
However, Eller (US20230066986A1) teaches connecting bicycle frame parts along an abutting line via filler-free welding. (¶0006 teaches the use of friction stir welding that uses a non-consumable rotating tool for welding. ¶0012 teaches the method involves using friction stir welding assembly a bicycle frameset.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known friction stir welding technique of Eller to the production method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Raffaele in order to use a welding technique that has significant quality and cost benefits. (See Eller ¶0006.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known friction stir welding technique of Eller to the production method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Raffaele because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20180065705A1) in view of Choi ‘587 (US20150048587A1), Chang (EP3521153A1) and Kugele (US20210354774A1), as applied in Claim 3, further in view of Mamon (US5323950A) and Eller (US20230066986A1).
Claim 10
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele teaches the manufacturing method as claimed in claim 4, wherein in the connecting step, connecting the two casing parts along the abutting line via welding. (Choi, ¶0048 and Figures 1-2 teach a line (bonding portion, 200) where the two casing parts (100a/b) are abutted and welded.)
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele does not disclose the manufacturing method comprises a supporting unit deploying step: deploying a supporting unit between the two casing parts before the connecting step; and a supporting unit removal step: removing the supporting unit from the two casing parts after the connecting step; and, wherein the supporting unit supports parts of the two casing parts near the abutting line.
However, Mamon (US5323950A) teaches a supporting unit deploying step (Figures 1 and 4 teach an expandable mandrel (10) that is inserted into a pipe to be welded (Col. 4, Lines 39-41).): deploying a supporting unit between the two casing parts before the connecting step (Col. 4, Lines 39-41 teach the expandable mandrel is placed in the pipe prior to welding. When the two portions of Choi are brought together in the abutting step, they resemble a pipe.); and a supporting unit removal step: removing the supporting unit from the two casing parts after the connecting step (Col. 4, Lines 55-57 teach that after the welding occurs, the mandrel is deflated and removed.); and, wherein the supporting unit supports parts of the two casing parts near the abutting line. (Figure 4 shows the mandrel (10) supports the pipes near the abutting line (where the weld (48) is located).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known internal support technique of Mamon to the forming and welding method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele in order to provide a reinforcement during welding (See Col. 2, Lines 14-16) by providing physical contact pressed against the inner circumference of the tubing of the workpiece (See Col. 2, Lines 19-23).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known internal support technique of Mamon to the forming and welding method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele does not disclose connecting the two casing parts along the abutting line via filler-free welding.
However, Eller (US20230066986A1) teaches connecting bicycle frame parts along an abutting line via filler-free welding. (¶0006 teaches the use of friction stir welding that uses a non-consumable rotating tool for welding. ¶0012 teaches the method involves using friction stir welding assembly a bicycle frameset.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known friction stir welding technique of Eller to the production method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele in order to use a welding technique that has significant quality and cost benefits. (See Eller ¶0006.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known friction stir welding technique of Eller to the production method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 11
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele teaches the manufacturing method as claimed in claim 5, wherein in the connecting step, connecting the two casing parts along the abutting line via welding. (Choi, ¶0048 and Figures 1-2 teach a line (bonding portion, 200) where the two casing parts (100a/b) are abutted and welded.)
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele does not disclose the manufacturing method comprises a supporting unit deploying step: deploying a supporting unit between the two casing parts before the connecting step; and a supporting unit removal step: removing the supporting unit from the two casing parts after the connecting step; and, wherein the supporting unit supports parts of the two casing parts near the abutting line.
However, Mamon (US5323950A) teaches a supporting unit deploying step (Figures 1 and 4 teach an expandable mandrel (10) that is inserted into a pipe to be welded (Col. 4, Lines 39-41).): deploying a supporting unit between the two casing parts before the connecting step (Col. 4, Lines 39-41 teach the expandable mandrel is placed in the pipe prior to welding. When the two portions of Choi are brought together in the abutting step, they resemble a pipe.); and a supporting unit removal step: removing the supporting unit from the two casing parts after the connecting step (Col. 4, Lines 55-57 teach that after the welding occurs, the mandrel is deflated and removed.); and, wherein the supporting unit supports parts of the two casing parts near the abutting line. (Figure 4 shows the mandrel (10) supports the pipes near the abutting line (where the weld (48) is located).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known internal support technique of Mamon to the forming and welding method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele in order to provide a reinforcement during welding (See Col. 2, Lines 14-16) by providing physical contact pressed against the inner circumference of the tubing of the workpiece (See Col. 2, Lines 19-23).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known internal support technique of Mamon to the forming and welding method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele does not disclose connecting the two casing parts along the abutting line via filler-free welding.
However, Eller (US20230066986A1) teaches connecting bicycle frame parts along an abutting line via filler-free welding. (¶0006 teaches the use of friction stir welding that uses a non-consumable rotating tool for welding. ¶0012 teaches the method involves using friction stir welding assembly a bicycle frameset.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known friction stir welding technique of Eller to the production method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele in order to use a welding technique that has significant quality and cost benefits. (See Eller ¶0006.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known friction stir welding technique of Eller to the production method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang and Kugele because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US20180065705A1) in view of Choi ‘587 (US20150048587A1), Chang (EP3521153A1), Raffaele (US2729466A) and Kugele (US20210354774A1). as applied in Claim 3, further in view of Mamon (US5323950A) and Eller (US20230066986A1).
Claim 12
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang, Raffaele and Kugele teaches the manufacturing method as claimed in claim 5, wherein in the connecting step, connecting the two casing parts along the abutting line via welding. (Choi, ¶0048 and Figures 1-2 teach a line (bonding portion, 200) where the two casing parts (100a/b) are abutted and welded.)
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang, Raffaele and Kugele does not disclose the manufacturing method comprises a supporting unit deploying step: deploying a supporting unit between the two casing parts before the connecting step; and a supporting unit removal step: removing the supporting unit from the two casing parts after the connecting step; and, wherein the supporting unit supports parts of the two casing parts near the abutting line.
However, Mamon (US5323950A) teaches a supporting unit deploying step (Figures 1 and 4 teach an expandable mandrel (10) that is inserted into a pipe to be welded (Col. 4, Lines 39-41).): deploying a supporting unit between the two casing parts before the connecting step (Col. 4, Lines 39-41 teach the expandable mandrel is placed in the pipe prior to welding. When the two portions of Choi are brought together in the abutting step, they resemble a pipe.); and a supporting unit removal step: removing the supporting unit from the two casing parts after the connecting step (Col. 4, Lines 55-57 teach that after the welding occurs, the mandrel is deflated and removed.); and, wherein the supporting unit supports parts of the two casing parts near the abutting line. (Figure 4 shows the mandrel (10) supports the pipes near the abutting line (where the weld (48) is located).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known internal support technique of Mamon to the forming and welding method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang, Raffaele and Kugele in order to provide a reinforcement during welding (See Col. 2, Lines 14-16) by providing physical contact pressed against the inner circumference of the tubing of the workpiece (See Col. 2, Lines 19-23).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known internal support technique of Mamon to the forming and welding method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang, Raffaele and Kugele because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang, Raffaele and Kugele does not disclose connecting the two casing parts along the abutting line via filler-free welding.
However, Eller (US20230066986A1) teaches connecting bicycle frame parts along an abutting line via filler-free welding. (¶0006 teaches the use of friction stir welding that uses a non-consumable rotating tool for welding. ¶0012 teaches the method involves using friction stir welding assembly a bicycle frameset.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known friction stir welding technique of Eller to the production method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang, Raffaele and Kugele in order to use a welding technique that has significant quality and cost benefits. (See Eller ¶0006.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known friction stir welding technique of Eller to the production method of Choi in view of Choi ‘587, Chang, Raffaele and Kugele because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 12, applicant argues that Choi does not teach the newly amended version of Claim 1, specifically the limitation “being suitable for multiple types of motor systems after processing”.
As discussed in the updated rejection above, the limitation that is added to claim does not positively recite the processing step, does not identify the processing type, or require a specific structure of the “prestructure” to meet the suitability for multiple types of motor systems. Therefore, Choi’s motor mounting area (120), subjected to processing (such as the hole cutting step from Chang), can be suitable for different types of motor mounting arrangements.
Applicant argues, on page 16, applicant argues the “two side plates are flat” limitation cannot be a matter of design choice and provides excerpts from the specification regarding the width adapter.
A search of the specification did not yield any results for “flat”, or synonyms such as “planar”. The drawings are also not indicated as being to scale, have any dimensions, or any indication of the degree of flatness of the “side plates”. Therefore, there is no written criticality presented in the specification for the term “flat” in relation to the side plates. To the contrary, the bulk of the arguments in the section regarding the design choice rejection refer to the width adapter and the criticality of its use. The claims do not require a width adapter or any interaction of a width adapter with the ”flat” side plates.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
CN212529953U
2021-02-12
Figures 1-3 teach an electric bicycle frame (100) with a motor mount (2) with connecting portions (21). These connecting portions interact with interchangeable connecting plates (3) to suit various motor models/types. The reference provides a teaching of a motor mounting structure that is capable of mounting different models/types of motors.
DE202012103684U1
2012-11-15
Figures 2-3 teach a frame for a bicycle that has a mounting area (2) that is universal in that it can support various types of motive force generating systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights