DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
Claims 1-19 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11/28/2023 and 04/15/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0045], the specification discloses, “an e- bike 10 which may be referred to herein as CyberXTM; however, the application (Application Serial No. 97024816) for the trademark in question has been refused, dismissed, or invalidated by the office.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites, “the central compartment” and depends from claim 1 which recites, “a compartment”. Since claim 2 does not provide antecedent basis for the term “the central compartment”, it is unclear if the “central compartment” from claim 2 is the same feature as “a compartment” as claimed in claim 1.
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 1-3, 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20130032425 A1) in view of Haimoff (US 20120242058 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses: an e-bike, comprising: a frame (12, Fig. 1) defining a compartment (see annotated figure below); a main shaft (4, Fig. 1) mounted to the frame; a motor (3) connected to the main shaft and configured to rotate the main shaft; a set of pedals ("the pedals", paragraph [0042]) disposed on the main shaft and configured to rotate the main shaft; and a drivetrain (see annotated figure below) mounted on the frame and configured to transfer rotation of the main shaft to at least one wheel.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee is silent in teaching a battery mounted in the compartment.
Haimoff discloses an e-bike comprising: a frame (12, Fig. 1) defining a compartment (104) and a battery (“battery”, paragraph [0140]) mounted in the compartment (see paragraph [0140]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee in view of Haimoff by applying the frame structure and battery disclosed by Haimoff to the e-bike disclosed by Lee. Such a person would be motivated to make the modification to provide a power source that is protected from impact for the motor disclosed by Lee.
With respect to claim 2, Lee in view of Haimoff as modified above discloses: The e-bike of claim 1, wherein the frame comprises one or more polygonal structures, and wherein the central compartment (104) is defined by the one or more polygonal structures (Haimoff; 100/102, Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 3, Lee in view of Haimoff as modified above discloses: The e-bike of claim 1, wherein the drivetrain comprises a first sprocket (Lee; 13, Fig. 13) disposed on the main shaft (4, Fig. 1) and configured to transfer rotation of the main shaft to the at least one wheel (see paragraph [0041]), and a second sprocket (41) disposed on the main shaft and configured to connect the motor (6) to the main shaft ("The first passive wheel 41 and the shaft 4 are co-rotated to drive the chainwheel 13 ", paragraph [0041]).
With respect to claim 5, Lee in view of Haimoff as modified above discloses: the e-bike of claim 1, wherein the motor (Lee; 3, Fig. 1) is mounted to approximately the center of a lower portion of the frame (12).
With respect to claim 14, Lee in view of Haimoff as modified above discloses the e-bike of claim 1, but is silent in teaching that the motor draws between 750 and 15000 Watts of power. However; Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee in view of Haimoff to have a motor that draws between 750 and 15000 Watts of power because such a solution would be obvious to try. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand the effects of the motor’s power draw on the available power and range of the vehicle and would thus be able to predict the outcome of choosing a motor with a power draw within the claimed range. Further, such a person would predict success when choosing such a motor because motors with power draws in the claimed range are known within the art of e-bikes.
An example of an e-bike comprising a motor with a power draw within the claimed range can be found in Schieffelin (US 20140163797 A1) (see paragraph [0090]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20130032425 A1) in view of Haimoff (US 20120242058 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Seol (US 20060183580 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Lee in view of Haimoff as modified above discloses the e-bike of claim 3 but is silent in teaching: one or more bearings disposed on the set of pedals, the one or more bearings being configured to transfer movement of the pedals to the main shaft when the pedals are moved in a first direction, and to allow the pedals to move independent of the main shaft when the pedals are moved in a second direction opposite the first direction.
Seol discloses a bicycle comprising: pedals (502, Fig. 6) and a main shaft (201, Fig. 1), and one or more bearings (240a/b, Fig. 1) disposed on the set of pedals, the one or more bearings being configured to transfer movement of the pedals to the main shaft when the pedals are moved in a first direction, and to allow the pedals to move independent of the main shaft when the pedals are moved in a second direction opposite the first direction (see paragraph [0036]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee in view of Haimoff in further view of Seol to arrive at the claimed invention and to allow the motor to drive the rear wheel of the vehicle without also causing the pedals to rotate.
Claims 6 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20130032425 A1) in view of Haimoff (US 20120242058 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Schieffelin (US 20140163797 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Lee in view of Haimoff disclose: the e-bike of claim 1 but is silent in teaching: a controller configured to limit a wattage drawn by the motor to a selected amount according to a user input.
With respect to claim 6, Schieffelin discloses an e-bike comprising a motor (“motor”, paragraph [0075]) and a controller (“motor control module 338”, paragraph [0075]), wherein the controller is configured to limit a wattage drawn by the motor (see “maximum output of the electric motor’s power”, paragraph [0090]) to a selected amount according to a user input (“…allows the rider to select or set…”, paragraph [0090]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee in view of Haimoff in further view of Schieffelin by applying the configured controller and associated components of Schieffelin to the bike resulting from the combination of Lee and Haimoff to arrive at the claimed invention and to allow a user to ensure that they comply with local regulations regarding electric bicycles (Schieffelin; see paragraph [0007]).
With respect to claim 16, Lee in view of Haimoff and Schieffelin as modified above discloses: the e-bike of claim 1, further comprising a user interface (Schieffelin; “user interface”, paragraph [0090]) to control the motor and set a maximum wattage to be drawn by the motor according to user input (“set the maximum output of the electric bicycle's power”, paragraph [0090]).
With respect to claim 17, Lee in view of Haimoff and Schieffelin as modified above discloses: the e-bike of claim 16, wherein the user interface (Schieffelin; “user interface”, paragraph [0090]) is configured to limit the maximum wattage to be drawn by the motor to one of 30%, 40%, 50%, 75%, and 100% (see “any other value”, paragraph [0090]) of a maximum allowed drawn wattage, according to a user input. Since Schieffelin discloses selecting any value as the maximum motor power draw, any percentage of a maximum allowed drawn wattage would be achievable through the user interface.
With respect to claim 18, Lee in view of Haimoff and Schieffelin as modified above discloses: the e-bike of claim 16, wherein the user interface (Schieffelin; “user interface”, paragraph [0090]) comprises a display (“display means”, paragraph [0070]) configured to show the user at least one of a status of the battery (“current battery level”, paragraph [0070]) and a wattage drawn by the motor.
With respect to claim 19, Lee in view of Haimoff and Schieffelin as modified above discloses; the e-bike of claim 16, wherein the user interface (Schieffelin; “user interface”, paragraph [0090]) is configured to connect wirelessly with a remote access point (see “wireless communications device”, paragraph [0087]) to receive commands.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20130032425 A1) in view of Haimoff (US 20120242058 A1) and Schieffelin (US 20140163797 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Takayama (JP 2020090109 A).
With respect to claim 7, Lee in view of Haimoff and Schieffelin as modified above discloses the e-bike of claim 6, but is silent in teaching that the controller is further configured to monitor a remaining charge of the battery and driving behavior of the e-bike, and to switch the motor to a regeneration function when predefined criteria are met, wherein the regeneration function comprises the motor converting rotation of the main shaft into electrical energy to charge the battery.
Takayama discloses an e-bike (10, Fig. 1) comprising a controller (50, Fig. 2) and a motor (42), and a battery (40), wherein the controller is further configured to monitor a remaining charge of the battery (see “remaining charge of the battery”, paragraph [0080]) and driving behavior of the e-bike, and to switch the motor to a regeneration function (see “condition for switching to the regeneration mode”, paragraph [0070]) when predefined criteria are met (“the remaining charge of the battery 40 being equal to or less than a predetermined amount”, paragraph [0050]), wherein the regeneration function comprises the motor converting rotation of the main shaft into electrical energy to charge the battery.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee in view of Haimoff and Schieffelin in further view of Takayama to arrive at the claimed invention by adding a regeneration mode triggered by predetermined criteria being met to extend the battery life of the vehicle. Since, Lee in view of Haimoff and Schieffelin disclose a motor (Lee; 3, Fig. 1) operatively connected with a main shaft (4, Fig. 1), the modification would result in a regeneration function comprising the motor converting rotation of the main shaft into electrical energy to charge the battery.
With respect to claim 8, Lee in view of Haimoff and Schieffelin and in further view of Takayama as modified above discloses: The e-bike of claim 7, wherein the predefined criteria to switch the motor to the regeneration function comprise the remaining battery charge falling below a predefined level (Takayama; see paragraph [0080]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20130032425 A1) in view of Haimoff (US 20120242058 A1) and Schieffelin (US 20140163797 A1) and Takayama (JP 2020090109 A) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Craven (US 20160031525 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Lee in view of Haimoff, Schieffelin and Takayama disclose: the e-bike of claim 7 but is silent in teaching: a throttle to control the motor, wherein the predefined criteria to switch the motor to the regeneration function comprise the throttle being set to zero output while the e-bike is in motion.
Craven discloses an e-bike (10, Fig. 1) comprising a regeneration function (see “power generation control logic”, paragraph [0153]) that is switched to when predefined criteria are met, the predefined criteria being the throttle being set to zero output while the e-bike is in motion (see Fig. 23).
Regarding the predefined criteria of claim 9, Fig. 23 of Craven shows that the regeneration mode is engaged when motor power is not being requested. Power would not be requested when a throttle of the e-bike is set to zero output.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee in view of Haimoff, Schieffelin and Takayama in further view of Craven to arrive at the claimed invention to convert kinetic energy to electrical energy while decelerating the bicycle and thereby increasing the range of the bicycle.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20130032425 A1) in view of Haimoff (US 20120242058 A1) and Schieffelin (US 20140163797 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Searles (US 20130311020 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Lee in view of Haimoff and Schieffelin as modified above discloses: the e-bike of claim 6 but is silent in teaching that the controller is configured to monitor a travel speed of the e-bike, wherein the controller is configured to prevent the motor from accelerating the e- bike above a preset travel speed.
Searles discloses an e-bike comprising a controller (60, Fig. 2) and a motor (58, Fig. 2), wherein the controller is configured to monitor a travel speed of the e-bike, wherein the controller is configured to prevent the motor from accelerating (see “does not start the motor”, paragraph [0098]) the e-bike above a preset travel speed (“maximum allowed speed”, paragraph [0098]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee in view of Haimoff and Schieffelin in further view of Searles to arrive at the claimed invention, and to enable safer operation of the e-bike as disclosed by Schieffelin (Schieffelin; see paragraph [0002]).
Claims 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20130032425 A1) in view of Haimoff (US 20120242058 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frier (US 20140354419 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Lee in view of Haimoff as modified above discloses: the e-bike of claim 1, but is silent regarding a light system comprising a first light panel disposed on the at least one wheel, a first connector disposed on the first light panel, and a second connector disposed on the frame, wherein the first connector is configured to receive electricity from the second connector while the at least one wheel is rotating.
Frier discloses a bicycle lighting system comprising a first light panel (any of 1314A-L, Fig. 13) disposed on the at least one wheel (20, Fig. 8). a first connector (1424, Fig. 14) disposed on the first light panel, and a second connector (1308, Fig. 13) disposed on the, wherein the first connector is configured to receive electricity from the second connector while the at least one wheel is rotating (see Fig. 13).
Frier does not disclose that the first connector is on the first light panel; however, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Lee in view of Haimoff and Frier to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious because it would only require a rearrangement of the lights disclosed by Frier. Such a person would be motivated to make the change to reduce the amount of wire needed to electrically connect the lights to the first connector.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee in view of Haimoff in further view of Frier to arrive at the claimed invention and to increase the visibility of the bike in low-light conditions.
With respect to claim 12, Lee in view of Haimoff and Frier as modified above discloses: the e-bike of claim 11, wherein the first connector (Frier; 1424, Fig. 14) comprises one or more conductive elements (1421) formed as concentric circles disposed on the at least one wheel, wherein the second connector comprises one or more pins (1422) configured to contact the conductive elements and supply electricity thereto.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20130032425 A1) in view of Haimoff (US 20120242058 A1) and Frier (US 20140354419 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Forsythe (US 20030112632 A1).
With respect to claim 13, Lee in view of Haimoff and Frier as modified above discloses: the e-bike of claim 11 but is silent regarding the claimed second light panel.
Forsythe discloses a bicycle comprising a light panel (42, Fig. 1) disposed on a frame (12) of the bicycle.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee in view of Haimoff and Frier in further view of Forsythe to include a second light panel disposed on the vehicle frame to arrive at the claimed invention and to increase the bike’s visibility in low-light conditions.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20130032425 A1) in view of Haimoff (US 20120242058 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawase (US 20110059344 A1).
With respect to claim 15, Lee in view of Haimoff as modified above discloses: the e-bike of claim 1, but is silent in teaching that the battery comprises one or more prismatic cells.
Kawase discloses a battery (“a storage device from which a specific electrical energy can be taken off”, paragraph [0030]) for use in an e-bike (“electric bicycle”, paragraph [0067]), wherein the battery comprises one or more prismatic cells (“prismatic cell”, claim 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee in view of Haimoff in further view of Kawase by substituting the original battery for the prismatic battery disclosed by Kawase. Since Kawase discloses the prismatic battery for use with electrical bicycles, such a person, when making the modification, would expect the substitute battery to function similarly to the original battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record discloses hybrid-electric bicycles and personal vehicles in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6087. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (7:30 - 5:00 EST).
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, Paul Dickson can be reached at (571) 272-7742. 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.
/MATTHEW D LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/PAUL N DICKSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614