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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 3 contain the language “if a driver rotates the pedal installed…” or “if the driver operates a button…”. The limitations preceding (as in claim 1) or following (as in claim 3) this language are interpreted as “contingent limitations”, which are not required by the claim nor the prior art. For example, “generating a deceleration torque command of a driving motor based on a moving distance of a pedal” if the predetermined condition is met is not required by claim 1. Similarly, “the driving motor generates electrical energy by regenerative braking and the current supplied to the driving motor is controlled by using the generated electrical energy” if the predetermined condition is met is not required by claim 3. The Examiner suggests rewording these clauses to make them more distinct and therefore part of the scope of the claim, as steps required to be performed as part of the claimed method. See MPEP 2111.04 Section II: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.”
The Examiner notes that this language is also present in claims 11, 13, and 20, however, as these are apparatus claims the prior art rejections below interpret the limitation as requiring a disclosure of the structure performing the “function, should the condition occur”.
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.
Claims 1, 11, 15, and 19 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 the limitation "the current control" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the current control" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15 and 19 recite the limitation "the current control" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner also notes that it is unclear if this current control is the same as that of parent claim 11 or if it is a new current control (driving motor control vs. pedal motor control).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sorensen (WO 2018/199773).
In re claim 11, Sorensen discloses a system for controlling an electric bicycle (1), comprising a pedal motor (3) comprising a pedal motor controller (30); a driving motor (4a, 4b) comprising a driving motor controller (62, 63); and a system controller (6) configured to control the system, wherein the system controller comprises a deceleration torque command generation unit (braking force generation, see page 4, lines 16-19), and if a driver rotates a pedal (2, 21, 22) installed in the electric bicycle in a reverse direction while the electric bicycle is driving, the deceleration torque command generation unit generates a deceleration torque command of the driving motor based on a moving distance of the pedal (see page 4, lines 16-19), and wherein the driving motor controller controls a current supplied to the driving motor according to the deceleration torque command (see page 5, lines 27-30), and a deceleration torque of the driving motor is generated by the current control (increased braking force/current generated by regeneration power of motors increases deceleration torque, see page 4, lines 16-19).
In re claim 1, Sorensen discloses a method for controlling an electric bicycle (1), comprising: driving the electric bicycle; generating a deceleration torque command (see page 5, lines 27-30 and page 5, lines 27-30) of a driving motor (4) based on a moving distance (speed of reverse pedaling correlates to a pedal moving distance) of a pedal if a driver rotates the pedal installed in the electric bicycle in a reverse direction while the electric bicycle is driving; controlling a current (via motor controllers 62, 63) supplied to the driving motor according to the deceleration torque command; and generating a deceleration torque of the driving motor by the current control (increased braking force/current generated by regeneration power of motors increases deceleration torque, see page 4, lines 16-19).
In re claims 2 and 12, Sorensen further discloses wherein a magnitude of the deceleration torque of the driving motor is proportional to the moving distance of the pedal. The Examiner notes that the speed of reverse pedaling correlates to a pedal moving distance, which increases the magnitude of braking/deceleration torque.
In re claim 3, Sorensen further discloses wherein if the driver rotates the pedal installed in the electric bicycle in the reverse direction, the driving motor generates electrical energy by regenerative braking and the current supplied to the driving motor is controlled by using the generated electrical energy (see page 6, lines 29-32).
In re claim 4, Sorensen further discloses wherein the electrical energy generated by the regenerative braking is charged in a battery (5) mounted at the electric bicycle.
In re claim 13, Sorensen further discloses further comprising a battery (5) configured to charge electrical energy (from generator), wherein if the driver rotates the pedal installed in the electric bicycle in the reverse direction, the driving motor generates electrical energy by regenerative braking, and the generated electrical energy is charged in the battery (see page 6, lines 29-32).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 7, 8, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen in view of Paick (US 2022/0185427).
In re claims 7 and 16, Sorensen further discloses wherein the system controller (controllers 30, 6, 62, and 63) comprises an acceleration torque command generation unit (30), and the acceleration torque command generation unit generates an acceleration torque command of the driving motor based on a rotating speed of the pedal as the driver rotates the pedal in a forward direction (see page 6, lines 21-25), but does not disclose based on a gear ratio of a gearshift. Paick, however, does disclose controlling an electric bicycle torque based on a gear ratio of a gearshift (change in gear ratio, see [0065], [0067], [0070], and [0089]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle of Sorensen such that it comprised the variable gear ratios of Paick to advantageously be able to change the assist levels and speed of the bicycle.
In re claims 8 and 17, Sorensen further discloses wherein driving the electric bicycle further comprises: controlling a current supplied to the driving motor according to the acceleration torque command (forward rotation speed of pedals; see page 5, lines 27-30); and generating an acceleration torque of the driving motor by the current control (see page 5, lines 27-30).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen and Paick in view of Guzelgunler (US 2022/0194520).
In re claim 20, Sorensen and Paick disclose the system of claim 16, but do not disclose an interface comprising a display, wherein if the driver operates a button on the interface, the gear ratio of the gearshift or a magnitude of a braking force is determined. Guzelgunler, however, does disclose an interface (110) comprising a display (see claim 11), wherein if the driver operates a button (see [0044] and [0046]) on the interface, the gear ratio of the gearshift is determined (see [0044] and [0046]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle of Sorensen and Paick such that it comprised the interface of Guzelgunler to advantageously provide the user with a display of useful information and an easy way to change the gear ratio to the desired gear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “generating a deceleration pedal torque command of a pedal motor based on the generated deceleration torque of the driving motor” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a bicycle with a driving motor and a pedal motor (generator) wherein the driving motor determines that pedal motor deceleration pedal torque command.
Claims 9, 10, and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “generating an acceleration pedal torque command of a pedal motor based on the generated acceleration torque of the driving motor” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a bicycle with a driving motor and a pedal motor (generator) wherein the driving motor generated acceleration torque determines the pedal motor acceleration pedal torque command.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach bicycle drives of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611