Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 8, 2026, regarding the claim and drawing objections (sections II and III) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 21 (page 14) have been fully considered, and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related rejections have been withdrawn. Note, however, the Double Patenting rejection of claim 21 made in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments regarding remaining the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections (pages 10-16) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, therefore the related rejections have been maintained:
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 12) that the opening of ANDO identified by the examiner (annotation OP being adjacent to part 36c of Fig. 4 Annotated as presented in the previous office action) is not aligned with the rotation axis (X, Fig. 2), the examiner does not currently dispute. The examiner notes that, as discussed in the interview of May 19, 2026, the annotation “OP” of Fig. 4 Annotated was likely intended to point to Hole 36a of Fig. 4, which does align with Axis X, as understood by Fig. 2. It is also noted that, as the cited first connecting part (36c) has a readily apparent opening (36a) which meets the claim requirement of being aligned with a rotation axis (X), the examiner considers that the basic thrust of the rejection remains the same even while Fig. 4, Annotated has been modified for clarity.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (page 13, para. 1) that the combination of ANDO and VAN DRUTEN is improper because modifying ANDO to have the electric motor of VAN DRUTEN instead of a generator would render it inoperable, the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that modifying ANDO to include the motor of VAN DRUTEN does not necessarily mean removing the generator, as a motor could, for example, be placed on the other wheel of the bicycle. The examiner also notes that, although ANDO does disclose a system in which a wheel mounted generator powers a frame mounted device, the object of the invention is understood to be related to improving a wired connection between such wheel mounted and frame mounted devices (Paras. [0007]- [0009]). While making only the modification of replacing the generator with a motor may render ANDO unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because, for example as stated by the applicant, the front lamp 19 would cease to have a power source, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize this and add some source of power, such as a battery, which would also be recognized as a necessary modification to power the motor itself. Such an arrangement is old and well known in the art, evidenced by at least previously cited teachings of VAN DRUTEN and Chang.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on June 8, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over copending Application No. 17/945,986 (reference application) in view of ANDO (US-20100301711-A1).
Claim 21 is unpatentable over claim 1 of the reference application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other- see the text comparison below (note that the MS Word version of the Office Action shows annotated figures in color, as opposed to in grayscale as printed in the PDF version of the same document):
PNG
media_image1.png
1267
1263
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For clarity, the elements identified by reference letters A-D are present in both claims, but in differing locations, as indicated.
The elements identified by reference numerals 1-2 are not present in the reference application but are considered obvious modifications:
Regarding reference numeral 1: “an opening aligned with the axis of rotation”, ANDO teaches a first motor connector (Terminal 52, Fig. 4) having an opening (“OP”, Fig, 4 Annotated) aligned with an axis of rotation (axis “X”, Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 Annotated) and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference application’s motor device to include an opening as suggested by ANDO. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of accommodating an axle shaft or other feature that is positioned coaxially with the motor’s rotation axis.
Regarding reference numeral 2: “wherein the first motor connector is disposed on a radially outer face of the first connecting part”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the first motor connector such that it is disposed on a radially outer face of the first connecting part, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 22 is unpatentable over claim 6 of the reference application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they add substantially the same subject matter to the patentably indistinct claims they depend upon (claim 21 of the instant application and claim 1 of the reference application, respectively, as discussed above).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because, although a notice of allowance for the reference application has been sent, the patent for the patentably indistinct claims has not yet been issued.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 36 and 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 36 and 38-42, as amended or newly introduced, recite the limitation “a shell portion”, which is not present in either the passages cited by the applicant as supporting the amendments (Paras. [0005], [0008], and others, page 9, para. 3) or any other passage in the originally filed written specification. Further, the examiner does not recognize any structure or feature that resembles a shell but is called by a different name in ether the written specification or the supplied drawings. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 36 and 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 36 and 38-42, as amended or newly introduced, recite the limitation “a shell portion”, which the examiner interprets as a feature having a thin wall which may be formed around some other feature in order to protect or cover it, or a similar equivalent. However, as no such feature was found in the applicant’s original description as discussed in the related 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above, it is unclear what the applicant intends by the term “a shell portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-20, 23-24, 27-28, 30, 34, 38, and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDO (US-20100301711-A1) in view of VAN DRUTEN (EP-4021789-B1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 16, ANDO teaches a {generator} device for an electric bicycle (Generator Hub 10, Fig. 1), comprising:
an electric {generator} (Generator Hub 10, Fig. 1) having an axis of rotation (an axis “X” being illustrated in Fig. 2),
a first connector unit (Connector Body 36, Fig. 4) having a first motor connector (Terminal 52, Fig. 4) and a first connecting part (Protruding Portion 36c, Fig. 4) rigidly fixed to one another (as illustrated in Fig. 4),
the first connector unit (36) mounted on the electric {generator} (10) and electrically conductively connected to the electric {generator} (10) via the first motor connector (Connector Body 36 being mounted to Generator Hub 10 as illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4, and electrically connected to Generator Hub 10 through Terminal 52of Connector 22 as taught in Para. [0024]),
a second connector unit (“CU-2”, Fig. 4 Annotated) including a second motor connector (Connector Cap 37, Fig. 4),
wherein the first motor connector (52) is releasably pluggable into the second motor connector (37) transversely to the axis of rotation (X) such that an electrical conductive connection can be established and released directly between the first motor connector (52) and the second motor connector (37) (as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated),
wherein the first connecting part (36c) outwardly surrounds the first motor connector (52) in at least one region (“RG”, Fig. 4 Annotated) and has an opening (“OP”, Fig, 4 Annotated) aligned with the axis of rotation (X), and wherein the first motor connector (52) is disposed on a radially outer face (“FC”, Fig. 4 Annotated) of the first connecting part (36c) (as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated).
Although a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the generator of ANDO is analogous to and/ or could be replaced with a motor, ANDO does not teach an electric motor.
PNG
media_image2.png
876
833
media_image2.png
Greyscale
VAN DRUTEN teaches a motor device for an electric bicycle (Motor 116B, Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of ANDO and VAN DRUTEN in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ANDO’s generator device to include an electric motor as suggested by VAN DRUTEN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a bicycle with a means of propulsion that would beneficially make a more user-friendly device.
Regarding Claim 17, ANDO, as modified above, further teaches that the first connecting part (36c) is rigidly fixed to a stator (Stationary Unit 43, Fig. 3) of the electric motor (as illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding Claim 18, ANDO, as modified above, does not teach that the second motor connector has screw holes.
VAN DRUTEN teaches a motor connector (Adapter 3, Fig. 12; considered a motor connector in that it comprises Contacts 133 as taught in Para. [0096]) has a screw hole (illustrated in Fig. 3) for connection to a dropout of the electric bicycle (as illustrated in Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of ANDO and VAN DRUTEN in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ANDO’s generator device, as modified, to include a screw hole as suggested by VAN DRUTEN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a rigid connection to the frame that would beneficially make a more robust apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate the singular screw hole taught by VAN DRUTEN as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960); see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 19, ANDO, as modified above, further teaches that:
the second connector unit (CU-2) further includes a second connecting part (“PC-2”, Fig. 4 Annotated, being the lower protruding part of Connector Cap 37);
between the first connecting part (36c) and the second connecting part (PC-2) a form-fitted connection transversely to the axis of rotation (X) can be established and released (as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated), and
when the form-fitted connection between the first (36c) and second (PC-2) connecting parts is established and released, the electrical conductive connection between the first (52) and second (37) motor connectors can be established and released (as understood by Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 20, ANDO, as modified above, further teaches that:
the first connecting part (36c) has a first form-fitting element (the body of 36c, hereafter “FF-1”) and the second connecting part (PC-2) has a second form-fitting element (a hole “FF-2” which latches onto Connector Body 36 as taught in Para. [0033]), and
the first form-fitting element (FF-1) slidably connects with the second form-fitting element (FF-2) transversely to the axis of rotation (X) and thereby the form-fitting connection between the first (36c) and second (PC-2) connecting parts can be established (as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated and taught in Para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 23, ANDO, as modified above, further teaches that the second connector unit (CU-2) contains a carrier (Connector Cover 38, Fig. 4) that surrounds the second connecting part (PC-2) and the second motor connector (37) at least in regions towards the electric motor (as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 24, ANDO, as modified above, does not teach a control board.
VAN DRUTEN teaches a controller (Processor 116A, Fig. 12) of the electric motor (Processor 116A and Motor 116B being connected as taught in Para. [0096]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of ANDO and VAN DRUTEN in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ANDO’s generator device, as modified, to include a control board as suggested by VAN DRUTEN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a device to control a motor that would beneficially make a more user-friendly apparatus.
Regarding Claim 27, ANDO, as modified above by VAN DRUTEN, teaches an electric bicycle (Bicycle 101, Fig. 1), comprising a motor device with substantially similar features to that of claim 16 (see the 103 rejection of claim 16 above for the teachings of VAN DRUTEN and motivation to combine them with the generator device/ electric bicycle of ANDO) and further teaches:
a wheel (Front Wheel 106, Fig. 1), a dropout (Front End 103b, Fig. 1) supporting the wheel (as taught in Para. [0022] and Fig. 1);
wherein the electric motor (10) with the first connector unit (36) is fixable to the wheel (106) and the second connector unit (CU-2) is fixable to the dropout (Second Connector Unit CU-2 being considered to be fixed to Front End 103b as it is a part of Connector 22 which is locked onto Hub Shaft 15 as taught in Para. [0026] and Hub Shaft 15 being fixed to Front Fork 102b as taught in Para. [0027];
ANDO, as modified above, does not teach a plurality of screw holes, but VAN DRUTEN does (see the 103 rejection of claim 18 above for the teachings of VAN DRUTEN and motivation to combine them with ANDO’s generator device, as modified).
ANDO, as modified above, does not teach a battery.
VAN DRUTEN teaches that an electric motor (116B) that is electrically conductively connected to a battery via a connector unit (Adapter 3, Fig. 12, considered a connector unit in that it comprises Contacts 133 and is connects Motor 116B and Battery 128 as taught in Paras. [0094]- [0096]) when installed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of ANDO and VAN DRUTEN in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ANDO’s generator device, as modified, to include a battery as suggested by VAN DRUTEN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a source of stored energy that would beneficially make a more user-friendly apparatus.
Regarding Claim 28, ANDO, as modified above, further teaches that the second connector unit (CU-2) contains a carrier (Connector Cover 38, Fig. 4) that surrounds the second connecting part (PC-2) and the second motor connector (37) at least in regions towards the electric motor (as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated), and the carrier (38) is rigidly fixed to the dropout (Connector Cover 38 being considered to be rigidly fixed to Front End 103b as it is a part of Connector 22 which is locked onto Hub Shaft 15 as taught in Para. [0026] and Hub Shaft 15 being fixed to Front Fork 102b as taught in Para. [0027]).
Regarding Claim 30, ANDO, as modified above, further teaches that the first motor connector (52) plugs into the second motor connector (37) transversely to the axis of rotation (X) (as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 34, ANDO, as modified above, further teaches that:
the first connecting part (36c) has a first form-fitting element (the body of 36c, hereafter “FF-1”) and the second connecting part (PC-2) has a second form-fitting element (a hole “FF-2” which latches onto Connector Body 36 as taught in Para. [0033]), and
the first form-fitting element (FF-1) slidably connects with the second form-fitting element (FF-2) transversely to the axis of rotation (X) and thereby the form-fitting connection between the first (36c) and second (PC-2) connecting parts can be established (as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated and taught in Para. [0033]) and,
when the form-fitting connection is established,
the first form-fitting element (FF-1) is disposed axially between the second form-fitting element (FF-2) and the second connecting part (PC-2) (First Form-Fitting Element FF-1 of Protruding Portion 36c fitting inside of Second Connecting Part PC-2, as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated, it is understood to be disposed between at least a portion of Second Form-Fitting Element FF-2 and at least a portion of Second Connecting Part PC-2) and/or
the second form-fitting element (FF-2) is disposed axially between the first form-fitting element (FF-1) and the first connecting part (36c)
such that axial movement of the first connecting part and the second connecting part relative to one another is restricted via the first form-fitting element and the second form- fitting element (Protruding Portion 36c and Second Connecting Part PC-2 being engageable/ pluggable with each other in a transverse direction as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated, axial movement between them is understood to be restricted).
Regarding Claim 38, ANDO, as modified above, further teaches that the first connecting part (36c) is a protective cover extending partially around and protecting the first motor connector (Protruding Portion 36c covering and extending partially around Terminal 52 as illustrated in Fig. 4); and
a shell portion (Guide Rails GR-1 forming thin walls around Terminal 52, Fig. 4 Annotated, it is considered a shell) of the first motor connector (Terminal 52) projects outward from an open end of the protective cover (Guide Rails GR-1 projecting from Protruding Portion 36c, Fig. 4 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 40, ANDO further teaches that the shell portion (GR-1) of the first motor connector (52) includes a plurality of recesses (the recessed portions of Protruding Portion 36c which surround Terminals 52 and 54, Fig. 4 Annotated) disposed in a surface of the shell (GR-1) portion facing the second motor connector (37).
Regarding Claim 41, ANDO further teaches that:
the first motor connector (52) includes a shell portion (GR-1) and at least one electrical contact (Terminal 52 being understood as an electrical contact); and
the shell portion (GR-1) of the first motor connector (52) projects out through an open end of the first connecting part (Guide Rails GR-1 projecting from Protruding Portion 36c, Fig. 4 Annotated) and is disposed at least partially within the second motor connector (37) when the first motor connector (52) is plugged into the second motor connector (as understood by Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 42, ANDO further teaches that the first connecting part (36c) includes:
a first wall portion (the back wall of Connector Body 36, which extends up to form a back wall of Protruding Portion 36c, Fig. 4) oriented transversely to the axis of rotation, the opening (OP) aligned with the axis of rotation (X) disposed in and extending through the first wall portion (as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated); and
a second wall portion (Guide Rails GR-1) projecting from the first wall portion (back of 36 and 36c) toward the electric motor (10) and extending at least partially around first motor connector (Guide Rails GR-1 forming thin walls around Terminal 52, Fig. 4 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 43, ANDO, as modified by VAN DRUTEN, teaches a motor device for an electric bicycle having substantially similar features to that of claim 16 (see the 103 rejection of claim 16 above) and further teaches that a shell portion (GR-1) of the first motor connector (52) projects out of the first connecting part (36c) through an open end of the first connecting part (Guide Rails GR-1 projecting from Protruding Portion 36c, Fig. 4 Annotated) and is insertable into the second motor connector (37) (as understood by Fig. 4).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDO and VAN DRUTEN in view of Chang (US-20220185407-A1).
Regarding Claim 31, ANDO, as modified above, does not teach first and second battery connectors.
Chang, in another electric bicycle (Transit Vehicle 110b, Fig. 3), a connector unit (illustrated as a part of Motor Cable 1020, Fig. 8) that comprises a second battery connector (the end of the illustrated connector nearest to Electric Motor 820, Fig. 8) for connecting the connector unit to a first battery connector (the distal part of the connector, relative to Electric Motor 820, Fig. 8) of a battery (Battery 606, Fig. 6) of the electric bicycle; and the second battery connector is electrically conductively connected to a second motor connector via a cable (the connector unit of Motor Cable 1020 connecting to Electric Motor 820 through another illustrated connector, Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of ANDO, VAN DRUTEN, and Chang in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ANDO’s generator device, as modified, to include first and second battery connectors as suggested by Chang. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a releasable power connection between a battery and a motor that would beneficially make a more user-friendly apparatus.
Claims 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDO and VAN DRUTEN in view of WEN (CN-207078277-U).
Regarding Claims 36 and 39, (having different dependencies but similar limitations), ANDO, as modified above, further teaches that at least a shell portion (Guide Rails GR-1) of the first motor connector (52) is disposed at least partially within the second motor connector (37) when the first motor connector (52) is plugged into the second motor connector (37) (Guide Rails GR-1 of Terminal 52 being at least partially within Connector Cap 37 when they are plugged together as illustrated in Fig. 4).
ANDO, as modified above, does not teach that the first motor connector projects from the first connecting part.
WEN teaches, in another power connection arrangement for an electric vehicle (Abstract), a first motor connector (First Contact Block 133, Fig. 13) that projects from a first connecting part (First Fixed Block 12, Fig. 13) and is disposed at least partially within a second motor connector (Second Fixed Block 22, Fig. 8) when the first connecting part (12) and a second connecting part (Second Conductive Part 231, Fig. 8) are connected (Para. [0045] teaches that the First and Second Fixed Blocks 12 & 22 are fitted together to make an electrical connection, the Second Fixed Block 22 having recesses arranged such that First Contact Block 133 will be disposed partially within it as illustrated in Figs. 8 & 13).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of ANDO, VAN DRUTEN, and WEN in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ANDO’s generator device/ electric bicycle, as modified, such that a first motor connector projects from a first connecting part and into a second motor connector as suggested by WEN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of arranging electrical contacts such that they project into a corresponding connector that would beneficially ensure a reliable electrical connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 is not made because the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art of record. Every element of the claims are not taught by any of the references individually and the prior art of record fails to permissibly teach the overall combination as claimed. Even if one could construe the prior art of record such that the combination disclosed each and every limitation of the claims, the ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references in reference to themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The closest prior art of record, as highlighted in above, ANDO and VAN DRUTEN, generally disclose an electric motor device/ electric bicycle with similar components of independent claims 16, 27, and 43.
However, neither ANDO and VAN DRUTEN, nor any of the other cited prior art, specifically disclose guide rails that protrude from first and second connecting parts transversely to an axis of rotation of a motor, as claimed.
Even if each and every element of the present invention were taught individually by the aforementioned references, combining the references as an ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references present in the aforementioned references themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For at least these reasons, claims 21-22, as far as they include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are indicated as reciting allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights