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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the attachment formation is configured to engage teeth of the pedal-driven sprocket of the drivetrain” of claim 5 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 19 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.
The limitations “a plurality of first slots” and “a plurality of second slots” are unclear whether these are different slots from the elongate aperture in parent claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by KR 19990068826 (henceforth KR-826).
Regarding claim 1, KR-826 teaches an auxiliary drive arrangement (Abstract, the electric device is installed on a general bicycle for conversion to an electrically-powered bicycle) for a pedal-powered vehicle having a drivetrain comprising a drive loop for connecting pedals 9 to a driven wheel 3 via a pedal-driven sprocket, the auxiliary drive arrangement comprising: an electric motor 21 arranged to be mounted to the vehicle (Paragraph 14); and a sprocket 17 (note that sprocket 17 refers to the sprocket labeled 17a in the annotated Fig. 3 below; the pedal-driven sprocket refers to the other sprocket labeled 17 in the figure below) member configured to be attachable via an attachment formation to the pedal-driven sprocket within the drive train of the vehicle (See annotated Fig. 3 below; Paragraph 14), wherein the sprocket member 17 comprising a sprocket configured to be operatively connected to the electric motor 21 (Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 4, KR-826 teaches wherein the sprocket member 17 is configured to be mounted about a rotation axis of the pedal-driven sprocket via an attachment formation (See annotated Fig. 3 below).
Regarding claim 17, KR-826 teaches wherein the attachment formation comprises a fastener received within an aperture on the sprocket member, the fastener selectively engageable with the aperture to prevent relative movement there-between (See annotated Fig. 3 below).
Regarding claim 20, KR-826 as teaches sprocket member 17 is annular in form and comprises a central aperture configured to permit a pedal of the vehicle to pass therethrough (See annotated Fig. 3 below).
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-826 in view of Stefanos (US 2457430).
Regarding claim 2, KR-826 teaches wherein the drive loop provides a drive path from the electric motor 21 to a further sprocket 14on the driven wheel 3 of the vehicle via the sprocket member 17 (Paragraphs 14 and 30, Fig. 1). KR-826 does not teach wherein the drive loop comprises a single chain.
However, Stefanos teaches an auxiliary drive means for a conventional bicycle (Col. 1, lines 1-2 of Stefanos) wherein the drive loop comprises a single chain 39 and provides a drive path from the electric motor 30 to a further sprocket 13 on the driven wheel 11 of the vehicle via the sprocket member 10 (Fig. 1 of Stefanos).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the auxiliary drive kit of KR-826 to comprise a single chain which connects the three components in order to advantageously provide a quick means of mounting an electrical propulsion means to a conventional bicycle (Col. 1, lines 1-2 of Stefanos).
Regarding claim 12, KR-826 does not teach the motor being mounted to the seat tube.
However, Stefanos teaches a bicycle drive kit wherein the electric motor 30 is mounted to a seat tube 8 of the vehicle or a housing tube for a saddle post (Col. 2, lines 18-19, Fig. 1 of Stefanos).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the auxiliary drive kit of KR-826 to mount the motor on the seat tube as is taught by Stefanos in order to advantageously provide a quick means of mounting an electrical propulsion means to a conventional bicycle (Col. 1, lines 1-2 of Stefanos).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-826 in view of Nonoshita (US 20070129193).
Regarding claim 5, KR-826 does not teach the attachment formation engaging teeth of the pedal-driven sprocket.
However, Nonoshita teaches a bicycle sprocket wherein an attachment formation between the outer sprocket ring 691 and the inner member 693 is configured to engage teeth 693f of the inner member 693 ([0116], Fig. 23 of Nonoshita.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify attachable sprocket of KR-826 to be a sprocket ring attached to the outer teeth of an inner toothed member as Nonoshita teaches in order to advantageously provide a removable sprocket which does not reduce fastening strength (Abstract of Nonoshita).
While Nonoshita does not expressly teach “wherein the attachment formation is configured to engage teeth of the pedal-driven sprocket of the drivetrain”, the question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the sprocket ring of Nonoshita being mounted on the outer circumference of the pedal-driven sprocket of KR-826 by an attachment formation comprising the inner teach of the sprocket ring engaging the outer teeth of the pedal-driven sprocket.
Claims 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-826 in view of Song (KR 20150100445).
Regarding claim 6, KR-826 teaches the electric motor comprises a motor gear 23 (Paragraph 15, Fig. 1). KR-826 is silent on the motor gear comprising a ratchet device.
However, Song teaches the motor gear being connected to an output shaft of the motor 30 via a ratchet device 23 (Paragraph 39, Fig. 7 of Song).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor of KR-826 to have the ratcheted output gear of Song in order to advantageously prevent counterforce from acting against the drive force of the motor.
Regarding claim 9, KR-826 does not teach the claimed adjustment means.
However, Song teaches an auxiliary kit for converting a bicycle into an electric bicycle (Abstract of Song); the auxiliary drive arrangement comprising an adjustment means 345, 634a, and 634b configured to provide adjustment of the position of the electric motor 30 and/or motor gear relative to the sprocket member 50 (Paragraphs 25-26 and 32-33 of Song).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mounting means of KR-826 to be mounted by the adjustable plates and bolt members of Song in order to advantageously adjust the coupling length (Paragraph 32 of Song).
Additionally, for claim 10 rejection below, note that the adjustment means of Song is adjustable relative to a mounting means 600 (Fig. 8)
Regarding claim 10, KR-826 teaches the auxiliary drive arrangement comprising a mounting means 231 for mounting the electric motor 21 to the vehicle (Paragraph 38). KR-826 as modified teaches the adjustment means provides adjustment of the position of the electric motor and/or motor gear relative to the mounting means (See claim 9 rejection above).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-826 in view of KR-826.
Regarding claim 11, KR-826 teaches wherein an angle subtended between the motor gear 23, the sprocket member 17 and a drive gear 14 of the driven wheel 3 is roughly around 110 degrees (Fig. 1 of KR-826).
KR-826 discloses the claimed invention except for “wherein an angle subtended between the motor gear, the sprocket member and a drive gear of the driven wheel is less than 110 degrees”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the position of the motor to decrease the angle between it, the pedal, and the rear wheel to less than 110 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-826 in view of Hadley (US 20100117327).
Regarding claim 7, KR-826 does not teach the axis of rotation of the motor gear being offset from the rotation axis of the motor.
However, Hadley teaches a mountable drive kit for a bicycle wherein an axis of rotation of the motor gear 132 is offset from an axis of rotation of the electric motor 130 ([0021], Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor of KR-826 to have the motor gear offset as is taught by Hadley in order to advantageously provide a gear reducer to the motor of the auxiliary drive system ([0021] of Hadley).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-826 in view of Sano (JP H1179059).
Regarding claim 13, KR-826 does not teach the claimed guide mechanism.
However, Sano teaches the auxiliary drive arrangement comprising a guide mechanism 29 configured to be mounted on the electric motor 25 and to deflect the path of the drive loop in the vicinity of the motor 25 (Fig. 2 of Sano).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the auxiliary drive arrangement of KR-826 to have the guide mechanism of Sano in order to advantageously provide an active chain tensioner to the drive loop (Paragraph 31 of Sano).
Additionally, regarding claim 15 rejection below, note that the guide mechanism defines a serpentine path for the drive loop (Fig. 2 of Sano).
Regarding claim 15, KR-826 as modified teaches wherein the guide mechanism defines a serpentine path for the drive loop in conjunction with the motor gear (See claim 13 rejection above; Fig. 2 of Sano).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-826 in view of Gravel Cyclist (Jom, Gravel Cyclist, Review: White Industries MR30 Crankset - 1x or 2x and Low Gear Options, https://www.gravelcyclist.com/bicycle-tech/review-white-industries-mr30-crankset-1x-or-2x-and-low-gear-options/, September 15, 2017).
Regarding claim 16, KR-826 teaches wherein the attachment formation comprises a plurality of members (See annotated Fig. 3 below) but does not teach them being displaceable in a radial or circumferential direction.
However, Gravel Cyclist teaches connectable sprockets with attachment formations that comprise a plurality of members selectively displaceable in a radial direction and/or circumferential direction (See NPL_Gravel_cyclist.pdf, retrieved from https://www.gravelcyclist.com/bicycle-tech/review-white-industries-mr30-crankset-1x-or-2x-and-low-gear-options/; the variable bolt circle allows the bolts [members] to be displaceable in a radial direction along the mounting slots for connecting one sprocket to the other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment formation of KR-826 to allow the plurality of members to be displaceable in a direction as is taught by Gravel Cyclist in order to advantageously set up various tooth configurations on the cycle (See NPL_Gravel_cyclist.pdf).
Regarding claim 18, KR-826 does not teach the aperture being elongate.
However, Gravel Cyclist teaches wherein the aperture is elongate, in the form of a slot and the fastener is movable along the aperture such that the attachment formation is range-taking. direction (See NPL_Gravel_cyclist.pdf, retrieved from https://www.gravelcyclist.com/bicycle-tech/review-white-industries-mr30-crankset-1x-or-2x-and-low-gear-options/; the variable bolt circle allows the bolts [members] to be displaceable in a radial direction along the mounting slots for connecting one sprocket to the other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment formation of KR-826 to be elongated as is taught by Gravel Cyclist in order to advantageously provide a sprocket which can set up various tooth configurations on the cycle (See NPL_Gravel_cyclist.pdf).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-826 in view of Nonoshita and Kurita (US 20040231905).
Regarding claim 21, KR-826 teaches the attachment formation mounting the sprocket 17 to the pedal-driven sprocket in a side-by-side manner (Fig. 3) rather than mounting the sprocket on an outer peripheral surface of the pedal-driven sprocket.
However, Nonoshita teaches a bicycle sprocket wherein an attachment formation between the outer sprocket ring 691 and the inner member 693 is configured to engage teeth 693f of the inner member 693 ([0116], Fig. 23 of Nonoshita.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify attachable sprocket of KR-826 to be a sprocket ring attached to the outer teeth of an inner toothed member as Nonoshita teaches in order to advantageously provide a removable sprocket which does not reduce fastening strength (Abstract of Nonoshita).
KR-826 as modified does not teach wherein the sprocket member is rotatably mounted to the attachment formation of the sprocket member via a ratchet device configured to allow relative movement there between in a first direction and prevent relative movement there between in an opposing direction.
However, Kurita teaches an electric assisted bicycle wherein a sprocket member 104a is rotatably mounted to an inner member by a ratchet mechanism ([0055] of Kurita).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprocket of KR-826 to have a ratchet between the outer teeth and the attachment formation in order to advantageously provide a sprocket which will not transmit reverse input torque form the shaft to the chain ([0055] of Kurita).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-826 in view of Ohashi (US 20160297499).
Regarding claim 22, KR-826 does not teach user controls for adjusting the level of power supplied by the motor.
However, Ohashi teaches an bicycle drive arrangement further comprising user controls 41 arranged to control the level of power supplied to the motor 30 from the power source 12 ([0057] of Ohashi) and/or the speed of the motor 30 ([0031], [0040]-[0041], [0043], Figs. 1 and 3 of Ohashi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the auxiliary drive arrangement of KR-826 to include a control unit for selecting the level of power supplied by the motor as is taught by Ohashi in order to advantageously provide a plurality of selectable drive states to the user (Abstract of Ohashi).
Regarding claim 23, KR-826 teaches the auxiliary drive arrangement provided in the form of a kit of parts for retrofit to an existing pedal-powered vehicle (Abstract), the kit of parts comprising: the electric motor 30; a power source 20; and the sprocket member 17 (Paragraph 14).
KR-826 does not teach the kit comprising an electronic controller for the motor and/or a manual controller.
However, Ohashi teaches a bicycle drive arrangement which comprises an electric motor 30, a power source 12 ([0057] of Ohashi), a sprocket member 17 ([0034 of Ohashi), and an electronic controller 40 for the motor 30 ([0040]-[0041], Fig. 1 of Ohashi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the auxiliary drive arrangement of KR-826 to include the electronic controller of Ohashi in order to advantageously provide a plurality of selectable drive states to the user (Abstract of Ohashi).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-826 in view of Kurita.
Regarding claim 26, KR-826 teaches a sprocket member 17 for a pedal-powered vehicle having a pedal assembly comprising pedals mounted for rotation about a pedal axis (Fig. 1), the sprocket member 17 comprising a sprocket and an attachment formation for mounting of sprocket to the pedal assembly about the pedal axis (See annotated Fig. 3 below).
KR-826 does not teach a wherein the sprocket member comprises a ratchet mechanism between the common attachment formation and the sprocket.
However, Kurita teaches an electric assisted bicycle wherein a sprocket member 104a is rotatably mounted to an inner member by a ratchet mechanism ([0055] of Kurita).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprocket of KR-826 to have a ratchet between the outer teeth and the attachment formation in order to advantageously provide a sprocket which will not transmit reverse input torque form the shaft to the chain ([0055] of Kurita).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140221151 teaches a ratcheted sprocket and bicycle drive unit.
US 20110168471 teaches a motor unit configured to pivot relative to a stationary mounting bracket by an arm.
US 5758735 teaches a snaking bicycle drive unit with a single chain connecting the drive unit, sprocket, driven wheel, and guiding mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm 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, Valentin Neacsu 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617