DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submissions
Applicant’s preliminary amendments filed on 06 October 2023 and 12 December 2023 have been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 1-20 of this application are subject to examination. Claims 21-32 have been canceled.
Objections to Amendments
The preliminary amendment filed on 06 October 2023 is objected to because: in the 2nd line of the new paragraph, “October 7, 2023” should read “October 7, 2022”. Appropriate correction is required.
The preliminary amendment filed on 12 December 2023 is objected to because:
In claim 1, at l. 2, “comprising:-” should read “comprising:”
In claim 5, at l. 4, “rotation , and” should read “rotation, and”.
Claim Construction in Examination
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Examiner’s Claim Construction
Claim 16 recites the term “wheel-engagement means”, but claim 16 defines the claimed “means” as comprising a carriage and a plurality of wheels. Since sufficient structure is claimed, the claim term is not considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f).
No other explicit claim construction is deemed to be necessary. Claim limitations are interpreted according to the BRI standard, with claim terms given their plain and ordinary meaning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
GROUND 1: Claims 10, 12-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which enable the claimed invention to achieve the desired results.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the rotation lock comprises a bias, wherein the bias is configured such that moving the first handlebar and the second handlebar away from the front wheel along the handlebar axis of rotation causes the rotation lock to reconfigure from the locked configuration to the unlocked configuration so as to allow rotational movement of the first body section with respect to the second body section about the first axis.” While the specification states that such a feature is desired, the specification fails to disclose the structure used by applicant to achieve the desired result. Further, the drawings fail to show the structure required. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites “an electric motor configured to provide power to the front wheel or the rear wheel and a power source configured to power the electric motor.” While the specification states that such a feature is desired, the specification fails to disclose the structure used by applicant to achieve the desired result. Further, the drawings fail to provide a complete illustration of the structure required. While an electric motor is shown in Figs. 1 and 2, neither the specification nor the drawings explain how this motor is configured to provide power to the rear wheel (i.e., how it transmits power to the rear wheel). Concerning the second embodiment, the specification fails to explain the structure of the motor or how its mounted, and Fig. 7 fails to show a motor. Concerning the third embodiment, Figs. 8B and 9 provide a generic depiction of a motor, but the specification and drawings fail to explain how this motor is mounted or how it is configured to provide power to the front wheel (i.e., how it transmits power to the front wheel). Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites “wherein one of the body sections comprises a first drive train, a second drive train, a first foot pedal and a second foot pedal, configured such that the rotation of the first foot pedal and the second foot pedal rotates one of the front wheel or the rear wheel, wherein rotation of the first foot pedal and the second foot pedal provides charge to the power source, wherein the first drive train is driven by rotation of the first foot pedal and the second foot pedal and the first drive train is configured to drive the rear wheel, and wherein the second drive train is driven by the electric motor and the second drive train is configured to drive the front wheel.” While the specification states that such features are desired, the specification fails to disclose the structure used by applicant to achieve the desired result. Further, the drawings fail to provide a complete illustration of the structure required. While a pedal is shown in Figs. 1 and 2, neither the specification nor the drawings explain how this pedal is configured such that rotation of the pedal rotates the rear wheel (i.e., how it transmits power to the rear wheel). Further, no embodiment is disclosed in which the pedals rotate the front wheel, and no explanation is given as to the structure relied upon to transmit power from the pedals to the front wheel (or the rear wheel). Still further, neither the specification nor the drawings explain how this pedal is configured such that rotation of the pedals provides charge to the power source. Concerning the transmission of power from an electric motor to the front wheel, see the explanation above with respect to claim 12. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “further comprising an electric motor configured to provide power to the front wheel or the rear wheel, wherein; when the front wheel comprises the guide surface, the electric motor is configured to provide drive to the first side of the guide surface of the front wheel and the plurality of wheels are configured to locate the opposing second side of the guide surface of the front wheel, or when the rear wheel comprises the guide surface, the electric motor is configured to provide drive to the first side of the guide surface of the rear wheel and the plurality of wheels are configured to locate the opposing second side of the guide surface of the rear wheel.” While the specification states that such features are desired, the specification fails to disclose the structure used by applicant to achieve the desired result. Further, the drawings fail to provide a complete illustration of the structure required. See the explanation above with respect to claims 12 and 14. Neither the specification nor the drawings explain how the motor is configured to drive the first side of the guide surface of either the front or rear wheel (i.e., the structure relied upon to transmit power from the motor to the guide surface). Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 recites “further comprising a reclamation alternator, wherein: when the rear wheel comprises the guide surface, the reclamation alternator is configured to engage the first side of the guide surface of the rear wheel such that kinetic energy generated by the rear wheel is transferred to the reclamation alternator and the plurality of wheels are configured to engage the opposing second side of the guide surface of the rear wheel, or when the front wheel comprises the guide surface, the reclamation alternator is configured to engage the first side of the guide surface of the front wheel such that kinetic energy generated by the front wheel is transferred to the reclamation alternator and the plurality of wheels are configured to engage the opposing second side of the guide surface of the front wheel.” While the specification states that such features are desired, the specification fails to disclose the structure used by applicant to achieve the desired result. Further, the drawings fail to provide a complete illustration of the structure required. While a dynamo is shown generically/partially in Figs. 1 and 7, neither the specification nor the drawings disclose a “reclamation alternator” associated with the front wheel. Further, while a reclamation alternator is shown partially in Figs. 8B and 9, neither the specification nor the drawings explain how the dynamo/alternator is mounted, or how it is configured to engage the first side of the guide surface of the rear wheel such that kinetic energy generated by the wheel is transferred to the reclamation alternator. Absent such a complete description of these essential features, the specification fails to explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is included in the rejection because of its dependency.
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.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-20 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.
In claim 1, the term “the forward direction of travel” (l. 9) lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 9, the term “the first axis of rotation” (ll. 4-5 and l. 7) lacks proper antecedent basis. While claim 1 defines a first axis, it does not define a first axis of rotation.
As explained more fully in GROUND 1, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claims 10, 12-14, 19 and 20 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Absent such supporting disclosure, the scope of claims 10, 12-14, 19 and 20 cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is unclear what subject matter is encompassed by the claims, and what is excluded therefrom.
In claim 10, the recitation “the rotation lock comprises a bias” (l. 6) is indefinite because “a bias” is not a structural element. A structural element (such as a spring) can provide a bias (or biasing force), but the term “bias” fails to convey the structure required by the claim.
Claim 14 is indefinite because it first states broadly that “rotation of the first foot pedal and the second foot pedal rotates one of the front wheel or the rear wheel” (ll. 3-4), but it goes on to specify more narrowly that “the first drive train is driven by rotation of the first foot pedal and the second foot pedal and the first drive train is configured to drive the rear wheel” (ll. 6-8). Such a broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) is indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. There is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by the narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 15 is indefinite because it recites a “guide surface” (ll. 3 and 5) and defines this “surface” as “comprising a first side and an opposing second side” (ll. 3-4 and 5-6). This subject matter is indefinite because a “surface” is not a three-dimensional structural element that has opposing sides. Rather, a surface is merely a two-dimensional face of a structural object.
Claim 15 is indefinite because it introduces more than one guide surface (i.e., a guide surface of the front wheel, and a guide surface of the rear wheel), but the claim goes on to merely refer to “the guide surface” (l. 5). This renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear which of the guide surfaces is being referred to.
In claim 16, the term “the guide surface” (ll. 2 and 7) is indefinite for the same reasons given with respect to claim 15.
Claim 16 is indefinite because it introduces more than one wheel-engagement means (i.e., a guide surface of the front wheel, and a guide surface of the rear wheel), but the claim goes on to merely refer to “the wheel-engagement means” (ll. 8-9). This renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear which of the wheel-engagement means is being referred to.
Claim 16 is indefinite because it introduces more than set of a plurality of wheels (i.e., a plurality of wheels associated with the front wheel, and a plurality of wheels associated with the rear wheel), but the claim goes on to merely refer to “the plurality of wheels” (ll. 9-10). This renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear which set of the plurality of wheels is being referred to.
In claim 17, the terms “the guide surface” (ll. 2 and 6), “the plurality of wheels” (ll. 2-3 and 6-7) and “the wheel-engagement means” (ll. 3 and 7) are indefinite for the same reasons given with respect to claims 15 and 16.
In claim 18, the terms “the guide surface” (ll. 2 and 12), and “the plurality of wheels” (ll. 6-7 and 16-17) are indefinite for the same reasons given with respect to claims 15 and 16.
Claim 18 is indefinite because it defines a “guide surface” as comprising a “circumferential rail”, which in turn comprises “an inner circumferential surface” and “an outer circumferential surface”. This subject matter is indefinite because a “guide surface” is not a structural element and, thus, cannot comprise a “circumferential rail”. Further, it is not possible for one “surface” (the guide surface) to comprises plural surfaces (the inner and outer circumferential surfaces).
Claim 18 is indefinite because claim 16 introduces more than carriage (i.e., a carriage of the front wheel, and a carriage of the rear wheel), but claim 18 goes on to merely refer to “the carriage” (ll. 10-11). This renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear which of the carriages is being referred to.
Claim 18 is indefinite because it first states broadly that “wherein the plurality of wheels are configured to locate the inner circumferential surface of the circumferential rail of the rear wheel or the outer circumferential surface of the circumferential rail of the rear wheel” (ll. 16-19), but it goes on to more narrowly specify “so as to locate the outer circumferential surface of the circumferential rail of the rear wheel relative to the carriage.” (ll. 19-21). Such a broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) is indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. There is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by the narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 19, the terms “the guide surface” (ll. 4 and 8), and “the plurality of wheels” (ll. 6 and 10) are indefinite for the same reasons given with respect to claims 15 and 16.
In claim 20, the terms “the guide surface” (ll. 4 and 9), and “the plurality of wheels” (ll. 7 and 12) are indefinite for the same reasons given with respect to claims 15 and 16.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Ananthakrishna”
US Publication No. 2011/0139530 A1
“Doi”
JP Publication No. 2001-146188 A (with translation)
“Hays et al.”
US Publication No. 2018/0117960 A1
“Huang”
US Publication No. 2010/0212978 A1
“Ide”
JP Publication No. H11-321757 A (with translation)
“Kim”
KR Publication No. 2015-0116759 A (with translation)
“Li et al.”
CN Publication No. 204368392 U (with translation)
“Liu”
CN Publication No. 217125016 U (with translation)
“Liu et al.”
CN Publication No. 210503019 U (with translation)
“Schiavone”
WO Publication No. 2020/049412 A1
“Tanaka et al.”
US Patent No. 3,015,498
“Uimonen”
US Patent No. 10,899,410 B2
“Zhang”
US Publication No. 2019/0031271 A1
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.
GROUND 3: Claims 1, 6-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al.
Tanaka et al. discloses a foldable cycle having a folded configuration and an unfolded configuration, the foldable cycle comprising:
A first body section 1 comprising a front wheel (see Fig. 1) of the cycle, a second body section 2, and a third body section 3 comprising a rear wheel (see Fig. 1) of the cycle. See Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 16-19.
The first body section 1 is rotationally coupled to the second body section 2 by a first hinge 4 about a first axis inclined with respect to the forward direction of travel of the cycle in the unfolded configuration such that the first body section 1 is configured to rotate about the first axis in a first direction of rotation. See Figs. 1-6; col. 2, ll. 19-37 and 58-67.
The third body section 3 is rotationally coupled to the second body section 2 by a second hinge 5 about a second axis inclined with respect to the forward direction of travel of the cycle in the unfolded configuration such that the third body section 3 is configured to rotate about the second axis in a second direction of rotation that is opposite to the first direction of rotation. See Figs. 1-2 and 7; col. 2, ll. 19-24; col. 3, ll. 5-23.
The first axis and the second axis intersect to form a point of intersection when the foldable cycle is in the unfolded configuration. See Fig. 1. The point of intersection is below the cycle.
The first body section 1 and the second body section 2 comprise a rotation lock 41-46, the rotation lock comprising a locked configuration configured to prevent rotational movement of the first body section 1 with respect to the second body section 2 about the first axis of rotation and the rotation lock comprising an unlocked configuration configured to allow rotational movement of the first body section 1 with respect to the second body section 2 about the first axis of rotation. See Figs. 3-6; col. 2, l. 37 to col. 3, l. 4.
In the folded configuration, the first body section, the second body section and the third body section together define a stacked configuration. See Fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 58-67; col. 3, ll. 15-23.
GROUND 4: Claims 1, 6-9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schiavone.
Schiavone discloses a foldable cycle having a folded configuration and an unfolded configuration, the foldable cycle comprising:
A first body section 100 comprising a front wheel 10 of the cycle, a second body section 110, and a third body section 55, 105 comprising a rear wheel 15 of the cycle. See Figs. 1 and 3; p. 1, ll. 19-21; p. 8, l. 10 to p. 9, l. 23.
The first body section 100 is rotationally coupled to the second body section 110 by a first hinge 115 about a first axis E inclined with respect to the forward direction of travel of the cycle in the unfolded configuration such that the first body section 100 is configured to rotate about the first axis E in a first direction of rotation. See Figs. 1 and 3-8; p. 9, l. 24 to p. 10, l. 27.
The third body section 55, 105 is rotationally coupled to the second body section 110 by a second hinge 120 about a second axis F inclined with respect to the forward direction of travel of the cycle in the unfolded configuration such that the third body section 55, 105 is configured to rotate about the second axis F in a second direction of rotation that is opposite to the first direction of rotation. See Figs. 1 and 3-8; p. 11, l. 8 to p. 12, l. 22.
The first axis E and the second axis F intersect to form a point of intersection when the foldable cycle is in the unfolded configuration. See Fig. 1. The angle (e.g., +55° with respect to central axis T) of the first hinge 115 and the angle (e.g., –65° with respect to central axis T) of the second hinge 120 create a point of intersection that is below the cycle.
The first body section 100 and the second body section 110 comprise a rotation lock, the rotation lock comprising a locked configuration configured to prevent rotational movement of the first body section 100 with respect to the second body section 110 about the first axis of rotation E and the rotation lock comprising an unlocked configuration configured to allow rotational movement of the first body section 100 with respect to the second body section 110 about the first axis of rotation E. See p. 10, l. 28 to p. 11, l. 9.
In the folded configuration, the first body section 100, the second body section 110 and the third body section 55, 105 together define a stacked configuration. See Figs. 6-8; p. 4, ll. 6-7 and 14-18; p. 10, ll. 9-27; p. 12, ll. 4-22; p. 16, ll. 16-30.
With respect to claim 12, Schiavone discloses that the cycle may comprise an electric motor that is mechanically connected to the rear wheel, with the motor being powered by a battery housed in/on the second body section 110. See p. 3, ll. 15-17; p. 13, ll. 14-16.
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.
GROUND 5: Claims 2 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schiavone in view of Liu and Hays et al.
See the discussion of Schiavone in GROUND 4.
Schiavone fails to teach that each of the front and rear wheels is centerless and comprises a circumferential rail having opposing inner and outer circumferential surfaces, with at least one of the front and rear wheels having a carriage and a plurality of wheels, with the plurality of wheels configured to engage the inner or outer circumferential surface of the circumferential rail.
Liu teaches a foldable cycle. See Figs. 1-2 and 4; ¶¶ 0032, 0034.1 The cycle can be an electric cycle. See ¶ 0032. Front and rear wheels of the cycle have no central axle, i.e., are centerless. See ¶ 0032. The front wheel includes a circumferential rail 1-1, a carriage (defined by bars 1-4, 1-6), a plurality of wheels 1-3, and a tire 1-2 on an outer circumferential surface of the rail 1-1, with the plurality of wheels 1-3 configured to engage an inner circumferential surface of the rail 1-1. See Figs. 1-3; ¶¶ 0032-0033. The rear wheel includes a circumferential rail 4-1, a carriage (defined by bars 4-4, 4-5), a plurality of wheels 4-3, 6-1, and a tire 4-2 on an outer circumferential surface of the rail 4-1, with the plurality of wheels 4-3, 6-1 configured to engage laterally opposing sides of an inner circumference of the rail 4-1, and with a drive train including a pedal assembly (see Figs. 1-2 and 7) configured to provide drive to the inner circumference of the rail 4-1. See Figs. 1-3 and 5-7; ¶¶ 0032, 0035-0036, 0038. When the cycle is electric, the electric drive would be configured to provide drive to the inner circumference of the rail 4-1 in a similar fashion.
Hays et al. teaches a centerless wheel 100 comprising a circumferential rail (defined by rim 110 coupled to ring gear 120), a carriage (defined by plates 190a, 190b), a plurality of wheels 180, 182, 184, 186, and a tire 160 on an outer circumferential surface of the rail 110, 120, with the plurality of wheels 180, 182, 184, 186 configured to engage an inner circumference of the rail 110, 120, and with a drive train including an electric motor 170 configured to provide drive to rim 110 via the ring gear 120. See Figs. 1A-2; ¶¶ 0065-0068, 0071, 0078, 0080, 0082, 0085-0087.
From the teachings of Liu and Hays et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schiavone by using centerless wheels having the construction taught by Liu and Hays et al. Liu teaches that this is desireable because the centerless wheels allow for quicker disassembly and eliminate the problems associated with the use of a drive chain. See ¶¶ 0002, 0003. Hays et al. lists numerous advantages in ¶ 0063.
GROUND 6: Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schiavone in view of Ananthakrishna.
See the discussion of Schiavone in GROUND 4.
Schiavone fails to teach solar panels for charging the power source.
Ananthakrishna teaches a foldable cycle 100 including an electric motor (see Fig. 1) for driving a rear wheel 116, with the electric motor powered by a power source in the form of a battery 148, and solar panels 504 for charging the power source. See Figs. 1 and 5; ¶¶ 0018, 0024, 0026-0027.
From the teachings of Ananthakrishna, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schiavone by providing solar panels for charging the power source because this increases convenience (since the power source can be charged without plugging into an electrical grid), increases vehicle range (since the power source can be charged during driving or while parked in a location without a charging station), and increases efficiency while reducing cost (since less power is drawn an electrical grid).
GROUND 7: Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schiavone in view of Huang.
See the discussion of Schiavone in GROUND 4.
Schiavone discloses:
A first drive train including a pair of pedals (see Figs. 1-4) driving a transmission unit connected to the rear wheel 15. See Figs. 1-4; p. 13, ll. 9-13.
A second drive train including an electric motor that is mechanically connected to the rear wheel, with the motor being powered by a battery housed in/on the second body section 110. See p. 3, ll. 15-17; p. 13, ll. 14-16.
Schiavone fails to teach (i) that rotation of the pedals provides charge to the power source, and (ii) the electric motor drives the front wheel.
Huang teaches a foldable cycle 1 including: a first drive train including cranks 16 (with pedals) driving a transmission (see Figs. 3 and 6) connected to a rear wheel 18; a second drive train including an electric motor 41 that drives a front wheel 15; a power source in the form of a battery 64 that powers the electric motor 41; and generating devices 61 on the front and rear wheels 15, 18 that charge the battery 64 when the cycle is propelled by the first drive train (with pedals). See Figs. 1-4 and 6-7; ¶¶ 0023-0025, 0027-0029, 0032-0033, 0035.
From the teachings of Huang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schiavone by:
Providing a generating device so that rotation of the pedals provides charge to the power source. This increases convenience (since the power source can be charged without plugging into an electrical grid), increases vehicle range (since the power source can be charged during driving), and increases efficiency while reducing cost (since less power is drawn an electrical grid).
Using the electric motor to drive the front wheel (while the rear wheel is driven by the pedals) because this simplifies the drive arrangement by separating the electric drive from the manual drive. Further, this improves driving stability through driving of the front wheel (pulling rather than pushing the vehicle forward) in a manner well understood in the motorized vehicle art.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Each of Doi, Ide, Kim, Uimonen and Zhang teach foldable cycles that meet the limitations of claims 1, 6-9 and 11. Further, Liu et al. teaches a foldable cycle that meets the limitations of claims 1, 6-9, 11 and 12. However, rejections have not been made based upon these references to avoid duplication of effort and excessive rejections.
Li et al. teaches a cycle with centerless wheels.
Like Huang, Liu et al. teaches a front wheel driven by an electric motor.
Like Schiavone, Zhang teaches that the rear wheel can be driven by a drive motor powered by a power source. See ¶ 0030.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.77. The specification should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case as a section heading.
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(b) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art.
(c) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(d) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(e) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(f) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(g) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
The specification is objected to because:
There are numerous instances where “virtual line 81” is defined by the phrase “that defines the forward direction of travel of the cycle 1”. The first occurrence appears at p. 13, l. 21. This description is inaccurate because a “virtual line” is not capable of defining a direction. A line is merely a long, narrow mark. No direction is indicated thereby.
There are numerous instances where “virtual line 181” is defined by the phrase “that defines the forward direction of travel of the cycle 101”. The first occurrence appears at p. 28, ll. 2-3. This description is inaccurate. See explanation above.
There are numerous instances where “virtual line 281” is defined by the phrase “that defines the forward direction of travel of the cycle 201”. The first occurrence appears at p. 37, l. 40 to p. 38, l. 1. This description is inaccurate. See explanation above.
The specification is objected to because:
At p. 7, l. 39, “first carriage” should read “second carriage”.
At p. 10, ll. 1 and 2, “such that define” is not proper grammar.
At p. 10, l. 25, “engaging outer” should read “engaging the outer”.
At p. 10, ll. 26-27, “circumferential relative” should read “circumferential rail relative”.
At p. 10, l. 38, “engaging inner” should read “engaging the inner”.
At p. 10, l. 39 to p. 11, l. 1, “circumferential relative” should read “circumferential rail relative”.
At p. 13, l. 12, the description of the pivot 56 as being located at “a rear portion of the third body section 6” is not accurate based on the illustration in Fig. 1.
At p. 13, ll. 31 and 33, “turn away from” is inaccurate because the axes 8, 9 do not and cannot “turn away from” the virtual line 81.
At p. 14, l. 18, “generally colinear” is inaccurate. The virtual line 81 and the line that defines the wheel base 41 appear to be parallel, but they are not generally “colinear” (which means lying in the same straight line).
At p. 17, ll. 18-20, “in this embodiment the third body section 6, may comprise… a power source 11” is inaccurate. As shown in Fig. 1, a power source 11 is in the first body section 3, and a power source is in the second body section 5.
At p. 18, l. 7, “may comprise and” should read “may comprise”.
At p. 23, l. 37, “axes 8” should read “axis 8”.
At p. 23, l. 37, “axes 9” should read “axis 9”.
At p. 25, l. 23, “section 6 foldable” should read “section 6 of the foldable”.
At p. 27, l. 4, “handlebar 35” should read “handle 35”.
At p. 27, l. 5, “shown the” should read “shown in the”.
At p. 27, ll. 25-26, “…and a second handlebar 117 (shown in Fig. 3)” is inaccurate since second handlebar 117 (or reference number 117) is not shown in Fig. 3.
At p. 27, l. 27, “axis 60” should read “axis 160”.
At p. 27, ll. 32-33, the description of the pivot 56 as being located at “a rear portion of the third body section 106” is not accurate based on the illustration in Fig. 7.
At p. 28, ll. 14 and 15-16, “turn away from” is inaccurate because the axes 108, 109 do not and cannot “turn away from” the virtual line 181.
At p. 28, l. 40, “generally colinear” is inaccurate. The virtual line 181 and the line that defines the wheel base 141 appear to be parallel, but they are not generally “colinear” (which means lying in the same straight line).
At p. 31, l. 39 to p. 32, l. 1, “in this embodiment the third body section 106, may comprise… a power source 111” is inaccurate. As shown in Fig. 7, a power source 111 is in the first body section 103.
At p. 33, l. 38, “first body section 203” should read “first body section 103”.
At p. 34, ll. 18 and 21, “165 165” should read “165”.
At p. 37, l. 23, “(shown in Fig. 3)” should read “(shown in Figs. 8A and 8C)”.
At p. 37, ll. 29-30, the description of the pivot 256 as being located at “a rear portion of the third body section 206” is not accurate based on the illustration in Fig. 8B.
At p. 38, ll. 11 and 12-13, “turn away from” is inaccurate because the axes 208, 209 do not and cannot “turn away from” the virtual line 281.
At p. 38, l. 37, “generally colinear” is inaccurate. The virtual line 281 and the line that defines the wheel base 241 appear to be parallel, but they are not generally “colinear” (which means lying in the same straight line).
At p. 45, ll. 34-35, “the brake of this embodiment is configured the same as the brake of the first embodiment” is inaccurate. The brake of the first embodiment has a simple brake pad. It cannot be the same as the regenerative braking system since it lacks any regenerative braking capability.
At p. 49, at ll. 10 and 14, “section 206 foldable” should read “section 206 of the foldable”.
At p. 49, l. 13, “rectangular faces 245 (Fig. 8A and 8C)” is inaccurate since Figs. 8A and 8C do not show/label rectangular faces 245.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed below must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The rotation lock comprises a bias, wherein the bias is configured such that moving the first handlebar and the second handlebar away from the front wheel along the handlebar axis of rotation causes the rotation lock to reconfigure from the locked configuration to the unlocked configuration so as to allow rotational movement of the first body section with respect to the second body section about the first axis (claim 10).
A first drive train including first and second foot pedals such that rotation of the foot pedals rotates the front wheel or the rear wheel (claim 14).
The reclamation alternator is configured to engage the first side of the guide surface of the front wheel such that kinetic energy generated by the front wheel is transferred to the reclamation alternator and the plurality of wheels are configured to engage the opposing second side of the guide surface of the front wheel (claim 20).
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 1 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the same part is designated by two different reference numbers 16 and 17. Since only one part is shown, only one reference number should be used to designate this part.
Fig. 1 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the same part is designated by two different reference numbers 28 and 29. Since only one part is shown, only one reference number should be used to designate this part.
Fig. 2 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the same part is designated by two different reference numbers 28 and 29. Since only one part is shown, only one reference number should be used to designate this part.
In Fig. 4B, reference number 24 is not clearly written such that it is unclear whether the number is 24 or 29.
In Fig. 5, the illustration of the rotation lock 20 is inaccurate because Fig. 5 does not show the plug 42 shown in Figs. 4A-4C.
In Fig. 5, the shading does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m). The dark/solid shading reduces legibility.
In Figs. 6A and 6C, each occurrence of 44 should be changed to 45. See Fig. 5; p. 15, ll. 31-35.
In Fig. 6B, 45 should be changed to 44. See Fig. 5; p. 15, ll. 31-35.
Fig. 7 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the same part is designated by two different reference numbers 116 and 117. Since only one part is shown, only one reference number should be used to designate this part.
In Fig. 7, 144 should be changed to 145, and 145 should be changed to 144. See p. 30, ll. 13-14.
Fig. 7 includes a part designated by reference number 173, which the specification describes as a “rack”. However, Fig. 7 does not illustrate the part as a “rack”. Rather, Fig. 7 shows a smooth surface.
Fig. 8B does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because it includes reference numbers that do not measure at least 1/8 inch in height.
Fig. 8B does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the same part is designated by two different reference numbers 228 and 229. Since only one part is shown, only one reference number should be used to designate this part.
In Fig. 8B, the lead line for reference number 245 is not directed to a rectangular face. See p. 40, ll. 8-18. Rather, it is directed to an open end.
In Fig. 8B, reference number 287 is not clearly written such that it is unclear whether the number is 287 or 284.
In Fig. 9, reference number 290 is not clearly written such that it is unclear whether the number is 290 or 270.
Fig. 9 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because reference number 251 appears in the figure, but this reference number is not mentioned in the specification.
Fig. 9 includes a stray mark or lead line (without associated reference number) located adjacent the right occurrence of reference number 290.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because the following reference numbers are mentioned in the specification but do not appear in the drawings:
128 (p. 32, l. 18; p. 35, l. 35; p. 36, l. 24).
129 (p. 32, l. 18; p. 35, l. 35; p. 36, l. 25).
113 (p. 32, l. 27; p. 37, l. 2).
164 (p. 32, l. 34).
213 (p. 42, l. 21; p. 49, l. 5).
234 (p. 42, l. 25).
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this application should be directed:
By Patent Center2: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 All citations are to the English translation.
2 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).