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 .
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/385,258 filed on 10/30/2023 in which claim 1 has been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of preliminary amendment filed on 01/30/2024 in which claim 1 is currently amended while claims 2-20 have been newly added.
By this amendment, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/30/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(e), acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for priority based on US provisional applications #63/420,482, filed on 10/28/2022.
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 –
Claim(s) 1-5,8-15,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al., (Yamada) EP 0902523 A1
Regarding claim 1: Yamada at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1,5-7: An electric bike (1) comprising:
a bike frame(the bicycle body (1) has a frame (13); see Fig. 1);
a battery pack(20);
a bike stand(15) movably coupled(via lock mechanism (7) which comprises switch mechanism (60) comprising a switch (65) and a magnet (66); see [0043]) to the bike frame(13); and
a charging device(6) integrated into the bike stand(15)(note-the secondary charging device 6 of the present embodiment comprises a secondary coil unit 51, which is incorporated in the ground contact portion 15b of the stand 15 as seen in Figs. 5 and 6; see [0042]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada discloses, where the bike stand (15) comprises a kickstand(construed as part (15a). Since the stand 15 comprises a leg portion 15a extending obliquely downward in the state of supporting the bicycle body 1 (hereinafter referred to merely as the "support state"; see [0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada discloses, where the charging device(6) is an inductive charging device(see [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada discloses, the charging device (6) including a secondary charging coil(512)(see [0043] and Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada discloses, comprising an inductive charger(4) having a primary charging coil (312)(see [0044]) that inductively couples(see [0051] and Figs. 5-7) to the inductive charger device(6).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada discloses, where the charging device is a contact charging device(note- When the battery 20 of the bicycle body 1 is to be charged by the system of the present embodiment, the secondary coil unit 50 of the secondary charging device 6 is brought into contact with the primary coil unit 30 of the primary charging device as shown in FIGS. 1 to 3 by advancing the bicycle body 1, and the switch 24 is changed over to set the system in the charging mode. The switch 401 is turned on by the magnet 61 brought close thereto. The switch 24 is closed at the terminal a; see [0033],[0051]).
Regarding claim 9: Yamada at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1,5-7
An electric bike(see Fig. 1) comprising:
a bike frame(the bicycle body (1) has a frame (13));
a battery pack(20) coupled to the bike frame(13)(see Fig. 1) for powering the electric bike;
a bike kickstand(15[Wingdings font/0xE0](15a,15b)) movably coupled to the bike frame(13)(via lock mechanism (7) which comprises s switch mechanism (60) comprising a switch (65) and a magnet (66); see [0043]); and
a charging device(6) integrated into the bike kickstand(15), the bike kickstand(15) operably positioned to both support the electric bike when not in use and includes the charging device(6) for charging the battery pack(20)(note-the secondary charging device 6 of the present embodiment comprises a secondary coil unit 51, which is incorporated in the ground contact portion 15b of the stand 15 as seen in Figs. 5 and 6; see [0042]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 10, Yamada discloses, where the charging device(6) is an inductive charging device(see [0038]-[0039]) and includes a secondary charging coil(512)(see [0043] and Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 11, Yamada discloses, where the bike kickstand(15) includes a support member(15a)(see [0042]) that contacts a charging device, the support member(15b) including the charging device(6)(the secondary charging device 6 of the present embodiment comprises a secondary coil unit 51, which is incorporated in the ground contact portion 15b of the stand 15 as seen in Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 12, Yamada discloses, where the charging device(6) is an inductive charging device(see [0038]-[0039]) having a secondary charging coil(512)(see [0043] and Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 13, Yamada discloses, where the kickstand(15) is generally L shaped and includes a first support member(15a) and a second support member(15b), and when in an operating position the first support member(15a) extends downward from the bike, and the second support member(15b) extends outward from the first support member(15a).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada discloses, where the second support member(15b) includes an inductive charging device(51) having a secondary coil(512)(the secondary charging device 6 of the present embodiment comprises a secondary coil unit 51, which is incorporated in the ground contact portion 15b of the stand 15 as seen in Figs. 5 and 6; see [0042]-[0043])s
Regarding claim 15, Yamada discloses, where the inductive charging device(6) is electrically coupled to the battery pack(20) through the first support member(15a)(see Figs. 1,5-6).
Regarding claim 18, Yamada discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 9. Yamada discloses, where the kickstand is generally U shaped and includes a first support member(15a), a second support member(15b), and the charging device(6)(see Figs. 5-6); and when in an operating position the first support member(15a) and second support member(15b) extend downward from the bike, and the charging device(6) extends between the first support member(15a) and the second support member(15b) in a charging position, and where the charging device(6) includes an inductive charging device(51) having a secondary coil(512)(see [0042]-[0043]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al., (Yamada) EP 0902523 A1 in view of US 2018/0064224 to Brzezinski et al., (Brzezinski).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 5 but does not expressly discloses the limitations of:
where the inductive charger is a charging mat
Brzezinski discloses factual evidence of, where the inductive charger is a charging mat(500)(see [0005]-[0006] and [0040] and Fig. 5).
Yamada and Brzezinski are inductive charging analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yamada with Brzezinski in having, where the inductive charger is a charging mat, as recited, so as to provide a highly efficient charging of the receiver device. Having a charging mat configuration would exempt the required precise alignment of any or more of the wireless power transmitting coils to a wireless power receiver of an accessory or other electronic device to be charged by pad, as per the teachings of Brzezinski(see [0040]).
Accordingly, claim 6 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamada discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 6. Brzezinski discloses, where the charging mat(500) comprises multiple primary charging coils(505)(see [0005]-[0006] and [0040] and Fig. 5).
Accordingly, claim 7 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 20: Yamada at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1,5-7: An electric bike(see Fig. 1) comprising: a bike frame(the bicycle body (1) has a frame (13));
a battery pack(20) coupled to the bike frame(13) for powering the electric bike;
a bike kickstand(15) movably coupled to the bike frame(via lock mechanism (7) which comprises switch mechanism (60) comprising a switch (65) and a magnet (66); see [0043]);
an inductive charging device(6) integrated into the bike kickstand(15)(note-the secondary charging device 6 of the present embodiment comprises a secondary coil unit 51, which is incorporated in the ground contact portion 15b of the stand 15 as seen in Figs. 5 and 6; see [0042]-[0043]), the bike kickstand(15) operably positioned to both support the electric bike when not in use and includes the inductive charging device(15) for inductively charging([0033],[0042]-[0043],[0051]) the battery pack(20).
Yamada does not teach the limitations of:
and an inductive charging mat including a charging surface that inductively couples to the inductive charging device, the inductive charging mat comprising multiple primary charging coils.
However, Brzezinski discloses, an inductive charging mat(500)(see Fig. 5) including a charging surface(510) that inductively couples to the inductive charging device, the inductive charging mat(500) comprising multiple primary charging coils(505).
Yamada and Brzezinski are inductive charging analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yamada with Brzezinski in having, and an inductive charging mat including a charging surface that inductively couples to the inductive charging device, the inductive charging mat comprising multiple primary charging coils, as recited, so as to provide a highly efficient charging of the receiver device. Having a charging mat configuration would exempt the required precise alignment of any or more of the wireless power transmitting coils to a wireless power receiver of an accessory or other electronic device to be charged by the charging mat(pad), as per the teachings of Brzezinski(see [0040]).
Accordingly claim 20 would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al., (Yamada) EP 0902523 A1 in view of Steffey USPAT 5,888,310
Regarding claim 16, Yamada discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 14. Yamada does not expressly disclose the limitations of, “ the kickstand including a cleaning device movable along the second support member to clean a contact surface of the inductive charging device.”.
However, Steffey teaches factual evidence of, the kickstand including a cleaning device(tweezer brush 18) movable along the second support member to clean a contact surface of the inductive charging device(142,144)(see Figs. 9-10).
Yamada and Steffey are bicycle analogous art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yamada with the teachings of Steffey by including in the kickstand of Yamada, a cleaning device movable along the second support member to clean a contact surface of the inductive charging device, as taught by Steffey. The advantages for doing so is remove any dust or debris that may negatively impact the power transfer and thus lower the efficiency of the inductive power transfer.
Accordingly claims 16 and 19 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Yamada discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 14. Yamada does not teach the limitations of:
comprising a cleaning device coupled to the bike frame for cleaning a contact surface of the charging device when the kickstand is moved between an up position and a down operating position.
However, Steffey teaches factual evidence of, comprising a cleaning device(18) coupled to the bike frame for cleaning a contact surface of the charging device(as disclosed by Yamada) when the kickstand is moved between an up position and a down operating position.
Yamada and Steffey are bicycle analogous art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yamada with the teachings of Steffey by having the electric bike of Yamada comprising a cleaning device coupled to the bike frame for cleaning a contact surface of the charging device when the kickstand is moved between an up position and a down operating position, as recited, for the advantages of improving the charging efficiency. Having a cleaning device coupled to the bike frame for cleaning a contact surface of the charging device when the kickstand is moved between an up position and a down operating position would ensure a tight coupling between the transmitting and receiving coils and thereby removing possible dust and debris which could negatively affect the power transfer efficiency.
Accordingly claim 17 would have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights