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 .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 8/4/26 (hereinafter “Response) including claim amendments has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1 – 9, 12, 13, 15, and 17 – 19 have been amended and new claim 20 has been added. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the Application.
Specification
The objection to the Specification raised in the non-final office action (hereinafter “Office Action”) mailed 5/5/26 is withdrawn based on the amendments submitted in the Response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC § 112 rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 13, 15, 17, and 19 is withdrawn based on amendments submitted in the Response.
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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0090819 A1 to Cheng.
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses [a method for operating a drive system (12, 13, 14, 16, 21, 31) of an electric bike (10)] (paragraph 0006, “a power-assisted bicycle with a gear shift smoothening function”; paragraphs 0031 – 0034, disclose the drive system; Fig. 2 illustrates the electric bike), comprising:
[operating a motor (14) of the drive system at a first motor torque to provide a motor support for a pedaling force generated by an operator of the electric bike] (paragraph 0032 discloses “a power assistance provider 12” comprising the motor; paragraphs 0006 and 0007 disclose the motor support as, e.g., “an assistant power output” and disclose the pedaling force of the operator, i.e., “a rider”; the first motor torque is interpreted as being a non-zero torque supplied by the motor immediately prior to a “gear-shifting process” disclosed in paragraph 0037; Figs. 3 – 6 illustrate the motor support on the vertical axis);
[receiving a shift signal when the motor is operated at the first motor torque] (Figs. 3 – 6; paragraph 0037, e.g., receiving the shift signal being element 21 judging gearshift timing and then dividing the gear-shifting process into predetermined time intervals);
[increasing a torque of the motor (P) above the first motor torque for a predetermined first time interval (AT1) after receiving the shift signal] (Annotated Fig. 3, below; paragraph 0037 discloses predetermined time intervals T1, T2, and T3);
[reducing the torque of the motor immediately after the predetermined first time interval for a predetermined second time interval (BT2) ] (Ann. Fig. 3; paragraph 0037); and
[performing a gearshift that includes changing a transmission ratio of a gearshift system (16, 31) of the drive system during the predetermined second time interval] (paragraphs 0031, 0032, 0037).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
1256
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 16 Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein:
[the increasing the torque of the motor is performed such that the torque of the motor is increased from the first motor torque to a boost motor torque (P2),
the boost motor torque corresponds to at least 120% of the first motor torque, and
Cheng further discloses the boost motor torque corresponds to at least 140% of the first motor torque] (Ann. Fig. 3, e.g., the first motor being 1% of P increasing to the boost motor torque P2, which corresponds to P2 being at least 120% of the first motor torque and also being at least 140% of the first motor torque).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein:
[the reducing of the torque of the motor is performed such that the torque of the motor is reduced to a shifting motor torque (P1)] (paragraphs 0040, 0043, 0053; Annotated Fig. 5, below; Figs. 3 and 5 refer to the same embodiment as indicated in paragraph 0031), and
[the shifting motor torque is smaller than the first motor torque before the predetermined first time interval] (“the first motor torque” is understood as P before the first time interval AT1; Ann. Fig. 5, e.g., the first motor torque equals 50% of P; P1 is smaller than the first motor torque before the predetermined first time interval in Ann. Fig. 5).
PNG
image3.png
100
100
image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
[increasing the torque of the motor to a second motor torque for a predetermined third time interval (T3) after the predetermined second time interval] (Ann. Fig. 5; e.g., the torque of the motor being increase to 80% of P).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein [the second motor torque is greater than the first motor torque] (Ann. Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein [the predetermined first time interval is adapted depending on riding parameters and/or environmental parameters, and Cheng further discloses the riding parameters and/or the environmental parameters comprise at least one of: instantaneous gradient, instantaneous acceleration, instantaneous or impending rider's torque, instantaneous cadence, road characteristics, road course, and navigation data] (paragraphs 0007, 0035, 0037; paragraph 0035, specifically regarding the predetermined first time interval (i.e., “gearshift timing”) is adapted depending on ascertained riding parameters (e.g., at least one of “wheel speed”, “pedaling speed”, “pedaling force”) and/or environmental parameters (e.g., “slope”)).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein [the increase of the torque of the motor during the predetermined first time interval is adapted depending on riding parameters and/or environmental parameters] (paragraph 0042, e.g., the motor torque during the predetermined first time interval is adapted depending on “slope”, which is understood as riding parameters and/or environmental parameters).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising [outputting an audible and/or visual indication of an imminent increase in motor torque] (paragraphs 0036, 0054).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein [the changing of the transmission ratio of the gearshift system is performed by way of a controllably operable actuator (16), and Cheng further discloses
the controllably operable actuator is actuated automatically by way of a control unit (31), and/or
the controllably operable actuator is actuated in response to a manually generated shifting signal] (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 13, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
[recording and comparing shifting durations of the gearshift, and
ascertaining a functionality of the gearshift system based on the comparison of the shifting durations] (paragraphs 0037, 0038).
Regarding Claim 14, Cheng discloses [an electric bike 10] (Fig. 2; paragraph 0031), comprising:
[a drive system 12, 16, 21, 31 having a gearshift system 16, 31;
a motor 14; and
a control unit 21 configured to actuate the gearshift system (Figs. 1 & 2; paragraphs 0031 – 0034), wherein
[the control unit is further configured to perform the method according to claim 1] (paragraphs 0037, 0040 – 0041; Table 1).
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Cheng discloses the electric bike according to claim 14, wherein [the torque of the motor during the predetermined first time interval is at least 120% of a maximum motor torque available from the motor as the motor support, and
Cheng further discloses the torque of the motor during the predetermined first time interval is at least 150% of a maximum motor torque available from the motor as the motor support] (paragraph 0049; Ann. Fig. 3; e.g., the predetermined maximum motor torque available from the motor as the motor support is less than 1% of P and, e.g., the normal riding mode is a “non-assistant mode”; Ann. Fig. 3 illustrates the increased boost motor torque corresponds to at least 120% and 150% of the maximum motor torque).
Regarding claim 17, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein [the shifting motor torque is 10% of the first motor torque] (Ann. Fig. 5 shows the shifting motor torque P1 equals 10% of P), and
Regarding claim 18, Cheng discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
[recording and comparing shifting durations of the gearshift system during the predetermined second time interval, and
ascertaining a functionality of the gearshift system, including wear and/or a shifting setting, based on the comparison of the shifting durations] (paragraphs 0037, 0038).
Regarding claim 20, Cheng discloses [the method according to claim 3, wherein the shifting motor torque is 20% of the first motor torque] (Ann. Fig. 5, e.g., the first motor torque can be interpreted as being 50% of P and the shifting motor torque can be interpreted as being 1/5, i.e., 20% of the first motor torque).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of US 2013/0054067A1 to Shoge et al (hereinafter Shoge).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose that the shifting motor torque is zero. Shoge discloses [a method for operating a drive system (105) of an electric bike (101)] (Figs. 1, 4; paragraphs 0029, 0030, 0039) comprising [a shifting torque wherein the shifting torque is zero] (Figs. 4, 6; paragraphs 0042, 0043 – the shifting torque is disclosed as an “assistance force”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of methods for operating drive systems of electric bikes, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Shoge’s shifting torque being zero because the results would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art and would appreciate a smooth gear shifting operation with little physical shock as disclosed by Shoge in paragraph 0007.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on pp 9 – 13 in the Response regarding the 35 USC 102 rejections of Claims 1 – 19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current interpretation of references as being used in the current rejection.
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 Ferguson whose telephone number is (571)272-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm 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 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 Ferguson/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights