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 9/8/26 (hereinafter Response) has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 11 have been amended, claims 3-4 and 7 have been cancelled, and claim 15 is new. Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-15 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0367127 A1 to Noda et al (hereinafter Noda) in view of US 2021/0331761 A1 to Fujimura and further in view of US 2019/0359069 A1 to Usui et al (hereinafter Usui).
Regarding claim 1, Noda discloses a drive unit (10) usable in an electrically assisted bicycle (Fig. 1 & Abstract and [0056]), the drive unit comprising:
an electric motor (12) (Fig. 4 & [0057]);
a housing (36) accommodating a portion or an entirety of the electric motor (12) (Fig. 4 & [0059], [0061]);
a pedal crank shaft (14) extending through the housing (28) and rotatably supported by the housing (28) (Fig. 4 & [0065]);
a transmission (18) to transmit a torque of the electric motor (12) (Fig. 4 & [0057] discloses the speed reducer transmits power/torque from the electric motor to the output portion 16);
a rigid board (60) including an electric circuit (61) to cause the electric motor (12) to operate (Fig. 4 & [0075] the controller 61, which includes multiple circuits, is used to control the motor 12); and
… electrically connect the rigid board (60) and another predetermined component (66) in addition to the rigid board (60) to each other (Figs. 4 and 7 & [0077] discloses the control board 60 is connected to the second control board 66 via an electric cable); wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
619
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the predetermined component (66) includes another rigid board (66) in addition to the rigid board (60) (Noda - Fig. 4 & [0077]); and … electrically connects the rigid board (60) and the another rigid board (66) to each other (Noda - Fig. 4 & [0077]);
one of the rigid board (60) and the another rigid board (66) is a power supply circuit board (66) including a power supply circuit to output electric power … ; and the other of the rigid board (60) and the another rigid board (66) is a control circuit board (60) including a control circuit to control an operation of the power supply circuit (Fig. 4 & [0077] discloses the second circuit board includes power supply circuit for powering the first antennae.);
PNG
media_image2.png
431
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a surface of one of the power supply circuit board (66) and the control circuit board (60) on which one of the power supply circuit (66) and the control circuit (60) is provided extends along a direction closer to an up-down direction of the drive unit (10) than to a left-right direction of the drive unit (10); and a surface of the other of the power supply circuit board (66) and the control circuit board (60) on which the other of the power supply circuit (66) and the control circuit (60) is provided extends along a direction closer to the left-right direction of the drive unit (10) than to the up-down direction of the drive unit (10) (Annotated Figs. 4 & 7 depict the power supply circuit board 66 and the control circuit board and surfaces A and B thereof. Particularly, Fig. 4, which is a top view of the drive unit as defined by Fig. 2 & [0047], best depicts an up down surface of the power supply circuit board, extending into and out of Fig. 4. Fig. 7 best depicts a surface of the control circuit board in the left right direction. Notably, under a broadest reasonable interpretation up and down and left and right can have multiple definitions without a set point of reference.).
Noda does not appear to explicitly disclose that the electric cable is a flexible printed circuit to electrically connect the rigid board and another predetermined component in addition to the rigid board to each other;
a power supply circuit board (66) including a power supply circuit to output electric power to drive the electric motor.
Fujimura teaches that it was old and well known in the art of bicycle electronics, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a flexible printed circuit to electrically connect the rigid board (54) and another predetermined component (52) in addition to the rigid board (54) to each other (Fig. 4 & [0097], [0116], and [0154] disclose a flexible wiring board, i.e., FPCB, can be used instead of a cable to connect the signal processing unit 54 (including controller) and the strain gauge 52).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted features of Fujimura with teaching of Noda since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the flexible printed circuit of Fujimura for the electrical cable of Noda. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Usui teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electric bicycles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a power supply circuit to output electric power to drive the electric motor ([0068], [0076], [0076])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electric bicycles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of the electric bicycle disclosed by the modified combination of Noda/Fujimura to incorporate the another rigid board to also include a power supply circuit to output electric power to drive the electric motor as taught by Usui in order to provide power to the electric motor, e.g., see Usui
[0076], [0078], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 4, the modified combination of Noda/Fujimura/Usui does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the control circuit board is smaller than the power supply circuit board.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, making the size of the control circuit board smaller than the power supply circuit board is considered to be an obvious modification and thus is not patentably disntict. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 14, depending on claim 1, Noda further discloses an electrically assisted bicycle comprising: the drive unit of claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1 & Fig. 1 & Abstract and [0056]).
Regarding claim 15, depending on claim 1, Noda further discloses wherein the surface (A) of the power supply circuit board (66) on which the power supply circuit is provided extends along the direction closer to the up-down direction of the drive unit (10) than to the left-right direction of the drive unit (10); and the surface (B) of the control circuit board (60) on which the control circuit is provided extends along the direction closer to the left-right direction of the drive unit (10) than to the up-down direction of the drive unit (10) (Annotated Figs. 4 & 7).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda in view of Fujimura and further in view of Usui and further in view of US 2017/0152000 A1to Chien et al (hereinafter Chien).
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, although the modified combination of Noda/Fujimura/Usui discloses the advantages of utilizing a flexible printed circuit to connect components instead of an electrical cable, as discussed above in claim 1, the modified combination of Noda/Fujimura does not appear further comprising an external device connector to electrically connect the drive unit (Noda - 10) and an external device to each other; and the another flexible printed circuit to electrically connect the rigid board/controller (Noda - 60) and the external device connector to each other.
Chien teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electric bicycles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for an external device connector (11) to electrically connect the drive unit (1) and an external device (EB) to each other; and …to electrically connect the controller (13) and the external device connector (11) to each other (Figs. 1-3 & [0026] and [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electric bicycles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive unit of the electric bicycle including connecting the controller/rigid board to various other components with flexible circuit boards disclosed by the modified combination of Noda/Fujimura to incorporate wherein the predetermined component includes an external device connector to electrically connect the drive unit and an external device to each other; and the … electrically connects the rigid board/controller and the external device connector to each other as taught by Chien in order to supply external/additional power to the motor, e.g., see Chien [0028], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda in view of Fujimura and further in view of Usui and further in view of Chien and further in view of US 2024/0213698 A1 to Yamada et al (hereinafter Yamada).
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 2, the modified combination of Noda/Fujimura/ Chien does not appear to further disclose a reinforcing plate on a surface of the flexible printed circuit opposite to a surface of the flexible printed circuit connected with the external device connector in a thickness direction of the flexible printed circuit, at a location where the flexible printed circuit and the external device connector are stacked on each other.
Yamada teaches that it was old and well known in the art of flexible circuits, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a reinforcing plate (130) on a surface of the flexible printed circuit (110) opposite to a surface of the flexible printed circuit connected with the external device connector (120) in a thickness direction of the flexible printed circuit (110), at a location where the flexible printed circuit (110) and the external device connector (120) are stacked on each other (Figs. 1B and 3B & [0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of flexible circuits before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible circuit and connector disclosed by the modified combination of Noda/Fujimura/Usui/Chien to incorporate a reinforcing plate on a surface of the flexible printed circuit opposite to a surface of the flexible printed circuit connected with the external device connector in a thickness direction of the flexible printed circuit, at a location where the flexible printed circuit and the external device connector are stacked on each other as taught by Yamada in order to reduce separation of the connectors from the flexible circuit, e.g., see [0037], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda in view of Fujimura and further in view of Usui and further in view of Chien and further in view of All Flex, “Soldering Flexible Circuits,” published February 28, 2020 (available at https://www.allflexinc.com/blog/ soldering-flexible-circuits/) (hereinafter “All Flex”).
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 2, the modified combination of Noda/Fujimura/ Chien discloses the flexible printed circuit and the external device connected are electrically connected, see above claim 2, but does not disclose that they are electically connected by at least one of solder, an anisotropic conductive film, or an anisotropic conductive paste.
All Flex teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electrical connections of flexible circuits, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use solder to electrically connect flexible circuits (p.2 ¶1 teaches that soldering is used for electrically connecting electric components to flexible circuits.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electrical connections of flexible circuits before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical system of the electric bike drive system disclosed by the modified combination of Noda/Fujimura/Usui/Chien to incorporate using solder to electrically connect flexible circuits as taught by All Flex in order to electrically attach the flexible circuit to the external connector, e.g., see All Flex, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda in view of Fujimura and further in view of Usui and further in view of US 2023/0112105 A1 to Park et al (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Noda/Fujimura/Usui does not appear to further disclose a noise suppressor on the flexible printed circuit.
Park teaches that it was old and well known in the art of flexible circuit boards, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include noise suppressor on the flexible printed circuit ([0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of flexible circuit boards before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify electrical system of the electric bicycle including a flexible PCB disclosed by the modified combination of Noda/Fujimura/Usui to incorporate including a noise suppressor on the flexible printed circuit as taught by Park in order to suppress or prevent damage to the electrical/electronic components, e.g., see Park [0075], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, and 13 are allowed.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Response pp. 7-9, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Noda in view of Fujimura have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Noda in view of Fujimura and further in view of Usui.
Applicant’s argument directed toward the orientation of Noda in comparison to the amended claim limitations are not persuasive because as discussed above, Noda does disclose the claimed circuit board orientation. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a more specific layout of the multiple circuit boards of the drive unit) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights