DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 05/13/26 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendment have been entered. Examiner notes that claim 1-3, 12-13 have been amended, while all other claims are maintained as previously presented in the application. In view of amendment and in view of further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC § 102 (details below). Accordingly, claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed (‘Remarks’ filedhave been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In view of argument and upon further consideration, “a predetermined constant braking torque” is known in the art as being anticipated by ‘Guzelgunler (US 20220194520 A1). Accordingly, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC § 102 (details below). Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guzelgunler (US Pub. 20220194520 A1; hereinafter “Guzel”).
Regarding claim 1, Guzel discloses: a method for operating an electric bike (100 “Title”; ‘Abstract’, figs. 1-13 and [0041]) that includes a braking system (“electric brake system”; ‘Abstract’) and a drive motor (“motor 102”; ‘Abstract’ and [0038]), the braking system (“brake control unit”; [0007]) including an actuator (“actuator brake 106”; [0045]), said method comprising:
(a) operating the actuator (106) of the braking system (“brake control unit”) to generate a predetermined constant braking torque (“Tc, traction coulomb resistance torque which is constant at any speed”; [0077]); and
(b) operating the drive motor (102) to modulate (“via modulation technique such as one of the space vector modulation (SVM) techniques; [0059]) a driving torque (“rolling torque or friction torque”; 0076-0077) in a controlled manner [ para. 0136 teaches that all brake types in the end control the friction force or the friction torque, which are controlled directly by the current applied; thus, in a controlled manner], depending on the predetermined constant braking torque (Tc; [0077]), to regulate a total torque (TTR; [0076]) by actuator brake (106) and regenerative brake (“regenerative torque” TBrk; see figs. 3-4 and [0095]) of the electric bike (100),
wherein step (a) and step (b) occur simultaneously [fig. 3 shows simultaneous behavior where reverse speed regenerating braking and forward motoring and reverse motoring and again forward generating as affected by TG, TT, Wp and WT have occurred simultaneously as depicted in four quadrants of the fig. 3].
Regarding claim 2, Guzel further discloses that the (b) operating the drive motor (102) further comprising:
operating the drive motor (102) to (i) decelerate the electric bike with a predetermined total braking torque (Tc; [0077]) or (ii) accelerate [0077-0078] the electric bike (100) with a predetermined total driving torque (TTR; [0076]).
Regarding claim 4, Guzel further discloses that the generation of the predetermined constant braking torque (Tc) is performed independently of a brake lever force on a brake lever of the electric bike [ see claim 4, page 17 where it is written “a coulomb resistance torque, which is a constant torque independent of the speed”; thus, independently of a brake lever force on a brake lever of the electric bike.]
Regarding claim 5, Guzel further discloses that detecting a wheel slip (via “traction stiction coefficient Kst; claim 4), wherein step (b) is performed depending on the detected wheel slip [ para. 0006 teaches that a resistance torque to the generator and the traction torque to the motor to propel the wheel; thus, step (b) is performed depending on the detected wheel slip].
Regarding claim 6, Guzel further discloses that detecting a pitch angle (“incline angle”; [0057]) of the electric bike (100), wherein step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle [ para. 0057 expressly teaches that fig. 5 describes about the modules of the control units in more detail. The pedal control unit 401, consists of a resistance torque generator 501, which generates a part of the pedal resistance torque command called the model resistance torque TM- The resistance torque generator 501 uses a bicycle model to calculate the model resistance torque based on the pedal speed and the incline angle; thus, step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle.]
Regarding claim 7, Guzel further teaches that in a second mode of operation (“coasting”; [0159]), step (a) and step (b) (see fig. 6A) are performed such that the electric bike is kept stationary (“coast and slow down”; [see para. 0158-0159 for the detail operation of step(a) and step(b)]).
Regarding claim 8, Guzel further teaches that detecting an inclination (“incline angle”; [0057]) of the electric bike (100), wherein: step (a) and step (b) [ see para. 0140 and claim 4 for the detail operation of detecting an inclination] are performed depending on the detected inclination (θ, claim 4).
Regarding claim 9, Guzel further teaches that step (a) and step (b) are additionally performed depending on a total weight of the electric bike [claim 11 teaches: “a weight sensor under a rider seat to measure the weight of the rider and as a result to calculate the rotational equivalent bicycle inertia, the rolling resistance coefficient, the gravity torque coefficient, the drag torque coefficient, and other bicycle model related parameters; also para. 0155 teaches the requirement of gravity pulling to perform step(a) and step(b) operations; thus, step (a) and step (b) are additionally performed depending on a total weight of the electric bike.]
Regarding claim 10, Guzel further teaches that reducing a brake pressure generated by way of the braking system in a controlled manner in response to a pedal actuation such that the electric bike is accelerated by the driving torque [claim 7 expressly teaches that wherein when the enable input is one (equivalent to a pedal actuation), the traction torque compensator is active and contributing to the traction torque command generation, and when the traction torque compensator is active, the traction compensator torque is assisting the rider by actively reducing the resistance torque (equivalent to “reducing a brake pressure”) required to ride the chainless electric bicycle; thus, in a controlled manner in response to a pedal actuation such that the electric bike is accelerated by the driving torque.]
Regarding claim 11, Guzel further discloses that detecting a pitch angle (“incline angle”; [0057]) of the electric bike (100), wherein step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle [ para. 0057 expressly teaches that fig. 5 describes about the modules of the control units in more detail. The pedal control unit 401, consists of a resistance torque generator 501, which generates a part of the pedal resistance torque command called the model resistance torque TM- The resistance torque generator 501 uses a bicycle model to calculate the model resistance torque based on the pedal speed and the incline angle; thus, step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle.]
Regarding claim 12, Guzel further discloses that an electric bike (100), comprising: a braking system (“electric brake system”; ‘Abstract’); a drive motor (“motor 102”; ‘Abstract’ and [0038]); and a control unit (“brake control unit” 403, fig. 4 and [0056]) configured to perform a method (“control method”; [0053]) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Guzel further discloses that detecting a wheel slip (via “traction stiction coefficient Kst; claim 4), wherein:
step (b) is performed depending on the detected wheel slip [ para. 0006 teaches that a resistance torque to the generator and the traction torque to the motor to propel the wheel; thus, step (b) is performed depending on the detected wheel slip], and the driving torque is reduced if the detected wheel slip exceeds a predetermined wheel slip limit value [ para. 0062 teaches that the scaler block 507 also includes a gain, which is called the traction torque assist gain or torque assist gain, when adjusted, it can either add torque to the existing traction torque, or it can reduce the traction torque to charge the battery 103 while the rider is pedaling. Alternative to the traction torque assist gain, a traction torque compensator (traction compensator) 506 with a closed loop controller when enabled can adjust the torque assistance dynamically based on the pedal and traction speeds and the first traction torque; thus, the driving torque is reduced if the detected wheel slip exceeds a predetermined wheel slip limit value; also see figs. 10-11.]
Regarding claim 15, Guzel further teaches that detecting a pitch angle (“incline angle”; [0057]) of the electric bike (100), wherein: step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle (θ, claim 4) and the driving torque is reduced when the detected pitch angle exceeds a predetermined pitch angle limit value [ see details in para. 0152 in the incline startup where it is expressly disclosed that if the traction torque is not large enough to overcome the traction resistance torque, the chainless electric bicycle 100 rolls backwards and the traction speed becomes negative; thus, the driving torque is reduced when the detected pitch angle exceeds a predetermined pitch angle limit value.]
Regarding claim 16, Guzel further teaches that a pitch angle (θ, claim 4) of the electric bike (100), wherein: step (a) and/or step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle (θ), and the driving torque is reduced and/or the braking torque is increased if the detected pitch angle exceeds a predetermined pitch angle limit value [ see para. 0152 for the detail operation where it is expressly teaches that as long as the pedal speed is positive, the traction torque will persist and increase. Since the traction speed is negative, the error input to the resistance controller 609 becomes even larger; thus, step (a) and/or step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle (θ), and the driving torque is reduced and/or the braking torque is increased if the detected pitch angle exceeds a predetermined pitch angle limit value.]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guzel, and in an alternative, under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Trueman, Neil (EP 2648954 B1; hereinafter, “Neil”).
Regarding claim 3, Guzel further discloses that the predetermined constant braking torque (resistance torque Tc; [0077]) that corresponds to at least 10% of a maximum driving torque (“maximum observer torque”; [claim 5]) which can be generated by way of the drive motor (102) [para 0159 teaches that if the pedal referred traction speed overshoots pedal speed above a speed threshold, which could be a percentage of the pedal speed outside of the normal control limits, similar to the chain bicycle due to the ratchet action, to gain the control of the chainless electric bicycle 100, the resistance torque is dropped down to zero with the help of the one-to-zero (equivalent to 100%-0%) block 603 in fig. 6A, which results in zero power flow from the generator 101, zero feedforward torque to the traction control unit 402 and zero traction torque to the motor 102 allowing the chainless electric bicycle 100 to coast and slowdown]; therefore anticipating torque values as claimed; note that “One-to zero” as cited and in fig. 6A- block 603 is equivalent to maximum to minimum value range.
Therefore, Guzel anticipates the claimed invention.
Additionally, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the predetermined constant braking torque (“resistance torque”) that corresponds to or must be at least 10% of a maximum driving torque which can be generated by way of the drive motor which Guzel’s electric bike might not meet, then Neil, referring to para. [0042] in an another electric hybrid vehicle similar to Guzel teaches that “for the purposes of the present embodiment the first predetermined percentage brake torque threshold is 15% of total possible braking torque, however any suitable percentage may be selected. The predetermined brake torque percentage threshold is selected so not to adversely compromise the handling or drivability characteristics of the vehicle.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed mathematical value where the predetermined constant braking torque ([0042-0043] of Neil) that corresponds to at least 15% of a maximum driving torque or any suitable percentage, such as 10% as taught by Neil into the invention of Guzel would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed mathematical value, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at the mathematical value of at least 10% of a maximum driving torque, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Guzel further discloses that the predetermined constant braking torque (constant resistance torque Tc; [0077]; fig. 6A) that corresponds to at most 60% of a maximum driving torque which can be generated by way of the drive unit [para 0159 teaches that if the pedal referred traction speed overshoots pedal speed above a speed threshold, which could be a percentage of the pedal speed outside of the normal control limits, similar to the chain bicycle due to the ratchet action, to gain the control of the chainless electric bicycle 100, the resistance torque is dropped down to zero with the help of the one-to-zero (equivalent to 100%-0%) block 603 in fig. 6A, which results in zero power flow from the generator 101, zero feedforward torque to the traction control unit 402 and zero traction torque to the motor 102 allowing the chainless electric bicycle 100 to coast and slowdown]; therefore anticipating torque values as claimed; note that “One-to zero” as cited and in fig. 6A- block 603 is equivalent to maximum to minimum value range that corresponds to at most 60% of a maximum driving torque which can be generated by way of the drive unit.
Therefore, Guzel anticipates the claimed invention.
Additionally, and in an alternative, if an argument may be made that the predetermined constant braking torque (constant “resistance torque”) that corresponds to or must be at most 60% of a maximum driving torque which can be generated by way of the drive unit which Guzel’s electric bike might not meet, then Neil, referring to para. [0042] in an another electric hybrid vehicle similar to Guzel teaches that “for the purposes of the present embodiment the first predetermined percentage brake torque threshold is 15% of total possible braking torque, however any suitable percentage may be selected. The predetermined brake torque percentage threshold is selected so not to adversely compromise the handling or drivability characteristics of the vehicle.”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed mathematical value where the predetermined constant braking torque ([0042-0043] of Neil) that corresponds to at least 15% of a maximum driving torque or any suitable percentage, such as 60% as taught by Neil into the invention of Guzel would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed mathematical value, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at the mathematical value of at least 60% of a maximum driving torque, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6607253 B1 to Yamamoto discloses: the electric motor is driven and controlled so that the actual braking torque becomes equal to a target braking torque that is determined in accordance with the amount of operation of a brake pedal.
US 11110802 B2 to Foitzik discloses: a method for operating a regenerative braking system of a vehicle by activating at least one motor employable in generator mode taking into consideration a first information with regard to a requested setpoint total braking torque and a second information with regard to an available generator braking torque which is maximally executable by the at least one motor employable in generator mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
NABIN KUMAR SHARMA
Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights