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
Claims 1-10 are pending herein.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign priority application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “each pedal is connected with a corresponding pedal bracket through a rotary shaft” (Claim 10) must be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “each of the mating protruding block” (line 7) should be rewritten as: “each of the mating protruding blocks”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation: "mating portions matched with the limiting portions are disposed on an inner surface of the tire; the mating portions are respectively clamped with the limiting portions", which is unclear, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5, and 7-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 5, 7, & 8, the claim recites the limitation: "matched with", which is unclear, and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation: "respectively clamped" (line 2), which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 11,485,171 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses: A motor for a unicycle (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 1), comprising: a motor main shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 2); a stator mechanism disposed on the motor main shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 1); and a rotor mechanism disposed on the motor main shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 1); wherein the motor comprises a bearing sleeved on the motor main shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 9); the rotor mechanism is connected with the motor main shaft through the bearing (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); the stator mechanism comprises a stator support (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); an electric core mechanism is disposed on the stator support (See, e.g., Fig.1-3).
[Claim 6] Regarding Claim 6, Liu discloses: A unicycle (See, e.g., Fig.1-3), comprising the motor for the unicycle according to claim 1 (See, e.g., Fig.1-3), a housing (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 7+1), and a tire (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 4), wherein the motor for the unicycle is disposed in the housing (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); limiting portions (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 5+8+71) are disposed on an outer surface of the housing (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); mating portions (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 6) matched with the limiting portions are disposed on an inner surface of the tire (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); the mating portions are respectively clamped with the limiting portions (See, e.g., Fig.1-3).
[Claim 7] Regarding Claim 7, Liu discloses: wherein the limiting portions comprise limiting protruding blocks (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 5+8+71); the limiting protruding blocks are evenly spaced apart and each of the limiting protruding blocks is disposed on a corresponding limiting portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); each of the limiting protruding blocks defines a limiting protrusion (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); the mating portions comprise mating protruding blocks (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 6); the mating protruding blocks are evenly spaced apart (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); each of the mating protruding blocks is disposed on a corresponding mating portion (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); each of the mating protruding block defines a mating slot (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); each mating slot is matched with a corresponding limiting protrusion (See, e.g., Fig.1-3).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, Liu discloses: wherein the tire comprises a ball tire (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 4), and a tire lining (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 6+7); the mating protruding blocks are disposed on an inner surface of the tire lining (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); limiting ribs are evenly spaced and disposed on an outer surface of the tire lining (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); limiting teeth matched with the limiting ribs are disposed on an inner surface of the ball tire (See, e.g., Fig.1-3).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Liu discloses: wherein the unicycle further comprises pedal brackets (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 3) respectively fixed on two sides of the motor main shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); a pedal (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 3) is disposed on each of the pedal brackets (See, e.g., Fig.1-3); each pedal is connected with a corresponding pedal bracket through a rotary shaft ; and a decorative plate is disposed on each pedal (See, e.g., Fig.1-3, 3+32).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Simeray (US PG PUB 2019/0276107 A1).
[Claim 2 and 5] Regarding Claim 2 and 5, Liu fails to explicitly teach: wherein the stator mechanism comprises a stator core and a stator winding; the stator winding is disposed on the stator core; the stator support comprises a support frame; a fixing ring disposed on an outer side of the stator support; a shaft sleeve ring disposed on an inner side of the stator support; the support frame connects the shaft sleeve ring with the fixing ring; the stator core is disposed on the fixing ring; the stator support is fixed on the motor main shaft through the shaft sleeve ring; a plurality of installing positions for the electric core mechanism are evenly spaced and defined on the support frame along a circumferential direction of the motor main shaft (Claim 2) and wherein the rotor mechanism comprises rotor supports and a rotor sleeve ring; the rotor supports are disposed on the motor main shaft through the bearing; permanent magnets are evenly spaced and disposed on an inner side of the rotor sleeve ring along the circumferential direction of the motor main shaft; a position of the stator winding is matched with positions of the permanent magnets; the rotor supports are respectively fixedly disposed on two sides of the rotor sleeve ring (Claim 5).
However, Simeray teaches a similar motor for a unicycle (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11, 104) wherein the stator mechanism comprises a stator core and a stator winding (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11, 12); the stator winding is disposed on the stator core (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11, 12); the stator support comprises a support frame (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11, 108); a fixing ring disposed on an outer side of the stator support (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11, 108); a shaft sleeve ring disposed on an inner side of the stator support (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11, 108); the support frame connects the shaft sleeve ring with the fixing ring (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11); the stator core is disposed on the fixing ring (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11); the stator support is fixed on the motor main shaft through the shaft sleeve ring (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11); a plurality of installing positions for the electric core mechanism are evenly spaced and defined on the support frame along a circumferential direction of the motor main shaft (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11) (Claim 2) and wherein the rotor mechanism comprises rotor supports and a rotor sleeve ring (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11, 13+112); the rotor supports are disposed on the motor main shaft through the bearing (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11); permanent magnets are evenly spaced and disposed on an inner side of the rotor sleeve ring along the circumferential direction of the motor main shaft (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11, 13); a position of the stator winding is matched with positions of the permanent magnets (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11); the rotor supports are respectively fixedly disposed on two sides of the rotor sleeve ring (See, e.g., Simeray: Fig.1-11) (Claim 5).
Simeray teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle motor design to provide the motor with specific stator and rotor components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the motor taught by Liu modified with the specific stator and rotor components such as taught by Simeray, for the purpose of conveniently propelling the unicycle as the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
Claims 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Simeray and further in view of Lin et al. (US PG PUB 2019/0315241 A1).
[Claim 3 and 4] Regarding Claim 3 and 4, Liu fails to explicitly teach: wherein the electric core mechanism comprises an electric control board and an electric core support; the electric core support is fixedly disposed on the plurality of installing positions for the electric core mechanism; an electric core disposed on the electric core support is connected with the electric control board (Claim 3) and wherein at least one limiting hole and at least one fixing hole are defined on the electronic control board; the electric control board is sleeved on the motor main shaft through the at least one limiting hole; the electric control board is fixed on the electric core support through the at least one fixing hole; the electric core is directly connected with the electric control board (Claim 4).
However, Lin teaches a similar electric motor device (See, e.g., Lin: Fig.1-21, 200) wherein the electric core mechanism comprises an electric control board (See, e.g., Lin: Fig.1-21, 203) and an electric core support (See, e.g., Lin: Fig.1-21); the electric core support is fixedly disposed on the plurality of installing positions for the electric core mechanism (See, e.g., Lin: Fig.1-21); an electric core disposed on the electric core support is connected with the electric control board (See, e.g., Lin: Fig.1-21) (Claim 3) and wherein at least one limiting hole and at least one fixing hole are defined on the electronic control board (See, e.g., Lin: Fig.1-21, 203); the electric control board is sleeved on the motor main shaft through the at least one limiting hole (See, e.g., Lin: Fig.1-21); the electric control board is fixed on the electric core support through the at least one fixing hole (See, e.g., Lin: Fig.1-21); the electric core is directly connected with the electric control board (See, e.g., Lin: Fig.1-21).
Lin teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle motor design to provide the motor with an electronic control board. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by the combination of Liu in view of Sim modified with the electronic control board such as taught by Lin, for the purpose of conveniently controlling the propelling the motor of the unicycle (See, e.g., Lin: Fig.1-21; P[0039]), as the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record when taken alone or in combination with another does not teach or fairly suggest at this time at least, among other limitations: wherein the unicycle comprises latches; the limiting protruding blocks are respectively clamped with a corresponding mating slot; and each of the latches is inserted between each limiting protruding block and a corresponding mating protruding block, as claimed in Claim 9 (emphasis added to allowable limitations not suggested or taught by the prior art).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613