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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1,2, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada (US 20200223255 A1) in view of Goldman (US 20240409179 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kamada discloses a bicycle wheel hub (hub assembly 12, figs.1-23) comprising: a driver (member 42, figs.4-8) rotatable about an axis (axis A1, figs.4-8) at a first rotational speed (fig.7-11), the driver comprising a mating feature (sprocket engaging structure 46 with teeth 46A, figs.4-5) configured to engage a cassette (sprockets 14, fig.4-5); a shell comprising a wheel attachment feature (hub assembly 12 has member 44 which attaches to wheel W2, figs.1-8), wherein the shell is rotatable about the axis at a second rotational speed (member 44 rotates about axis A1 at a different speed than the member 42, figs.7-11); and a gear train (gear train as seen in figures 7-11) coupled between the driver and the shell, wherein the gear ratio is greater than 1:1 such that the second rotational speed is less than the first rotational speed (ratios, paragraph [0095-0096]). Kamada fails to disclose a non-adjustable gear train as a single fixed gear ratio.
However, Goldman discloses a non-adjustable gear train as a single fixed gear ratio (sun gear 101, planet gears 102, planet carrier 122, ring gear 105, figs.3-3B).
Kamada and Goldman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of bicycles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamada with the non-adjustable gear train of Goldman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of simplifying the hub assembly making it cheaper and easier to manufacture and work on.
Regarding claim 2, Kamada in combination with Goldman, Kamada discloses comprising a non-rotatable axle (hub axle 40, fig.4) defining the axis, wherein the shell and the driver are rotatably supported by the axle (members 42 and 44 are rotatable about axle 40).
Regarding claim 10, Kamada in combination with Goldman, Kamada discloses wherein the gear ratio is between 2:1 and 3:1 (ratios, paragraphs [0095-0096]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada (US 20200223255 A1) in view of Goldman (US 20240409179 A1), and in further view of Nakajima (US 20240253393 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kamada in combination with Goldman discloses the bicycle wheel hub of claim 2 but fails to disclose a torque arm.
However, Nakajima discloses comprising a torque arm (lever 36b, fiog.1) non-rotatably engaged with the axle (spindle 36a, fig.2), wherein the torque arm comprises a frame engaging feature configured to engage the frame to restrict rotation of the axle (lever 36 engages frame of bike to mount spindle 26a, figs.1-2).
Kamada and Nakajima are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of bicycles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamada with the lever of Nakajima with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of being able to more easily and quickly attach and remove a rear wheel assembly.
Claim(s) 11-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada (US 20200223255 A1) in view of Cooke (EP 1630092 A2).
Regarding claim 11, Kamada discloses a bicycle drive train (drive train 10, figs.1-2) comprising: a drive unit (drive unit 26 and crank assembly 16, figs.1-3) comprising: a user input component (crank 18, figs.1-2) rotatable about a first axis (crank axle 18A, fig.2); a chain ring (sprocket 20, figs.1-2) rotatable about a second axis (axis A4, fig.2); a bicycle wheel hub (hub assembly 12, figs.1-23) comprising: a driver (member 42, figs.4-8) rotatable about a third axis (axis A1, figs.4-8) at a third rotational speed (figs.7-11); a gear (sprockets 14, fig.4-5) coupled to and rotatable with the driver about the third axis at the third rotational speed; a shell comprising a wheel attachment feature (hub assembly 12 has member 44 which attaches to wheel W2, figs.1-8), wherein the shell is rotatable about the third axis at a fourth rotational speed (member 44 rotates about axis A1 at a different speed than the member 42, figs.7-11); and a second gear train (gear train between members 42 and 44 as seen in figures 7-13) coupled between the driver and the shell, wherein the second gear train defines a second gear ratio (ratios, figs.4-13) between the driver and the shell, wherein the second gear ratio is greater than 1:1 such that the fourth rotational speed is less than the third rotational speed (paragraph [0095-0096]); and a closed loop component connecting the chain ring and the gear (chain 22, figs.1-2).
Cooke discloses a first gear train (transmission 10 with input device 11 having crank assembly 28 and gears as seen in figures 1-8) coupled between the user input component and the chain ring (figs.1-8), wherein the first gear train defines a first gear ratio between the user input component and the chain ring, wherein the first gear ratio is less than 1:1 such that the second rotational speed is greater than the first rotational speed (gear ratio is adjustable based on the plurality of gears and can be less than 1:1, figs.1-8).
Kamada and Cooke are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of bicycles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamada] with the transmission of Cooke with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing for better adaptability of the bike to different terrains and broader range of gear ratios for better control over speed and power output.
Regarding claim 12, Kamada in combination with Cooke discloses wherein the first gear ratio is an inverse of the second gear ratio (Kamada, gear ratio, paragraph [0095-0096]; Cooke, gear ratio is adjustable based on the plurality of gears and can be less than 1:1, figs.1-8).
Regarding claim 13, Kamada in combination with Cooke discloses wherein the first axis and the second axis are coaxial (Kamada, axis A4 is coaxial with axle 18A, fig.2; Cooke, output cog 16 is coaxial with axle of the crank assembly 28, figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Kamada in combination with Cooke, Kamada discloses wherein the user input component comprises a crank (crank 18, fig.2) connected to a spindle defining the first axis (crank axle 18A, fig.2).
Regarding claim 15, Kamada in combination with Cooke, Kamada discloses wherein the second gear train comprises an epicyclic gear train (sun gear 68, planetary gears 70, and ring gear 66, figs.7-13).
Regarding claim 17, Kamada in combination with Cooke discloses further comprising an output shaft coupled to the chain ring (Kamada, sprocket 20 is on a shaft, figs.1-3, Cooke, output shaft 18 with gear 21, fig.1), wherein the first gear train is coupled between the user input component and the output shaft (Cooke, gear train is coupled between the input 11 and output shaft 18, fig.1).
Regarding claim 18, Kamada in combination with Cooke, Kamada discloses further comprising a motor (drive unit 26, figs.2-3) coupled to the output shaft (drive unit 26 is couple to output shaft, figs.2-3).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada (US 20200223255 A1) in view of Cooke (EP 1630092 A2), and in further view of Jordan (US 20090260476 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kamada in combination with Cooke disclose the bicycle drive train of claim 15, but fails to disclose the first gear train is an epicyclic gear train.
However, Jordan discloses wherein the first gear train comprises an epicyclic gear train (planetary gear mechanism 22, figs.1-5, paragraph [0017]).
Cooke and Jordan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of bicycles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cooke with the epicyclic gear train of Jordan with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been a simple substitution of one known gear train for another obtaining predictable results of the epicycle gear train being more compact and light weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 19-20 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.
Claim 4 depends upon claim 2 which is rejected, but claim 4 has the limitation of “wherein the gear train comprises a sun gear, a ring gear surrounding the sun gear and a plurality of planet gears disposed between and meshing with the sun gear and the ring gear, wherein the plurality of planet gears are rotatably mounted on a planet carrier, wherein one of the ring gear, the planet carrier or the sun gear is non-rotatably fixed to the axle, wherein one of the planet carrier, the planet carrier or the ring gear is coupled to and rotatable with the shell, and wherein one of the sun gear, the planet carrier or the ring gear is engageable with and rotatable by the driver in at least one rotational direction”. Kamada discloses a sun gear (sun gear 68, fig.11), a ring gear (ring gear 66, fig.11), a plurality of planet gears (planetary gears 70, fig.11), a planet carrier (planetary gears 70 are mounted on carrier 72, figs.11-12). Kamada and Goldman fail to disclose one of the gears being non-rotatably fixed to the axle, both disclose the sun gears being rotatable about the axle. Modifying the sun gear to be fixed to the axle would be destructive to the operation of the planetary gear systems of Kamada or Goldman. For the reasons above claim 4 has allowable subject matter.
Claims 5-9 depend upon claim 4 giving them the same allowable subject matter as discussed above.
Claim 19 depends upon claim 18 which is rejected, but claim 19 has the limitation of “further comprising a third gear train coupled between the motor and the output shaft”. Kamada taught the general bicycle and 2nd gear train structure and motor, and the teaching reference of Cooke taught the 1st gear train structure. Modifying the gear train structure to include another gear train between the motor and the output shaft would be hindsight reconstruction and would require serious modification. The prior art either alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 19. For the reasons above claim 19 has allowable subject matter.
Claim 20 depends upon claim 19 giving it the same allowable subject matter as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (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 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613