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 § 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.
Claims 8-9, 12, and 15-20 are 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 8, the phrase "particularly" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not distinctly claimed (those encompassed by "particularly"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 9 rejected for being dependent from rejected claim 8.
Regarding claim 8, the term "preferably" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not distinctly claimed (those encompassed by "preferably"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Claim 9 rejected for being dependent from rejected claim 8.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the attack point" and “the change traction force”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitations "the right-hand upper bottom bracket quadrant" and “the vertex of the angle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16-18 recite the limitation "the rear frame interface arrangement". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 19-20 are rejected for being dependent from rejected claim 18.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation " the degrees of freedom". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 19-20 are rejected for being dependent from rejected claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-8, 11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Senoo (US 2022/0033032).
In re claim 1, Senoo discloses an electric bicycle drive unit (30) for arrangement in a bottom bracket area (18S) of a bicycle frame (18), the drive unit comprising:
a bottom bracket assembly (60) with a bottom bracket shaft (44),
an electric motor (36) device with a motor shaft (46) which is arranged coaxially or axially parallel with respect to the bottom bracket shaft,
an energy storage device (80) for supplying energy to the motor device,
wherein the energy storage device, in a state of the drive unit installed in the bicycle frame and ready for operation, can be arranged at least to a substantial extent in a down tube (18A) of the bicycle frame, the down tube having a closed tube cross section (as shown in Figure 2), and
wherein the energy storage device is configured to be removable from the bicycle frame in a removal direction extending coaxially with respect to a longitudinal axis of the down tube (via opening 22 and as shown by directional arrows in Figure 2),
wherein, in the state of the drive unit in which it is installed into the bicycle frame ready for operation, the energy storage device is fastened directly to a housing of the motor device (battery holder is fastened directly to the housing of drive unit 30 as shown in Figure 5) or in a common housing (18S) of the motor device and the energy storage device.
In re claim 2, Senoo further discloses wherein in a state of the drive unit in which it is installed into the bicycle frame ready for operation, the energy storage device is directly fastened exclusively to a housing (battery holder 50 directly connected to drive unit) of the motor device or in a common housing of the motor device and the energy storage device.
In re claim 3, Senoo further discloses wherein the drive unit is configured for at least partial enclosure of the energy storage device by a housing of the motor device or by a common housing (18S) of the motor device and the energy storage device (as shown in Figure 3).
In re claim 4, Senoo further discloses wherein in a state of the drive unit in which it is installed into the bicycle frame ready for operation, the drive unit and the energy storage device are configured for arranging the energy storage device to a substantial part outside a lower tube of the bicycle frame (as shown in Figure 2 since part of the battery is exposed below lower tube opening 22).
In re claim 5, Senoo further discloses wherein the energy storage device (82A) is situated at least partially below the rotatory axis of the bottom bracket shaft (44) in a position which corresponds to the mounted state of the drive unit on the bicycle frame (as shown in Figure 4).
In re claim 6, Senoo further discloses wherein a mass center of gravity of the drive unit lies within the bottom bracket area. The Examiner notes that since the entire drive unit lies within the broad term of a “bottom bracket area”, that the mass center of gravity also lies in this “area”.
In re claim 7, Senoo further discloses wherein the mass center of gravity of the drive unit is situated, in a bicycle side view and in a position of the drive unit which corresponds to the mounted state of the drive unit on the bicycle frame, within a circumcircle with the radius 175 mm around the rotatory axis of the bottom bracket shaft. The Examiner notes that 175mm is roughly 6.89 inches and that the center of the mass center of the drive unit (30) is clearly within 6.89 inches of shaft (44) when comparing the size of the drive unit to that of the bicycle as viewed in Figure 1.
In re claim 8, Senoo further discloses wherein in the state of the drive unit in which it is installed into the bicycle frame ready for operation, the mass center of gravity of the drive unit is situated, in a side view from the right and in relation to the rotatory axis of the bottom bracket shaft, within a bottom bracket quadrant lying at the top right with the side length 175 mm (as shown in Figure 2), preferably within a bottom bracket quadrant with the side length 125 mm, particularly preferably within a bottom bracket quadrant with the side length 100 mm. The Examiner notes that the limitations following “preferably” are not required by the claim and that the center of gravity of the drive unit is just forward and above the bottom bracket shaft and therefore in the forward quadrant as claimed.
In re claim 11, Senoo further discloses wherein two frame interface arrangements define a rear fixation axis (upper rear attachment hole 24A) and a front support axis arrangement with a front fixation axis (front attachment hole 24A) (as shown in Figure 2).
In re claim 16, Senoo further discloses wherein a support width, as a distance between a left-hand-side and a right-hand-side interface plane of the rear frame interface arrangement, is selected in such a way that a support factor which is formed as a quotient from the support width and the length of the bottom bracket shaft (44) is greater than 0.5 (as shown in Figure 4 since over half of the length of shaft 44 is supported/covered by drive unit).
In re claim 17, Senoo further discloses wherein a support width, as distance between a left-hand-side and a right-hand-side interface plane of the rear frame interface arrangement, is selected in such a way that a chain pull factor which is formed as a quotient from the support width and a chain pull horizontal distance is greater than 5 (as shown below in annotated Figure 4 since the support width is greater than 5 times the chain pull horizontal distance).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner-annotated Figure 4
In re claim 18, Senoo further discloses wherein the drive unit is configured to fix all the degrees of freedom of movement of the drive unit with respect to the bicycle frame (via attachment bolts) or with respect to a frame interface unit via the rear frame interface arrangement, apart from a rotary freedom of movement about a rotatory axis which is parallel to the rotatory axis of the bottom bracket shaft. The Examiner notes that the mounting bolts rigidly attach the drive unit to the frame and therefore fix all degrees of freedom of movement of the drive unit.
In re claim 19, Senoo further discloses wherein the drive unit is configured to fix all the rotary freedom of movement with respect to the bicycle frame or with respect to a frame interface unit by way of the front frame interface arrangement by a frictional connection (via attachment bolt threads).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoo.
In re claim 9, Senoo further discloses wherein the mass center of gravity of the drive unit is situated, in relation to the rotatory axis of the bottom bracket shaft (as shown in Figure 5), but does not specifically disclose at a height of 50 mm above the rotatory axis of the bottom bracket shaft. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive unit of Senoo such that it comprised a mass center at a height of 50mm above the rotatory axis of the bottom bracket shaft, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoo in view of Braedt (US 2022/0332389).
In re claim 10, Senoo discloses the electric bicycle drive unit according to Claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a drive shield fastened exclusively to the housing of the motor device or to the common housing of the drive unit, the drive shield at the same time forming a movable latch hatch for covering and/or securing the energy storage device. Braedt, however, does disclose a bicycle with a motor drive having a drive shield (SD) fastened exclusively to the housing (HM) of the motor device or to the common housing of the drive unit, the drive shield at the same time forming a movable latch hatch for covering and/or securing the energy storage device (as shown in Figures 18, 19, and 22) to protect the battery and drive unit (see [00186]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle of Senoo such that it comprised the drive shield of Braedt to advantageously protect the drive unit and battery.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoo in view of Talavasek (US 11,345,437).
In re claim 12, Senoo further discloses wherein in the state of the drive unit in which it is installed into the bicycle frame ready for operation, the rear fixation axis (upper rear attachment hole 24A) is arranged in a vertical region above a horizontal plane which contains a rotatory axis of the bottom bracket shaft (as shown in Figure 2), but does not disclose being below a horizontal plane which contains the attack point of the change traction force. Talavasek, however, does disclose wherein the rear fixation axis is below a horizontal plane which contains the attack point of the change traction force of the sprocket (as shown below in annotated Figures 1 and 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle of Senoo such that it comprised the sprocket size of Talavasek to provide the necessary pedal power. The Examiner notes that the sprocket would inherently cover the upper rear attachment hole of Senoo.
PNG
media_image2.png
196
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner-annotated Figure 6
PNG
media_image3.png
454
379
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner-annotated Figure 1
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein in the state of the drive unit in which it is installed into the bicycle frame ready for operation, the two fixation axes are arranged in front of a vertical plane which contains a rotatory axis of the bottom bracket shaft” and “wherein the two fixation axes are arranged in front of an inclined plane which contains the rotatory axis of the bottom bracket shaft, the inclined plane being tilted forwards by an angle of 50° relative to a horizontal plane” are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose wherein the two fixation axes are located forward of the bottom bracket shaft because the prior art does not have space for such fixation points in combination with a battery that is inserted into the down tube.
Claim 15 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the two fixation axes are arranged within an angle from 30° to 80° localized in the right-hand upper bottom bracket quadrant, the vertex of the angle coinciding with the rotatory axis of the bottom bracket shaft” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose wherein the two fixation axes are located forward of the bottom bracket shaft because the prior art does not have space for such fixation points in combination with a battery that is inserted into the down tube.
Claim 20 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the rear frame interface arrangement has a frame offset adapter for compensating for width tolerances of the bicycle frame and/or the frame interface unit, the frame of said adapter comprising a radial clamping device which can be received in an axially displaceable manner in a receiving opening of the drive housing for radial fixing with regard to the rear fixation axis of the rear frame interface arrangement relative to the bicycle frame or relative to the frame interface unit and for axial tolerance compensation, which can be adjusted in an infinitely variable manner without play, between the rear frame interface arrangement and the bicycle frame or the frame interface unit” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a frame offset adapter that functions in the manner as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach motor powered bicycle batteries of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611