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 § 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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Lu (CN 217554086).
Regarding claim 1, Lu discloses a foldable electric bicycle (Paragraphs 1 and 69) comprising:
a foldable body comprising a first frame 10, a second frame, and a latch 20 (Paragraphs 69, 82, and 83, Fig. 4; the folding mechanism will divide a bicycle into a first and second frame), the first frame being foldably connected to the second frame to make the first frame operably unfolded to a safe state or folded to a folded state relative to the second frame (Paragraph 6);
a first sensing object 30 disposed on the latch 20, the latch being disposed on the second frame (Figs. 4-5; the latch connects to the half of the hinge mechanism 20 which is on the second frame);
a motor 26 and a motor controller (Paragraph 53, Claim 9); and
a first sensor 31 disposed on the first frame 10 (Paragraph 84, Fig. 5);
wherein when the first sensor 31 cannot sense the first sensing object 30, the motor controller turns off the motor 26 (Paragraphs 77-78).
Regarding claim 2, Lu discloses the foldable electric bicycle further comprising:
a reminder device (the sounding device) coupled to the first sensor 31, for outputting a warning when the first sensor 31 cannot sense the first sensing object 30 (Paragraphs 78-79).
Regarding claim 5, Lu discloses a foldable electric bicycle (Paragraphs 1 and 69) comprising:
a foldable body comprising a first frame 10 and a second frame (Paragraphs 69, 82, and 83; the folding mechanism will divide a bicycle into a first and second frame), the first frame 10 being foldably connected to the second frame to make the first frame operably unfolded to a safe state or folded to a folded state relative to the second frame (Paragraph 6);
a sensing object 30 disposed on the second frame (Figs. 4-5; the latch connects to the half of the hinge mechanism 20 which is on the second frame);
a motor 26 and a motor controller (Paragraph 53, Claim 9); and a sensor 31 disposed on the first frame 10 (Paragraph 84, Fig. 5);
wherein when the sensor 31 cannot sense the sensing object 30, the motor controller turns off the motor 26 (Paragraphs 77-78).
Regarding claim 6, Lu discloses the foldable electric bicycle further comprising:
a reminder device (the sounding device) coupled to the sensor 31, for outputting a warning when the sensor 31 cannot sense the sensing object 30 (Paragraphs 78-79).
Regarding claim 7, Lu discloses wherein the sensing object 30 is a magnet, and the sensor 31 is a Hall sensor (Paragraphs 83-84).
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Chun (US 9238498).
Regarding claim 3, Lu does not teach a second sensing object.
However, Chun teaches a folding bicycle (Abstract, Fig. 3 of Chun) wherein the foldable body further comprises a second sensing object 106a, the foldable electric bicycle further comprises a second sensor 106 (Col. 7, lines 3-7 of Chun), and the motor controller 108 turns off the motor 10 when the first sensor 104 cannot sense the first sensing object 104a or the second sensor 106 cannot sense the second sensing object 106a (Col. 6, lines 53-62, Col. 7, lines 33-40 of Chun).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the second sensing object and sensor of Chun to the folding frame of Lu in order to advantageously detect a folded state of the bicycle so as to deactivate the motor (Col. 7, lines 33-40 of Chun).
Lu as modified teaches the claimed invention except for “the second sensing object is disposed on the second frame, the second sensor is disposed on the first frame for sensing the second sensing object when the first frame is unfolded to the safe state relative to the second frame”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the second sensor on the first frame and the second sensing object on the second frame, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Lu teaches wherein the first sensing object 30 is a magnet, and the first sensor is a hall sensor (Paragraphs 83-84). Chun teaches wherein a second sensor and second sensing object can be used to detect a folded state of the bicycle (Col. 7, lines 33-40 of Chun).
Regarding the limitation of “wherein the first sensing object and the second sensing object are magnets, and the first sensor and the second sensor are Hall sensors.”, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the second sensing object and sensor be of the same types as the first sensing object and sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11850969 teaches a foldable motorized bicycle.
US 20160031525 teaches a folding electric bicycle.
JP 2004322986 teaches a folding electromotive bicycle frame.
DE 102021200025 teaches a folding electric bicycle which uses a hall sensor to detect a folded state.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 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, 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617