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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weagle (US 2022/0297790).
In re claim 15, Weagle discloses a drive unit for a human-powered vehicle, the drive unit comprising: a speed increaser (200, 205, 210; overdrive; see [0134]) configured to receive a human driving force (via crank arms 562), the speed increaser including a speed increaser rotation input unit (205) configured to receive the human driving force and a speed increaser rotation output unit (300) configured to output the human driving force; the speed increaser rotation input unit having a speed increaser input rotational axis (220); the speed increaser rotation output unit having a speed increaser output rotational axis (325) aligned coaxially with the speed increaser input rotational axis (as shown in Figure 4B), but does not specifically disclose the speed increaser having a speed-increasing ratio of 3 or greater and 20 or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a speed-increasing ratio of 3 or greater and 20 or less, 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.
Claims 7, 8, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weagle in view of Hinschlager (US 5,312,303).
In re claim 7, Weagle discloses a drive unit for a human-powered vehicle, the drive unit comprising: a speed increaser (200, 205, 210; overdrive; see [0134]) configured to receive a human driving force (via crank arms 562); and a transmission device (315) including a plurality of transmission stages (via derailleur 320 changing gears) and configured to receive the human driving force via the speed increaser (via chain 310), but does not disclose the speed increaser having a speed-increasing ratio of 3 or greater and 11 or less, and the speed increaser and the transmission device being disposed within a housing.
Hinschlager, however, does disclose wherein the drive sprocket (16), rear sprocket, and chain (14) are protected by a housing (10) to fully enclose the drivetrain to provide increased protection for a person using the bicycle (column 5, lines 14-18). 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 speed increaser and transmission of Weagle such that it comprised the housing of Hinschlager to advantageously provide increased protection for a person using the bicycle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a speed-increasing ratio of 3 or greater and 11 or less, 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.
In re claim 8, Weagle further discloses wherein the speed increaser includes at least one of a gear, a pulley, and an endless annular member (210).
In re claim 16, Weagle and Hinschlager disclose the drive unit according to claim 7, but do not disclose wherein the speed-increasing ratio is 5 or greater and 18 or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a speed-increasing ratio of 5 or greater and 18 or less, 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.
In re claim 17, Weagle and Hinschlager disclose the drive unit according to claim 16, but do not disclose wherein the speed-increasing ratio is 7 or greater and 16 or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a speed-increasing ratio of 7 or greater and 16 or less, 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.
In re claim 18, Weagle and Hinschlager disclose the drive unit according to claim 17, but do not disclose wherein the speed-increasing ratio is 9 or greater and 14 or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a speed-increasing ratio of 9 or greater and 14 or less, 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.
In re claim 20, Weagle further discloses further comprising a crank axle (spindle connecting crankarms) of the human-powered vehicle.
In re claim 19, Weagle discloses a drive unit for a human-powered vehicle, the drive unit comprising; and a speed increaser (200, 205, 210; overdrive; see [0134]), the speed increaser being configured to receive a human driving force (via crank arms 562), but does not disclose the speed increaser being housed in a housing and the speed increaser having a speed-increasing ratio of 6 or greater and 20 or less.
Hinschlager, however, does disclose wherein the drive sprocket (16) and chain (14) are protected by a housing (10) to fully enclose the drivetrain to provide increased protection for a person using the bicycle (column 5, lines 14-18). 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 speed increaser of Weagle such that it comprised the housing of Hinschlager to advantageously provide increased protection for a person using the bicycle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a speed-increasing ratio of 6 or greater and 20 or less, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “the drive unit comprising: a speed increaser configured to receive a human driving force; a transmission device including a plurality of transmission stages and configured to receive the human driving force via the speed increaser; and a speed reducer configured to receive the human driving force via the transmission device and at least the speed increaser and the transmission device being disposed within a housing” 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 a drive unit housing provided on a wheel axle that contains both a speed increaser and a plurality of transmission stages.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 7-8 and 15-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Weagle and Hinschlager.
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 bicycle drives 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, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights