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.
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.
Claim 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the freewheel direction", “the tooth engagement”, and “the locking direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakajima (US 2019/0217662).
In re claim 1, Nakajima discloses a freewheel (12) of a vehicle, comprising: a crankshaft (14); an output shaft (16) having a first gear cog (62); a freewheel element (74) having a second gear cog (52); and a friction element (30),
wherein the first gear cog and the second gear cog are configured to, when engaged with each other, effect a torque transfer between the output shaft and the freewheel element (see [0080]),
wherein the freewheel element is arranged to be displaceable in the axial direction on the crankshaft (as shown in Figures 5-6),
wherein the freewheel element is arranged to be non-rotatable relative to the crankshaft in the circumferential direction (as shown in Figures 5-6), and
wherein the freewheel element and the friction element are connected to each other by way of a helical mechanism (44) which is configured to effect a translational displacement of the freewheel element and the friction element relative to each other during relative rotation of the freewheel element and the friction element (as shown in Figures 7-9).
In re claim 2, Nakajima further discloses wherein the helical mechanism (44) includes a thread as shown in Figure 7.
In re claim 3, Nakajima further discloses wherein a predetermined friction closure (via assembly 37 holding internals in place) in the circumferential direction is formed between the output shaft and the friction element.
In re claim 4, Nakajima further discloses wherein the frictional closure between the output shaft and the friction element includes a frictional force (via clip 37a) in the circumferential direction.
In re claim 5, Nakajima further discloses wherein the friction force is generated by way of at least one screw and/or by way of a friction ring (37a).
In re claim 7, Nakajima further discloses a stop (34) configured to limit the translational displacement of the freewheel element relative to the friction element.
In re claim 8, Nakajima further discloses wherein the stop is formed on the friction element (as shown in Figure 5).
In re claim 9, Nakajima further discloses wherein the stop is designed such that, when the freewheel element adjoins the stop, the gear cogs are completely disengaged from one another (at least in Figure 5).
In re claim 10, Nakajima further discloses wherein the helical mechanism is designed such that the corresponding relative translational displacement during relative rotation in the freewheel direction disengages the tooth engagement of the gear cogs and, during relative rotation in the locking direction, engages the tooth engagement of the gear cogs (as shown in Figures 5-6).
In re claim 12, Nakajima further discloses wherein the freewheel element is attached to the crankshaft in an axially displaceable manner and in a non-rotatable manner in the circumferential direction by way of a radial gear cog (internal portion of member 74 that engages splines 44).
In re claim 14, Nakajima further discloses wherein: the output shaft is designed as a hollow shaft, and the crankshaft is rotatably mounted within the output shaft (as shown in Figure 2).
In re claim 15, Nakajima further discloses a vehicle (bicycle) comprising a freewheel according to claim 1.
In re claim 17, Nakajima further discloses wherein the vehicle is a two-wheeler (bicycle).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima.
In re claim 13, Nakajima further discloses wherein: the freewheel element is designed in one part, with a gear cog including the second gear cog and with a fixed ring (inner portion of 74) including a part of the helical mechanism (engaging splines 44), but does not disclose the freewheel element being in two parts, with the gear cog and the fixed ring connected to each other in a rotationally fixed manner. 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 freewheel element of Nakajima such that it was made of two parts, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view Walthert (US 10,995,806).
In re claim 18, Nakajima further discloses wherein the vehicle is a bicycle but not an electric bike. Walthert, however, does disclose a bicycle with a freewheel wherein the bicycle is an electric bike (column 1, line 23-26). 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 bike of Nakajima such that it comprised the electric drive of Walthert to advantageously provide the bicycle with auxiliary power.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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 the force closure between the output shaft and the friction element includes a magnetic force” 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 magnetic force closure between an output shaft and friction element.
Claim 11 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 the friction element30 is attached to the output shaft16 in an axially non-displaceable manner” 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 friction element that is axially non-displaceable with respect to the output shaft and that due to the biasing member (34) of Nakajima allowing them to be displaceable with respect to one another, it would not have been obvious to do so.
Claim 16 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 “further comprising: a drive unit connected to the output shaft, and a crank drive connected to the crankshaft” 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 freewheel as claimed with a drive unit connected to the output shaft and a crank drive connected to the crankshaft.
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 freewheels 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