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.
Claim 29 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.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "The electric bicycle" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests claiming “An electric bicycle”.
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 15-19, 21, 22, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mei (US 2019/0331203).
In re claim 15, Mei discloses a drive device comprising a motor unit comprising an electric motor (12, 13) configured to drive an electric bicycle (see abstract); a pedal crankshaft (20) rotatable about an axis of rotation; and a gearbox (15) coupled to the motor unit and to the pedal crankshaft and is configured to output a torque for driving the electric bicycle, wherein the pedal crankshaft is a two part element having a first part element (21) and a second part element (22) which are coupled to one another (via shaft connector 23 as shown in Figure 2).
In re claim 16, Mei further discloses wherein the gearbox is a planetary gear (see [0045]) with a sun gear and at least one planet gear and is arranged coaxially around the pedal crankshaft (as shown in Figures 1 and 2) with respect to the axis of rotation of the pedal crankshaft so that the planetary gear coaxially surrounds the pedal crankshaft (as shown in Figures 1 and 2).
In re claims 17 and 28, Mei further discloses wherein the motor unit is a ring motor (outer and inner rotors 12 and 13) and is arranged coaxially around the pedal crankshaft with respect to the axis of rotation thereof so that the ring motor coaxially surrounds the pedal crankshaft (as shown in Figures 1 and 2).
In re claim 18, Mei further discloses wherein the pedal crankshaft forms a bearing seat for the planetary gear and/or the ring motor (as shown in Figure 2).
In re claim 19, Mei further discloses wherein the pedal crankshaft is narrower in a middle section (at motor body output shaft 14) than in an end section with respect to the axis of rotation (as shown in Figure 2).
In re claim 21, Mei further discloses wherein the first part element and/or the second part element are sleeve-shaped at least in a coupling region and at least one part of the two part element extends into the other (as shown in Figures 1 and 2). The Examiner notes that in this case the first part element (21) is sleeved and the second part element (22) extends into the sleeved portion.
In re claim 22, Mei further discloses wherein the first part element and the second part element are coupled to one another by a coupling structure (shaft connector 23) that couples the two part element to one another in a form-fitting, force-fitting and/or material-fitting manner (as shown in Figure 2).
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei.
In re claim 20, Mei discloses the drive device according to claim 19, but does not specifically disclose wherein the pedal crankshaft has a diameter between 15 mm and 23 mm, inclusive, in the middle section and a diameter between 23 mm and 35 mm, inclusive, in the end section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a diameter between 15 mm and 23 mm in the middle section and a diameter between 23 mm and 35 mm in the end section, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei in view of Liu (US 9,227,695).
In re claim 23, Mei discloses the drive device according to claim 15, but does not disclose further comprising a speed sensor unit comprising a speed sensor and a speed disc, wherein the speed disc is rotatably coupled to the pedal crankshaft about the axis of rotation. Lui, however, does disclose a speed sensor unit (B) comprising a speed sensor (B2) and a speed disc (B1), wherein the speed disc is rotatably coupled to the pedal crankshaft (2) about the axis of rotation (as shown in Figure 4) to avoid damage (column 2, lines 1-3). 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 device of Mei such that it comprised the speed sensor mounted within the drive device of Liu to advantageously provide the user with the speed of the bike while preventing damage by being mounted within the drive device housing..
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaggiari (US 2016/0332696) in view of Mei.
In re claim 29, Spaggiari discloses an electric bicycle comprising: a bicycle frame (1, 101) with a lower frame portion extending to a bottom bracket bearing (as shown in Figure 1) comprising a pedal crank (6, 16, 106, 116); and a drive device coupled to the bicycle frame such that the pedal crankshaft (9, 109) is coupled to the pedal crank (as shown in Figures 1 and 5), but does not disclose the drive device according to claim 15, Mei, however, does disclose the drive device of claim 15 as discussed above to provide a better torque sensing system (see [0004]). 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 electric bike of Spaggiari such that it comprised the drive device of Mei to advantageously provide better torque sensing capabilities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-27 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 speed disc has a spiral-shaped or a helical contour with respect to the axis of rotation, and wherein the speed sensor is arranged as a function of the contour of the speed disc such that a radial or axial speed detection is set up with respect to the axis of rotation” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art discloses a speed sensing disc that comprises a gear shaped screen, not spiral shaped or helically contoured disc.
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/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611