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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 51 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/19/26. Claims 28-54 remain pending in the application with claim 51 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 36 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 36: “this rotary bearing” should be and is interpreted as “[[this]]the rotary bearing”.
Regarding claim 40“which in particular illuminates the inner housing” should be and is interpreted as “which
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 31, 46, 50, 52, and 53 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 31, the phrase “the transmission ratio” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 46, the phrase “the rest of the frame” renders the claim indefinite because “the rest” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 46, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 50, the phrases: a first support unit, an input traction means, a second support unit, an output traction means, a common transmission axis all lack clear antecedent basis in light of claim 28 which claim 50 depends from. Further, interchangeable use in claim 50 of both “a modular traction mechanism unit” and “a traction mechanism unit”, e.g., “a) pretensioning the input traction means and the output traction means in the traction mechanism unit” vs. “b) installing the modular traction mechanism unit on the vehicle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the two units differ.
Regarding claim 52, the phrases a traction mechanism unit, a frame, an input traction means pulley an output traction means pulley all lack clear antecedent basis in light of claim 28 which claim 52 depends from.
Regarding claim 53, the phrases a traction mechanism unit, a single- or multi-track vehicle, a front wheel and at least one rear wheel, a frame, a front wheel axis, a rear wheel axis, a first support unit, an input traction means, a second support unit, an output traction means all lack clear antecedent basis in light of claim 28 which claim 53 depends from. Further, “the traction means gear unit” and “the aid” lack antecedent basis. Further, how is the rotation axis of the front wheel different from the front wheel axis?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-30, 32-45, 47-49, and 54 allowed.
Claims 31, 46, 50, 52, and 53 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.
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§102/103 is not made because the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art of record. Every element of the claims is not taught by any of the references individually and the prior art of record fails to permissibly teach the overall combination as claimed. Even if one could construe the prior art of record such that the combination disclosed each and every limitation of the claims, the ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references in reference to themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The closest prior art of record US 2019/0031278 A1 to Lauer generally discloses a multi chain drivetrain system for a bicycle including many of the limitations of independent claims 28 and 54. However, Lauer at a minimum does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first support unit and the second support unit are rotatably mounted on the frame.” Further, Lauer does not appear to further disclose “wherein a second support unit supporting the output-side traction means pulley and the output traction means pulley is provided for absorbing tensioning forces of the output traction means independently of the frame; wherein the frame absorbs wheel contact forces occurring during operation of the vehicle bypassing the first support unit and the second support unit.”
US 2016/0052591 A1 to Michael generally discloses an alternative bicycle with multiple chains enclosed in respective housings. However, Michael does not make up for all of the deficiencies of Lauer because at a minimum Michael does not disclose, “wherein a second support unit supporting the output-side traction means pulley and the output traction means pulley is provided for absorbing tensioning forces of the output traction means independently of the frame; wherein the frame absorbs wheel contact forces occurring during operation of the vehicle bypassing the first support unit and the second support unit.”
Even if each and every element of the present invention were taught individually by the aforementioned references, combining the references as an ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references present in the aforementioned references themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For at least these reasons, a rejection of the claims under 35 USC §§102/103 is not made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights