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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 10, 2026, regarding the claim and drawing objections (page 1, Sections II. and III.) and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections (page 2, Section IV.) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections (page 2-10) have been fully considered as noted below, and the related rejections withdrawn or maintained as appropriate:
Regarding the applicant’s argument (Page 3, Num. 2.) that Adachi does not anticipate the claimed invention because the disclosed frame interface (Bracket 2) is not L-shaped, the arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as being used in the current rejection.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (Page 5, Num. 3.) that Adachi does not anticipate the claimed invention because the disclosed holding element (First Divided Body 41) is not fastened to the disclosed lateral wall (Upper Piece 21), the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that, as pointed out by the applicant, the disclosed holding element (First Divided Body 41) is fastened to Bolt Holes 221 of First Side Piece 22. First Side Piece 22 being connected to, and further formed as a single piece with the disclosed lateral wall (Upper Piece 21), the examiner considers that the disclosed holding element (First Divided Body 41) is fastened to the disclosed lateral wall (Upper Piece 21), albeit via at least First Side Piece 22.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (Page 6, Num. 4.) that Adachi does not anticipate the claimed invention because the disclosed holding element (First Divided Body 41) is not fastened to the disclosed drive unit (Motor Unit 3) by a floating bearing, the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that the term “floating bearing”, in addition to the meaning asserted by the applicant of “an assembly which provides stress by tension or pressure”, is a term known in the art to refer to a bearing arrangement that allows a shaft to move in an axial direction (see Sec. “Floating bearing arrangements”, pages 7-9 of SKF article, presently attached as NPL), and further points to Fig. 7 Annotated where it is illustrated that Shaft Support Bearing 551 is arranged with a gap “GP” such that Shaft 51 is allowed to move axially- i.e. float. The examiner further notes that Electric Motor 5 is understood to be fastened to Divided Body 41 via Shaft Support Bearing 551 in that it supports them from moving relative to each other in at least one direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
932
992
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the applicant’s argument (Page 9, para. 1: “Moreover…”) that Adachi does not teach an elastically deformable holding element (First Divided Body 41) because it is made of metal the examiner has not established that all metals are elastically deformable, the examiner notes that it is known in the art that all metals exhibit at least some amount of elasticity (see excerpt of Hillyard, Metallurgy- Elasticity, presently attached as NPL). Regarding the argument that it would not be obvious to modify ADACHI such that the first divided body 41 was plate-shaped/ stepped sheet metal the arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as being used in the current rejection.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (Page 9, para. 2: “With respect to…”) that Adachi does not teach the claimed invention because it does not teach an elastomeric element arranged as required by claim 8 the examiner agrees and therefore the related rejection has been withdrawn. See also “Allowable Subject Matter” below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADACHI (WO-2019177001-A1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 1, ADACHI teaches a drive assembly of a vehicle which is operated using at least one of muscle power and a motor (Motor 5, Fig. 7), comprising:
a drive unit (Motor Unit 3, Fig. 2) with a bottom bracket axle (Input Shaft 6, Fig. 7) at least partially within the drive unit (Input Shaft 6 being disposed within Motor Unit 3, Fig. 7), the drive unit (3) including a housing (Case 4, understood to comprise First 41 and Second 42 Divided Bodies and Motor Cup 57, Figs. 7 and 11A-11C) and at least one of the motor (5) and a transmission (Speed Reduction Mechanism 31, Fig. 7) within the housing (Motor 5 and Speed Reduction Mechanism 31 being disposed within Case 4, Fig. 7),
a frame interface (Bracket 2, Fig. 2), and
at least one holding element (First Divided Body 41, Fig. 7),
wherein the frame interface (2) has a base (Second Side Piece 23, Fig. 4) and a lateral wall (Upper Piece 21, Fig. 4),
wherein the drive unit (3) is fastened to the base (23) of the frame interface (2) via a fixed bearing assembly (Second Attachment Piece 402, Fig. 6), and
wherein the at least one holding element (41) is fastened to the lateral wall (21) of the frame interface (2) and to the drive unit (3) via a respective floating bearing assembly (First Divided Body 41 being fastened to Bracket 2 via First Attachment Piece 401 and Buffer Member 38; Fig. 6 and to Electric Motor 5 via Shaft Support Bearing 551, Fig. 7) in each case.
ADACHI does not teach that the frame interface is L-shaped.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the frame interface of ADACHI’s drive assembly L-shaped, since it has been held that changes in shape of an invention involve only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 2, ADACHI further teaches that the base (23) of the frame interface (2) is arranged on an output side (top, Fig. 6; right, Fig. 7) of the drive unit (5 and 31) and is substantially orthogonal to the bottom bracket axle (Rotary Shaft Unit 30, Fig. 7) of the drive unit (3), and the lateral wall (21) is arranged substantially perpendicular to the base (Second Side Piece 23 and Upper Piece 21 being perpendicular to each other, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, ADACHI further teaches that the fixed bearing assembly (402) is formed in that the base (23) is fastened to at least one threaded bolt (Fastening Member 14, Fig. 6) of the housing (Second Side Piece 23 being fastened by Fastening Member 14 to Second Attachment Piece 402 of First Divided Body 41, Figs. 4-7) of the drive unit (3).
Regarding Claim 7, ADACHI further teaches that the at least one holding element (41) is a lid abutting an end face (First Side Piece 22, Fig. 12) of the lateral wall (21) of the frame interface (2).
Regarding Claim 9, ADACHI further teaches that the drive assembly (3) is configured such that, in a fully screwed state (Figs. 6 and 7), at least one holding region (Second Attachment Piece 402, Fig. 6) of the drive unit (3) between the at least one holding element (41) and the base (23) of the frame interface (2) is stressed by tension or pressure (Second Attachment Piece 402, Fig. 6 being secured by Fastening Member 14 in a manner that is understood to apply tension or pressure to it).
Regarding Claim 11, ADACHI further teaches that:
the lateral wall (21) has a recess (a Recess “RCS” being formed between Covering Piece 24 and an adjacent Wall “WL”, Fig. 4B Annotated),
the recess (RCS) extends over at least 20% of a circumference of the lateral wall (21), and
the recess (RCS) extends over a maximum of 80% of the circumference of the lateral wall (Recess RCS extending approximately 25% of the circumference of Upper Piece 21, Fig. 4B Annotated).
PNG
media_image2.png
516
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, ADACHI teaches a vehicle (Electric Bicycle 1, Fig. 1) which is operated using at least one of the muscle power and the motor (Pedal 181 and Motor Unit 3, Fig. 1), comprising a drive assembly (Motor Unit 3) according to claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 13, ADACHI further teaches a chassis (Frame 10, Fig. 1), wherein:
the frame interface (2) is an integral component of the chassis (as illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3), and
the frame interface (2) is connected to at least one of a lower tube (Lower Tube 103, Fig. 3), a seat tube (Vertical Pipe 104, Fig. 3) and chain struts (Chain Stay 106, Fig. 3) of the chassis (10).
Alternately and in addition, if an argument may be made that ADACHI does not teach that the frame interface (2) is an integral component of the chassis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the separate frame interface and chassis of ADACHI’s vehicle integral, since it has been held that making separate parts of an invention integral involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 and MPEP 2144.04(V)(B). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 14, ADACHI further teaches that the base (23) of the frame interface (2) is arranged on a chainring side (a chainring/ sprocket being illustrated on the top side of Bracket 2 in Fig. 6, adjacent to Second Side Piece 23) of the drive unit.
Regarding Claim 16, ADACHI teaches a method for producing a drive assembly of a vehicle (a method of producing the Motor Unit 3 of Fig. 2 being implicitly taught), comprising:
arranging a drive unit (Motor Unit 3, Fig. 2) at least partially in a receiving space (the cavity formed by First and Second Side Pieces 22 and 23, Fig. 4) of an L-shaped frame interface (Bracket 2, Fig. 2) such that the drive unit (3) abuts a base (Second Side Piece 23, Fig. 4) of the frame interface (2),
providing a holding element (First Divided Body 41, Fig. 7), and
screwing the holding element (41) to a lateral wall (Upper Piece 21, Fig. 4) of the frame interface (2) and to the drive unit (First Divided Body 41 being attached to Upper Piece 21, Fig. 7),
wherein the holding element (41) is screwed to the drive unit (3) and the lateral wall such that, in a fully screwed state, at least one holding region (Second Attachment Piece 402, Fig. 6) of the drive unit (3) between the holding element (41) and the base (23) of the frame interface (2) is stressed by tension or pressure (Second Attachment Piece 402, Fig. 6 being secured by Fastening Member 14 in a manner that is understood to apply tension or pressure to it),
wherein a bottom bracket axle (Input Shaft 6, Fig. 7) is at least partially within the drive unit (Input Shaft 6 being disposed within Motor Unit 3, Fig. 7), and
wherein the drive unit (3) includes a housing (Case 4, Fig. 7) and at least one of the motor (5) and a transmission (Speed Reduction Mechanism 31, Fig. 7) within the housing (Motor 5 and Speed Reduction Mechanism 31 being disposed within Case 4, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 18, ADACHI further teaches that the fixed bearing assembly (402) is formed in that the base (23) is fastened to a threaded screw (Fastening Member 14, Fig. 6) of the housing (Second Side Piece 23 being fastened by Fastening Member 14 to Second Attachment Piece 402 of First Divided Body 41, Figs. 4-7) of the drive unit (3).
Regarding Claim 19, ADACHI further teaches that the fixed bearing assembly (402) is formed in that the base (23) is fastened to a threaded sleeve (Bolt Hole 404, Fig. 6) of the housing (Second Side Piece 23 being fastened by Fastening Member 14 to Second Attachment Piece 402 of First Divided Body 41 and Bolt Hole 404 of Second Divided Body 42, Figs. 4-7) of the drive unit (3).
Regarding Claim 20, ADACHI further teaches that the vehicle (1) is an electric bicycle (Electric Bicycle 1, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 21, ADACHI further teaches that:
the drive unit (3) is at least partially arranged within a receiving space (a receiving space being formed between First and Second Side Walls 22 and 23 of Bracket 2 as illustrated in Fig. 4B) of the frame interface (2) defined by a bottom (Second Side Piece 23, Fig. 4) and a side wall (Upper Piece 21, Fig. 4): and
the drive unit (3) rests on the bottom (Second Attachment Piece 402 of Motor Unit 3 being attached to Second Side Piece 23 of Bracket 2 as illustrated in Fig. 6, it is understood to rest on it).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADACHI in view of WANG (US-20220153385-A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, (claim 5 being dependent on claim 4 and having related limitations), ADACHI further teaches that the respective floating bearing assemblies (38) are formed in that the at least one holding element (41) is an elastically deformable element (Para. [0095] teaches making Case 4, which First Divided Body 41 is a part of, out of metal- an elastically deformable material) {and that the at least one holding element (41) has two planar portions that are arranged parallel to one another with a predefined offset (at least two planer portions, for example the planer portions of First 401 and Second 402 Attachment Pieces, of First Divided Body 41 which are offset and parallel to each other being illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9) [claim 5]}.
ADACHI does not teach that the holding element is plate-shaped as required by claim 4, or either planer sheet metal or stepped sheet metal as required by claim 5.
WANG teaches, in another drive assembly (Motor Unit 30, Fig. 1), at least on plate shaped holding element (Adapting Pieces 40, Fig. 2) which is a planer sheet (as illustrated in Fig. 2).
WANG further teaches that the use of the plate/ planer sheet holding elements (40) allows for installing motor units of various specifications (Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the holding element of ADACHI’s drive assembly plate-shaped, planer, and/ or stepped sheet metal, since it has been held that changes in shape of an invention involve only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of ADACHI and WANG in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ADACHI’s drive assembly such that the holding element is plate-shaped/ a planer sheet as suggested by WANG. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of allowing for various motor units to be installed that would beneficially make a more customizable assembly.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADACHI in view of Talavasek (US-20160375954-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, ADACHI does not teach that the lateral wall surrounds the base.
Talavasek teaches, in another electric bicycle (Abstract), a lateral wall (the combination of Upper Support 76, Rear Support 78, and Lower Support 80, Fig. 3) of a frame interface (Motor Mount 40, Fig. 3) circumferentially completely surrounds a base (Side Brace 74, which is circumferentially completely surrounded by Supports 76, 78, and 80).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of ADACHI and Talavasek in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ADACHI’s vehicle such that the lateral wall surrounds the base as suggested by Talavasek. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of extending a protective support all the way around a motor that would beneficially make a more robust vehicle.
Regarding Claim 15, ADACHI does not teach a spring-loaded chainstay.
Talavasek teaches a spring-loaded chainstay (Chainstays 44, Fig. 3; considered spring-loaded by their connection to Rear Shock 50) connected to a frame interface (Motor Mount 40, Fig. 3) in an articulated manner by way of a hinge (Pivot Mount 70, Fig. 4), wherein the hinge (72) is integrated into a lateral wall of the frame interface (Pivot Mount 70 being integrated into a lateral wall of Motor Mount 40 as illustrated in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of ADACHI and Talavasek in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ADACHI’s vehicle to include a spring-loaded chainstay as suggested by Talavasek. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a rear shock absorber that would beneficially make a smoother ride for an operator.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADACHI in view of Farrell (US-20210147032-A1).
Regarding Claim 17, ADACHI further teaches:
generating screw openings (Bolts Holes 221 and 231, Fig. 4) in the frame interface (2), and
generating support points (thickened areas surrounding Bolts Holes 221 and 231, Fig. 4, which would support a bolted joint) on the base (23) of the frame interface (2).
ADACHI does not teach producing the frame interface by die-casting, and machining the screw openings and the support points.
Farrell teaches, in another electric bicycle (Title), forming frame components by casting and machining (Para. [0038] teaches that Frame 12 may be manufactured by casting, milling, and drilling).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of ADACHI and Farrell in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify ADACHI’s method for producing a drive assembly to include producing the frame interface by die-casting and machining the screw openings and the support points as suggested by Farrell. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of using a cost-effective production method such as die-casting and a precise method such as machining that would beneficially make a cheaper and higher quality product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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:
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 are 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, as highlighted in above, ADACHI, generally discloses a drive assembly with similar components of the claimed invention.
However neither ADACHI nor the other cited references specifically disclose an elastomeric element and a sleeve arranged in an opening of a lid such that it fastens a drive unit to a frame interface as required by claim 8.
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, claim 8, as far as it includes all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, is indicated as reciting allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights