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
The restriction requirement dated 04/22/2026 is hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claims 16-20 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.
In claim 16, line 2, applicant recites “coupling a wheel configuration with the vehicle”. However, the preamble recites a “method of assembling a vehicle” and the wheel configuration is apparently part of the vehicle. It is not clear how the wheel configuration could be coupled to the vehicle if it is an integral part of the vehicle. Also, in line 4, applicant claims “coupling a frame with the wheel configuration”. It is not clear how applicant teaches one step of coupling the wheel configuration to the vehicle, in line 2, and another step of coupling the wheel configuration to the frame, in line 4. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-12, 16-17, and 19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryan (PGPub 2018/0057096).
Regarding claim 1, Ryan teaches a vehicle 100, comprising: a wheel configuration that includes a front wheel assembly (front steerable wheels 130A, 130B) and a rear wheel assembly (rear drive axle 131 and wheels 130B); a frame 120coupled to the wheel configuration; a steering system 140, 144, having at least one of a handlebar 140 or a steering wheel and mounted at a front portion of the frame; a battery unit 151 that is proximal to the front wheel assembly (see Figure 2, para [0031]) and disposed on a support portion 189 of the frame 120; a pedal unit 161 (Figure 1; para [0030]) mounted at a middle portion of the frame(see Figure 1); and a carrier (platform 110) mounted in proximity to the rear wheel assembly and is configured to support at least one cargo container (the platform presents a flat surface that easily accommodates cargo).
Regarding claim 2, the wheel configuration of Ryan corresponds to at least one of a two-wheel configuration, a three-wheel configuration, or a four-wheel configuration (four wheel configuration).
Regarding claim 3, Ryan teaches the front wheel assembly includes a front wheel in a two-wheel configuration or a pair of front wheels in a three-wheel configuration or a four-wheel configuration (two front whe2ls for a four-wheel configuration).
Regarding claim 4, Ryan teaches the battery unit 151 is disposed between the pair of front wheels (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Ryan teaches the rear wheel assembly includes a rear wheel in a two-wheel configuration or a pair of rear wheels in a three-wheel configuration or a four-wheel configuration (a pair of wheels for a four-wheel configuration).
Regarding claim 6, Ryan teaches an electric motor 152 assembly coupled to the rear wheel assembly; and an electronic controller 153 communicatively coupled to the electric motor assembly, wherein, in an operational state, the electronic controller is configured to control actuation of the electric motor assembly to drive the rear wheel assembly (para [0031]).
Regarding claim 10, Ryan teaches a vehicle 100, comprising: a wheel configuration that includes a front wheel assembly 130A and a rear wheel assembly 130B, 131; a frame 120 coupled to the wheel configuration; a steering system 140, 144, having at least one of a handlebar 140 or a steering wheel and mounted at a front portion of the frame; a battery unit 151 that is proximal to the front wheel assembly and disposed on a support portion 189 of the frame (Figure 2); a pedal unit 16 mounted at a middle portion of the frame; a carrier 110 mounted in proximity to the rear wheel assembly and is configured to support at least one cargo container; an electric motor assembly 152 coupled to the rear wheel assembly; and an electronic controller 153 communicatively coupled to the electric motor assembly, wherein, in an operational state, the electronic controller is configured to control actuation of the electric motor assembly to drive the rear wheel assembly.
Regarding claim 11, the wheel configuration corresponds to at least one of a two-wheel configuration, a three-wheel configuration, or a four-wheel configuration (four-wheel configuration).
Regarding claim 12, Ryan teaches the front wheel assembly includes a front wheel in a two-wheel configuration or a pair of front wheels in a three-wheel configuration or a four-wheel configuration (a pair of front wheels in a four-wheel configuration).Regarding claim 13, Ryan teaches the rear wheel assembly includes a rear wheel in a two-wheel configuration or a pair of rear wheels in a three-wheel configuration or a four-wheel configuration (a pair of rear wheels in a four-wheel configuration).
Regarding claim 16, Ryan teaches a method of assembling a vehicle, comprising: coupling a wheel configuration with the vehicle (Figure 1 shows a wheel configuration coupled to the vehicle), wherein the wheel configuration includes a front wheel assembly 130A and a rear wheel assembly 130B, 131; coupling a frame with the wheel configuration (both wheel assemblies of the wheel configuration are coupled to the frame of Ryan); mounting a steering system having at least one of a handlebar 140 or a steering wheel at a front portion of the frame (a handlebar is mounted to the Ryan frame); disposing a battery unit 151 on a support portion 189 of the frame such that the battery unit is proximal to the front wheel assembly (Figure 2 of Ryan); mounting a pedal unit 161 at a middle portion of the frame (Figure 1); and mounting a carrier 110 in proximity of the rear wheel assembly and is configured to support at least one cargo container (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Ryan teaches the wheel configuration corresponds to a four-wheel configuration.
Regarding claim 19, Ryan teaches coupling an electric motor assembly 152 to the rear wheel assembly (para [0031]); and communicatively coupling an electronic controller 153 to the electric motor assembly; and controlling, by the electronic controller, actuation of the electric motor assembly to drive the rear wheel assembly in an operational state.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-13, and 15 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rip et al. (PGPub 2005/0029033).
Regarding claim 1, Rip teaches a vehicle, comprising: a wheel configuration (front and rear wheels) that includes a front wheel assembly (steered front wheel; Figure 1) and a rear wheel assembly (rear drive wheel 10); a frame 2 coupled to the wheel configuration; a steering system having at least one of a handlebar 7 or a steering wheel and mounted at a front portion of the frame; a battery unit 4 that is proximal to the front wheel assembly and disposed on a support portion of the frame (supported in tube 3); a pedal unit 28, 9, mounted at a middle portion of the frame (Figure 1); and a carrier (rack over the rear wheel, seen in Figure 1) mounted in proximity to the rear wheel assembly 10 and is configured to support at least one cargo container.
Regarding claim 2, Rip teaches the wheel configuration corresponds to a two-wheel configuration (Rip, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Rip teaches the front wheel assembly includes a front wheel in a two-wheel configuration (Rip, Figure 1)
Regarding claim 5, Rip teaches the rear wheel assembly 10 includes a rear wheel in a two-wheel configuration.
Regarding claim 6, Rip teaches an electric motor assembly (rear wheel hub motor 5; para [0054]) coupled to the rear wheel assembly; and an electronic controller (MMU, para [0088]) communicatively coupled to the electric motor assembly, wherein, in an operational state, the electronic controller is configured to control actuation of the electric motor assembly to drive the rear wheel assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Rip teaches the vehicle includes the handlebar when the wheel configuration is a two-wheel configuration.
Regarding claim 10, Rip teaches the structure noted above as well as an electronic controller MMU communicatively coupled to the electric motor assembly, wherein, in an operational state, the electronic controller is configured to control actuation of the electric motor assembly to drive the rear wheel assembly.
Regarding claim 11, Rip teaches the wheel configuration corresponds to a two-wheel configuration.
Regarding claim 12, Rip teaches the front wheel assembly includes a front wheel in a two-wheel configuration.
Regarding claim 13, Rip teaches the rear wheel assembly includes a rear wheel 10 in a two-wheel configuration.
Regarding claim 15, Rip teaches a handlebar 7 when the wheel configuration is a two-wheel configuration.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Bayne (PGPub 2025/0268289).
Ryan is silent regarding using pedal cadence to control the motor.
Bayne teaches an electronic controller configured to: detect revolution of pedals included in the pedal unit (cadence sensor); and control the actuation of the electric motor assembly based on the detection (para [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the motor of Ryan based on pedal cadence, as is well known and taught by Bayne, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control the motor based on pedaling, thereby freeing the user’s hands.
Claim(s) 9, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of de Winter et al. (PGPub 2015/0329164).
Ryan teaches a four-wheeled configuration but lacks a teaching to use a steering wheel to steer.
De Winter teaches a steering wheel 8 for controlling the steering of two front wheels of a pedal and motor-powered vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention provide the steering system taught by Ryan using a steering wheel rather than a handlebar, as is well known and taught by de Winter, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control steering of the two front wheels in a way that is comfortable for the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fiqueroa, Ananthakrishna, and Williams teach modular electric/pedal cycles.
Knapp and Stephens teach pedal tricycles with motor assist, a front mounted battery and a rear cargo area.
French teaches an e-bike having several different configurations.
Fang teaches a here wheeled ebike.
Davies ‘121 and ‘172 are publication of applicant’s inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights