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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the terminal panel and terminal interface of Claims 21-24 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Note on Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that applicant has claimed
A/the adapter in Claims 14-18
An/the energy store in Claims 19 and 20
A/the coupling unit in Claims 21-24
However, the issue is each of these claims reference the other elements. As these elements are clearly external, the references to the external elements are clear intended use/configured-to-be-used limitations which do not meaningfully limit the claims. Claims 25-33, however, clearly claim a system with all of these components, and so do meaningfully limits the claims. Examiner suggests applicant amend groups i-iii in a similar way to Claims 25-33 to advance prosecution..
Specification
Amended specification filed 4/22/24 is accepted.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant has claimed the terminal panel and terminal interface in Claims 21-24, yet has not provided descriptions of them in the detailed description, nor part numbers.
Appropriate correction 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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tetsuka et al (USPGPN 20090261134; hereinafter Tetsu).
Independent Claim 19, Tetsu discloses an energy store (12) for supplying a micromobility vehicle (bicycle 10) with energy, the energy store (Figs. [1-20]) comprising:
an electric plug connector on an end side of the energy store for connecting to a coupling unit (80, 82, Figs. [11, 16-19]); and
a coupling profile defined at an upper side of the energy store, the coupling profile including a coupling cam with an engagement surface (84, 86, Figs. [11, 16-19]) the engagement surface being contactable by a lever of a coupling unit engageable in the coupling profile such that a pivoting movement of the lever is converted into a displacement of the energy store in a direction normal to the end side of the energy store (intended use limitation, as the lever is not being claimed, but only the energy store, however, 58), the coupling profile allowing detachable fastening of an adapter for adapting the energy store for coupling to a normal coupling unit for normal energy stores with a greater height than the energy store (intended use limitation, Figs. [16-19] shows this lever allowing detachable fastening).
Dependent Claim 20, Tetsu discloses the coupling profile is defined by a recess on the upper side of the energy store (84), the recess defining a wall and the coupling cam (see Figs. [11, 16-19, where the place where 58 engages is this recess with coupling cam and wall], the coupling cam terminating flush with the end side (Figs. [16-19]), the engagement surface facing away from the end side (Figs. [16-19]), a coupling portion of an adapter being retainable by form-fitting between the engagement surface and the wall (this again is an intended use, esp. as the coupling portion is not part of the energy store, thus Tetsu is capable of having a form-fitted retaining engagement surface).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuka et al (USPGPN 20090261134; hereinafter Tetsu)
Independent Claim 14, Tetsu teaches an adapter (16, Figs. [1-20]) for fastening to an energy store (12) of a micromobility vehicle (bicycle 10, Fig. 1) and for coupling the energy store to a coupling unit (70 and bicycle body, ¶[49]), the adapter comprising:
a fastening portion fastenable to a socket of the energy store (58, 44, see Figs. [2-10, 16-19] showing these features in action); and
a coupling portion having a coupling structure, the coupling structure forming a cam mechanism with a lever of the coupling unit where pivoting of the lever is converted by engagement into the coupling structure into a displacement in a direction transverse to a direction of pivoting of the lever (noted that applicant did not claim this adapter and the coupling unit, but has only claimed, and the unit 16 is capable of receiving a lever to permit the displacement/pivoting described by an element which is not part of the adapter, and this intended use to employ this coupling portion and coupling structure in this way, where Fig. 13 shows 16 being detached from a bicycle ¶’s [32-34],
further, as lever 44 and retaining portions 58 are already included in element 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a duplication of parts to provide further easy detachability for similar reasons as given for the battery, see e.g. ¶[34];
it is suggested applicant claim both the adapter and the coupling unit, e.g. as done in claim 25, to be able to limit the use of the elements on the adapter and the coupling unit as attempted to be done individually here).
Dependent Claim 15, Tetsu teaches the fastening portion has a fastening lug fastenable by form-fitting to a coupling cam of the energy store (see form fitting of at least Figs. [16-19]).
Dependent Claim 16, Tetsu teaches the fastening portion has a fastening bore for receiving a fastener for detachable fastening of the fastening portion to the energy store (see detachability operation as seen in Figs. [16-19]).
Dependent Claim 17, Tetsu teaches the coupling structure has a coupling surface on which the lever of the coupling unit engages to displace the adapter in a direction perpendicular to the coupling surface (as explained above for Claim 14, applicant has only claimed the adapter, so elements on the coupling unit which are not integral to the adapter are intended to be used, where elements of 16 can certainly receive a lever of the coupling unit).
Dependent Claim 18, Tetsu teaches the coupling structure has a curved surface along which the lever of the coupling unit slides to apply a force on the coupling surface , the curved surface being transverse to the coupling surface (curved surfaces shown in Figs. [1-20, esp. 4, 8, 12-15, particularly 4 and 13], again, the use of a lever of a non-integral unit is an intended use, and Testu’s elements are capable of receiving such a motion,
Transverse shown by the ridges of e.g. 42;
Even if such shapes and their transverse elements were not shown, lacking a showing of criticality, these features are simply a design choice which would be within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art)
Independent Claim 21, Tetsu teaches a coupling unit (16) for coupling and fastening an energy store (12), the coupling unit (Figs. [1-20]) comprising:
an electrical plug-in interface ([36, 66, 68], Figs. [4, 6, 8, 12-15, 19]) on a coupling side of the coupling unit for connection to a plug connector at an end side of an energy store (intended use limitation as the energy store is not part of the coupling unit, [80,82] in Fig. 11);
a terminal panel with a terminal interface for the connection of terminal connectors of electrical components, the terminal interface being electrically connected to the electrical plug-in interface (noted that neither the terminal panel nor the terminal interface are shown, thus the end of the electrical plug-in interface 68 & 66 is interpreted as this component); and
an operating lever pivotable about an axis of rotation (44), the axis of rotation being perpendicular to a normal of the coupling side of the coupling unit and to an engagement lever defined by the operating lever , the engagement lever being engageable in a coupling profile of an energy store such that pivoting movement of the engagement lever is transformed into a translational movement of the energy store in a direction parallel to the normal of the coupling side of the coupling unit (see movement between Figs. [2-10, 16-18, which is substantially perpendicular to the normal as one of ordinary skill in the art understands, where exactly 900 is a design choice which would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve, and due to the approximately 900 already shown, would result in a similar predictable result)
Dependent Claim 22, Tetsu teaches the engagement lever has a guide surface which contacts an engagement surface of a coupling cam of an energy store when the engagement lever pivots such that a force is exerted on the coupling unit in the direction parallel to the normal of the coupling side of the coupling unit (58 engages with 84 of energy store when the force causes the engagement, furthermore, Fig. 2 shows 44 overlapping with energy store 12).
Dependent Claim 23, Tetsu teaches the coupling unit has a retaining rail with retaining elements , the retaining rail extending away from the coupling side of the coupling unit, the retaining elements corresponding with and engageable in a retaining groove defined in a longitudinal side of the energy store when the energy store is displaced (40, engaging with 88).
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuka et al (USPGPN 20090261134; hereinafter Tetsu) in view of Niles et al (USPGPN 20150130200)
Dependent Claim 24, Tetsu is silent to a securing element, the securing element preventing pivoting of the operating lever when contacting the operating lever, the securing element being movable into an unlocking position in which the operating lever is released from the securing element and enabled to pivot about the axis of rotation of the operating lever.
Niles teaches a securing element (45 in Figs. [1A-3]), the securing element preventing pivoting of the operating lever (34) when contacting the operating lever, the securing element being movable into an unlocking position in which the operating lever is released from the securing element and enabled to pivot about the axis of rotation of the operating lever (see esp. Figs. [1A-1D] for this rotation and securing, ¶[27]). Niles and Tetsu are analogous to the present application in that they are involved in addressing the problem of a movable member, while Niles and the present application are involved in addressing the problem of securing the movable member from further movement. Official notice taken that by allowing the lever to be secure, it can improve reliability that the lever is not pivoted unless desired.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tetsu with Niles to provide improved reliability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-33 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Independent Claim 25, the prior art discloses a system for coupling an energy store to a coupling unit, the system comprising: an energy store having an electrical plug connector on an end side, an upper side of the energy store defining a coupling profile, the coupling profile being defined by a recess in the upper side and a coupling cam having an engagement surface; the prior art fails to disclose the further inclusion of and combination with a normal coupling unit having a plug-in interface on a coupling side and a lever, the plug-in interface being connectable to the electrical plug connector, the lever being pivotable about a pivot axis, a height of the coupling side being greater than a height of the end side of the energy store; and an adapter with a fastening portion and a coupling portion, the fastening portion of the adapter being receivable within the coupling profile of the energy store, the fastening portion of the adapter being detachably fastened to the energy store, the coupling portion of the adapter having a coupling structure with a coupling surface and a curved surface, the lever of the normal coupling unit engages on the coupling surface of the adapter and is guided on the curved surface of the adapter such that pivoting of the lever is transformed into a translational movement of the energy store towards the normal coupling unit.
Dependent Claims 26-33 are allowed for their dependence upon Claim 25. 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights