DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 1-20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “a torque plate” in claims 1-20 is used by the claim to mean “a torque-restricting bracket” while the accepted meaning is “a rigid fixture which bolts onto an engine block for simulating the stresses and forces of a cylinder head” (Liam Cope, “What Is a Torque Plate and Why Is It Used?”, December 17, 2025, Accessed from https://engineerfix.com/what-is-a-torque-plate-and-why-is-it-used/ on May 26, 2026) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For examination purposes, “a torque plate” will be interpreted as “a torque-restricting bracket”.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, it is unclear what is meant by the language “wherein the torque plate has an asymmetric shape, and comprises a through hole configured to engage with a vehicle frame is in a lobe of the asymmetric shape.” Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the phrase “configured to engage with a vehicle frame is in a lobe of the asymmetric shape” will be interpreted as “configured to engage with a vehicle frame via a lobe of the asymmetric shape”.
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 1, 6-7, 10, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Yoneda (US 20230045281).
Regarding claim 1, Yoneda teaches an electric motor 60 for an electric vehicle ([0003] and [0086], Fig. 1), the electric motor comprising:
a stator 62 ([0086]);
a rotor 64 configured to rotate around the stator ([0086], Fig. 5);
a casing 14 enclosing the stator 62 and the rotor 64 ([0059], Fig. 5);
an axle 12 coupled to the stator 62 ([0087], Fig. 5), the axle comprising a first exposed portion that extends out of a non-drive side 14b of the casing 14 and a second exposed portion that extends out of a drive side 14a of the casing 14 ([0059] and [0101], Figs. 5 and 8; the drive side of the casing 14 is the side where the rotor 64 is located); and
a torque plate 18 rigidly affixed to the first exposed portion of the axle 12, the torque plate having a planar configuration aligned with a plane that is perpendicular to a central axis A1 of the axle 12 ([0060], Fig. 5; torque plate 18 includes rotation restriction part 18a, and the right side of the torque plate 18 is planar).
Regarding claim 10, Yoneda teaches an electric bicycle ([0054], Fig. 1) comprising:
a frame FB/RB ([0054], Fig. 1);
a battery ([0056]); and
a motor coupled to the battery ([0056]), the motor comprising:
a stator 62 ([0086]);
a rotor 64 configured to rotate around the stator 62 ([0086], Fig. 5);
a casing 14 enclosing the stator 62 and the rotor 64 ([0059], Fig. 5);
an axle 12 coupled to the stator 62 ([0087], Fig. 5), the axle 12 comprising a first exposed portion that extends out of a non-drive side 14b of the casing (Fig. 5; the non-drive side is the side where 14b is located) and a second exposed portion that extends out of a drive side 14a of the casing ([0059] and [0101], Figs. 5 and 8; the drive side of the casing 14 is the side where the rotor 64 is located); and
a torque plate 18 rigidly affixed to the first exposed portion of the axle 12, the torque plate 18 having a planar configuration aligned with a plane that is perpendicular to a central axis A1 of the axle 12 ([0060], Fig. 5; torque plate 18 includes rotation restriction part 18a, and the right side of the torque plate 18 is planar).
Regarding claims 6 and 15 (Same limitations, different dependencies), Yoneda teaches wherein the axle 12 has a first thickness 12b, a second thickness 12c that is less than the first thickness, and a shoulder between the first thickness and the second thickness, and wherein the torque plate 18 is pressed against the shoulder between the first and the second thickness ([0060], see annotated Fig. 5 below).
Regarding claims 7 and 16 (Same limitations, different dependencies), Yoneda teaches wherein the axle has a third thickness adjacent to the second thickness 12c and less than the second thickness 12c, and wherein a portion of the torque plate 18 extends over the third thickness of the axle 12 (See annotated Fig. 5 below).
Regarding claim 17, Yoneda teaches wherein the torque plate 18 is in contact with a dropout of the frame RB and a gap is present between a portion of the axle 12 with the second thickness 12c and the dropout of the frame RB ([0060], Figs. 1-2 and 5; torque plate 18 contacts the dropout and screw 20 creates a gap between the dropout and the axle portion 12c).
Regarding claim 20, Yoneda teaches wherein the torque plate 18 is removably coupled to a dropout of the frame RB and configured to transfer torque from the axle 12 to the frame RB ([0060], Figs. 1-2 and 5; since the lobe 18a restricts rotation of the rear frame body RB relative to the axle, any torque transferred to the axle will transfer to the frame).
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.
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda in view of itself.
Regarding claims 4 and 13 (Same limitations, different dependencies), Yoneda teaches wherein the axle 12 comprises a cable opening that leads to a cable path inside the housing (which is nonrotatable with respect to the axle, [0071]), and the torque plate comprises a slot that provides a route to the cable opening in the housing ([0060] and [0070], Figs. 5 and 8).
Yoneda discloses the claimed invention except for the cable path inside the axle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to path the cable through the axle, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 5 and 14 (Same limitations, different dependencies), Yoneda teaches wherein the torque plate 18 is rigidly affixed to the axle 12 by a fixing bolt that is threaded into an axial bore of the axle ([0060]).
While Yoneda does not teach fixing the torque plate to the axle by press fit, welding, or bonding by an adhesive. Yoneda does teach that two components can be fixed to each other by the use of an adhesive or by welding as an alternative to threaded fasteners ([0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motor of Yoneda to rigidly mount the torque plate to the axle through welding or an adhesive as Yoneda teaches and the results of the modification would have been predictable and advantageously rigidly fixed the torque plate to the axle so that rotation of the axle is limited ([0060] and [0072]).
Claims 2-3, 8-9, 11-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda in view of Talavasek (US 20130241175).
Regarding claims 2 and 11 (Same limitations, different dependencies), Yoneda teaches wherein the axle 12 comprises a flat surface on the first exposed potion (Fig. 9), and the torque plate 18 being connected to and in contact with the end of the first exposed portion ([0060], Fig. 5).
Yoneda does not teach the torque plate comprising an opening with a flat surface in contact with the flat surface of the axle.
However, Talavasek teaches an electric bicycle motor system with a torque plate 230 flat surface 240 in contact with a flat surface 195 of an axle 105 ([0027]-[0028], Figs. 4-5 and 7-9 of Talavasek).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the torque plate of Yoneda to have a flat surface that engages with the flat surface of the axle as an alternative rigid connection between the two components as Talavasek teaches in order to advantageously ensure that the torque element remains attached to the axle when the wheel is removed ([0028]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12 (Same limitations, different dependencies), Yoneda teaches an end cap 16 opposite the first torque plate 18, but does not teach the end cap restricting rotation in any capacity.
However, Talavasek teaches the electric motor further comprising:
a second torque plate 135 removably coupled to the second exposed portion 225 of the axle 110 ([0021] and [0026], Figs. 2, 4 and 6 of Talavasek; axle rod 110 is threaded into counter threads of hole 160 of the second torque plate 135; this creates a rigid connection which transfers torque between the torque plate and the axle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motor of Yoneda to have a second torque plate as Talavasek teaches in order to advantageously allow a user to attach a rear wheel to the frame within the dropouts ([0023] of Talavasek).
Regarding claims 8 and 18 (Same limitations, different dependencies), Yoneda teaches wherein the torque plate comprises a through hole configured to engage with a vehicle frame RB via a lobe 18a of the torque plate shape ([00670], Figs. 2-3 and 5; “The rotation restriction part 18a engages the rear frame body RB so that rotation of the hub axle 12 relative to the rear frame body RB is restricted”).
Yoneda does not expressly teach wherein the torque plate has an asymmetric shape.
However, Talavasek teaches a torque plate 230 which has an asymmetric shape ([0027]-[0028], Figs. 4-5 and 7-9 of Talavasek).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the torque plate of Yoneda to be asymmetric as Talavasek teaches in order to advantageously provide a torque plate which can hold the power cable away from the rotating wheel so that it does not interfere ([0029] of Talavasek).
Regarding claim 9, Yoneda teaches a torque plate with a thickness, width, and a height, but does not expressly teach the claimed dimensions.
However, Talavasek teaches wherein a torque plate 230 can have a height which is greater than a width which is greater than a thickness (See annotated Fig. 7 of Talavasek below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the torque plate of Yoneda to substitute the torque plate of Talavasek as an alternative rigid connection between the axle and the dropouts of the bicycle frame of Yoneda in order to advantageously ensure that the torque element remains attached to the axle when the wheel is removed ([0028] of Talavasek).
Regarding the limitation of “wherein the torque plate has a thickness within a range of about 3 to 10mm, a width within a range of about 10 to 40mm, and a height within a range of about 25 to 60mm”, see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda in view of Park (EP 3981681).
Regarding claim 19, Yoneda does not expressly teach wherein the electric bicycle is configured for regenerative braking.
However, Park teaches wherein a regenerative braking system can be applied to electric bicycles with in-wheel drive motors ([0007] of Park).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric bicycle of Yoneda to have a regenerative braking system as Park teaches in order to advantageously generate electricity by operating the drive motor as a generator ([0007] of Park).
PNG
media_image1.png
843
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
471
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
EP 3121105 teaches an electric bicycle motor with rigid mounts to the bicycle dropouts.
WO 2010091524 teaches a bicycle drive motor with a stator and rotor, and the axle having a rigid connection to the bicycle dropouts.
DE 202021002343 teaches a bicycle drive motor with a rigid connection between the axle and the dropouts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 5712722706. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights