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 .
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 rotary drive and the respective load flank sub-area of claims 1 and 9 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: examiner would like clearance on the term “compur gear”, the specification refers to it as CM in figure 12, however, examiner is unsure whether the term “compur” is the right name for the gear or just a mistranslation from a foreign language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 and 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “electronics assembly” in line 8 of claim 9, and in line 1 of claim 19 should be changed to “electronics assemblies” to remain plural (see claim 18 for example). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 (and therefore claims 2-8 and 10-19) 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1, the following term should be reviewed as the use of the word “respective” has been overly used --“a respective load flank sub-area of the respective profile of the respective tooth arrangement, wherein at least one of the cycloidal tooth arrangements or the opposing tooth arrangements has a relief contour that is setback relative to the profile along a clearance cut area that is arranged outside the respective load flank sub-area of the respective profile of the respective tooth arrangement”--.
Regarding claim 9, the following term should be reviewed as the use of the word “respective” has been overly used –" a respective load flank sub-area of a respective profile of the respective tooth arrangement”.
Regarding claim 11, the term “flying end” is indefinite as the claim mentions it to be part of the rotor shaft (SR, see figure 10), wherein the rotor shaft SR does not appear to have a “flying end”, or it is unclear whether the applicant is trying to refer to a “free end” or something else related to the rotor shaft.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rossberger (US 2020/0063793). Rossberger discloses a power transmission with a cycloidal gear for a bicycle including a bottom bracket area of a bicycle frame, the drive unit comprising:
a bottom bracket shaft (35, see figure 6) for mounting pedal cranks;
an electric motor device (12,22) with a stator device (20) and a rotor assembly (see figure 2) arranged on a rotor shaft (27), wherein the rotor shaft is arranged coaxially to the bottom bracket shaft (see figure 1);
a freewheel arrangement (49) with at least one freewheel device;
a sensor arrangement (82) with at least one sensor device;
at least one electronics assembly (see Par. 0316, 0344, 0476) for controlling the motor device and/or for processing signals from the sensor device;
an output shaft (39) for transmitting drive power to a bicycle power train (40); and
a gear device (see figure 78) with a cycloidal gear (see Par. 0592 and figures 77 and 79) having at least one cycloidal disk device (434) having at least two approximately cycloidal or cylindrical cycloidal tooth arrangements (436,444), and at least one opposing cycloid device (442)having at least two approximately cycloidal or cylindrical opposing tooth arrangements (see figure 78), wherein at least one of the cycloidal tooth arrangements or the opposing tooth arrangements has a relief contour (see contours on 436 in figure 78) that is setback relative to a profile along a clearance cut area (top of the curvature of each tooth of member 436) that is arranged outside a respective load flank sub-area (bottom of the curvature of each tooth on member 436) of a respective profile of the respective tooth arrangement, wherein the cycloidal gear is encapsulated in a liquid-tight manner with respect to the motor device (see Par. 0355).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the art of record did not include “wherein the at least one cycloidal disk device and/or the at least one opposing cycloidal device can be brought into an eccentric-cycloidal relative rolling motion relative to the central axis by means of the cam arrangement of a rotary drive, by means of which in contact areas of drive contact between cycloidal disk profiles of the cycloidal tooth arrangements of the at least one cycloidal disk device and opposing cycloidal profiles of the opposing tooth arrangements of the at least one opposing cycloidal disk device, driving forces can be transmitted in a circumferential direction of the cycloidal gear at least within a respective load flank sub-area of the respective profile of the respective tooth arrangement, wherein at least one of the cycloidal tooth arrangements or the opposing tooth arrangements has a relief contour that is setback relative to the profile along a clearance cut area that is arranged outside the respective load flank sub-area of the respective profile of the respective tooth arrangement’ in combination with what has been claimed in the rest of the body of claim 1.
Since the prior art such as Rossberger (US 2020/0063793) teaches a cycloidal gear for a bicycle that lack said features, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter.
For illustration purposes, Fig 3 of the examined disclosure shows the relief contour PRS, figure 2, shows the clearance cut area AD and the cam arrangement AE which is different than the cycloidal gear taught by the prior art of record (such as Rossberger, see figure 78).
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
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.”
Claims 10-19 are 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.
Regarding claim 10, the art of record did not include, ” the cycloidal gear is encapsulated in an at least liquid-tight manner with respect to any combination of the motor device, freewheel arrangement, sensor arrangement and electronics assembly”.
Regarding claim 11, the art of record did not include “the rotor shaft is mounted exclusively in the cycloidal gear, and the rotor assembly is arranged on the rotor shaft in a region of a flying end of the rotor shaft”.
Regarding claim 13, the art of record did not include “wherein the axial freewheel device is disk-shaped and is configured so as to transmit a gearbox torque through the coupling elements in an axial direction, relative to the bottom bracket shaft”.
Regarding claim 18, The art of record did not include “electronics assemblies comprises at least two of: a tachometer sensor device with a tachometer sensor element for measuring a speed of the bottom bracket shaft; a torque sensor device with a torque sensor element for measuring an elastic deformation of a deformation element of an output shaft section; and a tachometer sensor device with a tachometer sensor element for measuring a speed of a bicycle wheel”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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.
/MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights