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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I: Fig. 1 & claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, and 12-15 in the reply filed on 6/12/26 (hereinafter Response) is acknowledged. Claims 3, 4, 6, and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The amended Specification included in the Response is not entered because it is interpreted as including new matter. Particularly, although Applicant points to claim 14 as providing support for the amendment to [0065] which in part states “so that the energy storage device 1016 can be charged by or driven by the electric power generation unit 1014”, claim 14 instead states that it is the electric motor that is driven by the EPGU not the energy storage device that is driven by the EPGU as the amendment states.
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 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3,205,564 B1 to Weber in view of US 2014/0076650 A1 to Kim et al (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Weber discloses an electric power generation unit (37) for a bicycle (1), comprising a pedal shaft (21’) with pedals (22a) (Figs. 6a-c & [0042]-[0045] and [0075]-[0079]);
an electric generator (34) … wherein an axis of rotation of the [generator] (34) is arranged with a parallel offset to the pedal shaft (21’) (Figs. 6a-c & [0043] the axis of rotation can either be concentric or offset); and
a gearbox (23,28,29) configured to transmit torque from the pedal shaft (21’) to … the electric generator,
wherein the electric power generation unit (34) has a housing comprising at least the electric generator (34) and the gearbox (23,28,29) (Fig.s 6a-c & [0080] disclose and depict an exterior housing of the generator and the protective casing of the gearbox 36 together make an EPGU housing), and/or wherein the axis of rotation of the [generator] (34) is arranged with a parallel offset to a powered wheel (16a/b) of the bicycle (1) (Figs. 6a-c & [0043], [0070] and [0074] disclose and depict the rear wheels 16a/b which are powered by motors 15a/b being parallel offset to the generator 34).
Weber does not appear to explicitly disclose an electric generator with a rotor and a stator, wherein an axis of rotation of the rotor is arranged with a parallel offset to the pedal shaft, and
a gearbox configured to transmit torque from the pedal shaft to the rotor of the electric generator.
Kim teaches that it was old and well known in the art of chainless bicycles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for an electric generator (400) with a rotor (452) and a stator (454) (Figs. 4 and 6 & [0054]), and
a gearbox (430,440) configured to transmit torque from the pedal shaft (420) to the rotor (452) of the electric generator (400) (Figs. 4-6 & [0041] and [0058]-[0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of chainless bicycles with an electric power generation unit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power generation unit disclosed by Weber to incorporate the for the generator to include a rotor and stator and for the gearbox to be configured to transmit torque from the pedal shaft to the rotor of the electric generator as taught by Kim, whereby the resulting structure of the combination would result in an offset axis of rotation of the rotor (452) of the generator (34) arranged with a parallel offset to the pedal shaft (21’), in order to accelerate the rotational speed input into the generator from the pedal shaft, e.g., see [0045], thereby increasing power output by the generator as would be known by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Weber further discloses wherein the gearbox (23,38,39) comprises at least a first gear stage (23,38,39) configured to be powered by the pedal shaft (21’) (Figs. 6a-c & [0076]-[0077] disclose that the pedals drive the sprocket 23 which drives the chain/belt 38 which drives the pinion attached to the generator and as depicted the sprocket is larger than the pinion so the combination can be interpreted as disclosing a first gear stage accelerating the speed of the pinion in relation to the sprocket.).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 2, the modified combination of Weber/Kim further discloses wherein the gearbox (Weber - 23,38,39/Kim – 430,440) comprises a second gear stage (Kim - 440) configured to be powered by the first gear stage (Weber – 23,38,39/Kim - 430) and is configured to power the rotor (Kim - 452) of the generator (Weber – 34/Kim - 400) (Weber - Figs. 6a-c & [0076]-[0077]; Kim - Figs. 4-6 & [0041], [0048] and [0058]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Weber in view of the teachings of Kim for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 5, the modified combination of Weber/Kim further discloses wherein the second gear stage (Kim - 440) comprises a planetary gearset (Kim - Figs. 4-6 & [0041], [0048] and [0058]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Weber in view of the teachings of Kim for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 7, the modified combination of Weber/Kim further discloses wherein a planet carrier (446), which is powered by the first gear stage (Weber – 23,38,39/Kim - 430), at least one planet (444), a ring gear (448) and a sun gear (442), comprise the planetary gearset, wherein the ring gear (448) is arranged to be non-rotatable and the sun gear (442) is configured to power the rotor (452) of the generator (400) (Weber - Figs. 6a-c & [0076]-[0077]; Kim - Figs. 4-6 & [0041], [0048] and [0058]-[0060]), or wherein the sun gear is arranged to be non-rotatable and the ring gear is configured to power the rotor of the generator.
It would have been obvious to have modified Weber in view of the teachings of Kim for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Weber/Kim further discloses wherein the gearbox (Weber - 23,38,39/Kim – 430,440) has a transmission ratio of less than 1 (Weber - Figs. 6a-c & [0076]-[0077]; Kim - Figs. 4-6 & [0045] discloses the transmission ratio is 20:1 which is much less than 1 when viewed in light of Applicant’s specification see [0013] of Applicant’s PG PUB.).
It would have been obvious to have modified Weber in view of the teachings of Kim for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 1, the modified combination Weber/Kim further discloses a controller (Weber – 20/Kim – 19b) configured to control at least the electric generator (Kim - 400), or the electric power generation unit is connectable to an external controller (Weber – 20/Kim – 19b) configured to control at least the electric generator (Kim – 400) (Fig. 1 & [0033] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 14, the modified combination of Weber/Kim discloses a drivetrain for a bicycle (Weber - 1) comprising the electric power generation unit according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1) and an electric motor (Weber – 15a/b) drivable by at least the electric power generation unit (Weber – 34/Kim-400) (Weber – Figs. 5a-6c & [0064], [0070], and [0074]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Weber in view of the teachings of Kim for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, the modified combination of Weber/Kim discloses a bicycle (1) comprising the drivetrain according to claim 14 (see above rejection of claim 14), wherein the electric motor (Weber - 15a/b) is arranged and configured to power at least one wheel (Weber – 16a/b) of the bicycle (Weber – Figs. 5a-6c & [0064], [0070], and [0074]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Weber in view of the teachings of Kim for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Kim and further in view of US 5,474,148 A to Takata.
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Weber/Kim does not appear to further discloses a clutch configured to connect the gearbox (Weber - 23,38,39/Kim – 430,440) to the pedal shaft (Weber – 21’/Kim – 420).
Takata teaches that it was old and well known in the art of bicycles including planetary gearing connecting a crankshaft to a motor, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a clutch (42) configured to connect the gearbox (44) to the pedal shaft (28) (Fig. 1 & col 3 lns 27 - 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycles including planetary gearing connecting a crankshaft to a motor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle including planetary gearing connecting a crankshaft to a motor disclosed by the modified combination of Weber/Kim to incorporate a clutch (42) configured to connect the gearbox (44) to the pedal shaft as taught by takata in order to prevent the driving of the crank assembly by the motor, e.g., see Takata col 3 lns 37 - 46, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of Kim and further in view of US 2014/0080661 A1 to Paick et al (hereinafter Paick).
Regarding claim 13, depending on claim 12, the modified combination of Weber/Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one rotation sensor arranged and configured to measure a rotor position, a rotation speed and/or a rotation direction of the rotor of the electric generator and/or the pedal shaft, to generate measurement data corresponding to the measurement and to transmit it to the controller.
Paick teaches that it was old and well known in the art of chainless bicycles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include at least one rotation sensor arranged and configure to measure the pedal shaft (60), to generate measurement data corresponding to the measurement and to transmit it to the controller (40) (Figs. 1-2 & [0050]-[0053] and [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of chainless bicycles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chainless bicycle disclosed by the modified combination of Weber/Kim to incorporate at least one rotation sensor arranged and configure to measure the pedal shaft, to generate measurement data corresponding to the measurement and to transmit it to the controller as taught by Paick in order to provide an electric bicycle capable of releasing pedal load when pedals rotate in a reverse direction, thereby eliminating inconvenience occurring upon rotating the pedals in the reverse direction, e.g., see Paick [0013], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights