DETAILED ACTION
Responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed October 28, 2024. 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 § 102
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)(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 1-5, 9-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baumgaertner et al (US 2023/0166600).
As per claim 1, Baumgaertner et al teach a drive system for an electric bicycle, comprising
a bottom bracket shaft for applying a drive power, by muscle power, for moving the electric bicycle forward (see at least fig 1 (2), paragraph [0043]; crank mechanism with pedals);
at least one drive motor for providing an assistance power, generated by external power, in addition to the drive power (see at least fig 1 (3, paragraph [0043]; electric drive/motor), and
an electronic control unit for controlling the assistance power provided via the at least one drive motor (see at least fig 5, control unit 10 ),
wherein the drive system comprises at least one acceleration sensor for providing an acceleration signal that is representative of the acceleration of the electric (see at least paragraph [0049-0050]; wheel speed sensor; vehicle velocity sensor), and at least one rotation angle sensor for providing a rotational speed signal that is representative of a rotational speed of the bottom bracket shaft (see at least paragraph [0052]; rotational speed sensor), and
the electronic control unit is configured to use the acceleration signal and the rotational speed signal to calculate a torque applied to the bottom bracket shaft by muscle power and to control the assistance power on the basis of the calculated torque (see at least paragraphs [0020, 0066]; motor torque is applied based on sensor data and crank torque to aid rider).
As per claim 2, Baumgaertner et al teach wherein a mathematical model is stored in the electronic control unit, via which model calculation of the torque from the acceleration signal and the rotational speed signal is made possible (see at least fig 1; inherent in control unit 10).
As per claim 3, Baumgaertner et al teach wherein the stored mathematical model comprises at least one of a sine transformer and a cosine transformer, via which the acceleration signal for calculating the torque is supplied to at least one of a sine transformation and a cosine transformation (non-functional descriptive language) . The limitation is non-functional descriptive language that does not actively recite a function and therefore does not add any meaningful limitations to the scope of the claim. “A claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what it does not what it is" (MPEP 2173.05g). Non-functional descriptive material does not impart a patentable distinction to a claim. Patentable weight will only be given when such descriptive material has a functional relationship to the substrate (MPEP 2111.05).
As per claim 4, Baumgaertner et al teach wherein the drive system additionally comprises at least one torque sensor for measuring the actual torque currently applied to the bottom bracket shaft by muscle power (see at least paragraphs [0020]; toque by rider using pedals) .
As per claim 5, Baumgaertner et al teach wherein the electronic control unit is configured to use the measured actual torque for controlling the assistance power, and to use the calculated torque for checking the plausibility of the measurement of the actual torque by the at least one torque senso (see at least paragraphs [0020, 0066]; motor torque is applied based on sensor data and crank torque to aid rider).
Claims 9-13 and 16 contain similar limitations as the claims above and therefore are rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 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.
Conclusion
.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ramsey Refai whose telephone number is (313)446-4867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
RAMSEY REFAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RAMSEY REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights