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 were received on 8/05/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
According to MPEP § 2173.03, “a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the shift element comprises a brake shift element with the shift ring being a brake ring and the shift pawl being a brake pawl”. However, the specification on page 5 (as filed on 8/14/2024) states “Each shift element, or brake shift element, has a shift ring, or brake ring 3, which has an outer toothing 4, the shift ring being assigned a shift pawl, or brake pawl 5, for locking or releasing the brake ring 3 of the brake shift element”. The terms “shift element”, “brake shift element”, “shift ring”, and “brake ring” all appear to be the same component 3 in the drawings. The claim however is worded such that the “brake shift element” is implied to be different from the “shift element” claimed in parent claim 11. While the claim is relatively clear that the “shift ring” is the same as the “brake ring”, the claim does not make clear that the shift element is the same as the brake shift element that is same as both the shift ring and the brake ring.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 11-16, and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziemer (DE102019220044) in view of Mills (US2004/0055404).
Re claim 11
Ziemer discloses:
A bottom bracket gearbox for a micromobility vehicle, comprising:
a shift element (16) comprising a shift ring (16) with an outer toothing, the shift ring (16) being assigned to a gearbox component;
a shift pawl (17) selectively engageable with the shift ring (16) for locking or releasing the shift ring (16);
a shift drum (1 including 11) for actuating the shift pawl, the shift drum (1) being rotatably mounted (See Fig. 3) the shift drum arranged axially parallel to a central rotation axis of the gearbox, the shift drum at least partially formed as a hollow shaft; and a shift actuator (para. [0016])
Ziemer does not disclose the shift actuator arranged in an interior of the shift drum.
Mills teaches the shift actuator (16) arranged in an interior of the shift drum (para. [007], [0008], [0010]), for the purpose of making the device more compact (para. [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Ziemer such that the shift actuator arranged in an interior of the shift drum, as taught by Mills, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of making the device more compact.
Ziemer as modified above further suggests:
Re claim 12
The bottom bracket gearbox of claim 11, wherein the shift actuator (16 in Mills) comprises an electro-mechanical shift actuator that is engaged via an input pinion (12 in Mills) with inner toothing as an entrainment profile in the interior of the shift drum (1 and 11 in Ziemer; 40 in Mills).
Re claim 13.
The bottom bracket gearbox of claim 11, wherein the shift actuator comprises an electric motor (16 in Mills) and an integrated reduction gear (12 in Mills).
Re claim 14.
The bottom bracket gearbox of claim 11, wherein the shift actuator (16 in Mills) and the shift drum (1 and 11 in Ziemer; 40 in Mills) are arranged coaxially.
Re claim 15.
The bottom bracket gearbox of claim 11, wherein the shift actuator (16 in Mills) is retained in the shift drum (1 and 11 in Ziemer; 40 in Mills) and fastened to a gearbox housing via a support sleeve (32 including 34) for supporting torque (para. [0057] in Mills).
Re claim 16.
The bottom bracket gearbox of claim 15, wherein:
the support sleeve (32 in Mills) defines a receiving region (interior of 32) for accommodating the shift actuator (16 in Mills), the receiving region (interior of 32) being hollow and cylindrical;
a first end of the receiving region (interior of 32), which is assigned to an input pinion (12 in Mills), defines a through-opening (see Fig. 3 in Mills) for an input pinion of the shift actuator to axially pass through (See Fig. 3); and
a second end of the receiving region comprises a fastening flange (34 in Mills; see Fig. 3) for connecting the support sleeve to the gearbox housing (para. [0057] in Mills).
Re claim 19, as best understood.
The bottom bracket gearbox of claim 11, wherein the shift element (16 in Ziemer) comprises a brake shift element (16) with the shift ring (16) being a brake ring (16) and the shift pawl (17) being a brake pawl (17), the brake ring (16) being lockable via a brake pawl (17 in Ziemer. See 35 USC 112(b) rejection hereinabove; the shift element appears to be the same component as the brake shift element which appears to be the same component as the shift ring which appears to be the same component as the brake ring as claimed and as described in the specification and drawings) in only one direction of rotation (See Fig. 3 in Ziemer).
Re claim 20.
A micromobility vehicle (see abstract), comprising the bottom bracket gearbox of claim 11 (See rejection of claim 11 hereinabove).
Re claim 21. The bottom bracket gearbox of claim 12, wherein the input pinion (12 in Mills) interlocks directly with the shift drum (1 and 11 in Ziemer; 40 in Mills) via the inner toothing.
Re claim 22. The bottom bracket gearbox of claim 16, wherein the input pinion (12 in Mills) extends axially out of the support sleeve (32 in Mills) via the through-opening (see Fig. 3 in Mills) for engagement with the shift drum (1 and 11 in Ziemer; 40 in Mills).
Re claim 23. The bottom bracket gearbox of claim 11, wherein the shift pawl (17 in Ziemer) is rotatable by the shift drum (1 and 11 in Ziemer; 40 in Mills) into and out of engagement with the outer toothing of the shift ring (16).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziemer (DE102019220044) in view of Mills (US2004/0055404), and further in view of Maki (US2014/0338484).
Re claim 17
Ziemer as modified above further discloses an angle-of-rotation measuring sensor (256; para. [0066]) for position detection arranged on an end face of the shift drum in a radially internal region, but is silent to an angle-of-rotation measuring transmitter.
Maki teaches an angle-of-rotation measuring transmitter (para. [0036]; magnet 330 of Hall effect position sensor assembly), for the purpose of implementing the angle-of-rotation sensor of Mills.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to further modify the device of Ziemer such that there is an angle-of-rotation measuring transmitter, as taught by Maki, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of implementing the angle-of-rotation sensor of Mills.
Ziemer as modified above further suggests:
Re claim 18
The bottom bracket gearbox of claim 17, further comprising an angle-of-rotation measuring receiver (para. [0036] in Maki) facing the angle-of-rotation measuring transmitter (511a) on the shift drum and arranged on a gearbox housing side.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/05/2025 have been fully considered.
The drawing objection(s) have been overcome.
The previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been overcome. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new 35 USC 112(b) rejection hereinabove.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the previous 35 USC 103 rejections are not found persuasive. The Applicant argues that the prior art references Mills and Ziemer are from different fields. The Examiner notes that both Mills and Ziemer are in the same field of endeavor of vehicle transmissions. While Ziemer may be focused on a bicycle or pedelec transmission and Mills focused on a motor vehicle transmission, both are vehicle transmissions which is a field of endeavor. The Applicant’s field of endeavor likewise includes vehicle transmissions. Furthermore, a “pedelec” (both Ziemer and the instant application disclose use in “pedelecs”), is likewise a type motor vehicle, since it includes an electric motor, as is Mills (which discloses use in a motor vehicle), and so both are in the same field of endeavor of motor vehicle transmissions in particular as well in the same field of endeavor of vehicle transmissions in general.
The Examiner suggests focusing on claiming structural differences that are different from both Mills and from Ziemer, as long as there is sufficient support in the instant application as originally filed without adding new matter. For example, Mills teaches a harmonic drive, but the claims of the instant application as presently written do not preclude harmonic drives. However, the Examiner notes that in the instant application, while input pinion 9 is described as being in engagement with inner toothing 10 in the inner region of shift drum 7, that the drawings appear to show input pinion 9 centered within shift drum 7, and so it is not clear how the inner pinion 9 is both centered within shift drum 7 while also engaging the inner toothing 10 of shift drum 7 if it is not a harmonic drive (although the instant application does not appear to have explicit support for being a harmonic drive either), unless perhaps inner pinion 9 and inner toothing 10 are not gearing but rather spline connections with each other (although the instant application does not appear to have explicit support for 9 and 10 forming a splined connection rather than being gearing as disclosed). The Examiner notes that if new claimed subject matter is added, that claimed subject matter is required to be shown in the drawings, and that no new matter may be added to the instant application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY T PRATHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/GREGORY T PRATHER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618