DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-15 as originally presented and filed on 09/30/2024.
This application is subject to a DOUBLE PATENT rejection with the parent application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest possible effective filing date is October 2, 2023 (20231002).
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application 18/479,231, filed October 2, 2023 (20231002) (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07[R-08.2017]. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 [R-07.2015] Section A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b)[R-08.2017] (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) [R-08.2017] (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 [R-07.2015] Section A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609 [R-07.2022], Applicant's 01/13/2025 and 09/25/2025 submission(s) of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)(s) is/are acknowledged by the Examiner and the reference(s) cited therein has/have been considered in the examination of the claim(s) now pending. A copy of the submitted IDS(s) initialed and dated by the Examiner is/are attached to the instant Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 is not of sufficient quality to reproduce in any U.S. Patent that may issue as evidenced by the “reproduction” immediately below.
PNG
media_image1.png
635
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 2-15 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the clutch". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Those claims not explicitly cited are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6320336 B1 to Eguchi; Yasuhito in view of US 20190176930 A1 to Wiegel; Christopher D. et al. (hereinafter Wiegel, cited in the 09/25/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 1 Eguchi teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image2.png
556
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
445
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
386
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
467
623
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
443
678
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts an electronic component for an electric bicycle, the electric bicycle including a transmission (as shown in the figures above, and given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) multiple electrical components are shown for an electric bicycle and the claimed “transmission” connotes inter alia the motor 4 as explained in for example Col. 5 lines 27+, e.g.:
“(2) FIG. 1 shows a block diagram showing a basic arrangement of a bicycle with a power assisting function according to a first embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 1, the bicycle has a crank 1, a treading force detecting circuit 3, an electric motor 4, a crank gear 7, a chain 8, a drive gear 9, a one-way clutch 10, a manually operated drive wheel 11, a motor drive/output control circuit 12, a battery 13, and a motor-operated drive wheel 14.
(4) The present embodiment resides in that the electric motor 4 is rotated by the motor-operated drive wheel 14 to operate as an electric generator for charging the battery 13. Since a power transmission apparatus such as gears needs to be connected all the time, the electric motor 4 is required to have a very small idling loss.
(5) As described above, the idling loss of the electric motor comprises a hysteresis loss of iron, a bearing loss, a windage loss, a brush friction loss, etc., with the hysteresis loss and the brush friction loss particularly become a problem.“),
the electronic component comprising:
a processor configured to (connotes the “condition setting circuit 22” shown in Fig. 15 as explained in for example:
“(107) In FIG. 15, the bicycle has a crank 1, a treading force detecting circuit 3, an electric motor 4, a crank gear 7, a chain 8, a drive gear 9, a one-way clutch 10, a manually operated drive wheel 11, a motor drive/output control circuit 12, a battery 13, and a motor-operated drive wheel 14, a gradient detecting circuit 21, a running condition/assisting condition setting circuit 22, a display circuit 23, and a brake lever and a regenerative circuit 24.”):
determine a condition of the electric bicycle (given the BRI a condition connotes “the speed” of the bicycle which is taught in for example (Figures 2 and 14 above as explained in for example:
“(19) FIG. 2 shows the relationship between the running resistances, traction forces, and speeds when the total weight is 80 kg. In FIG. 2, the running resistance increases quadratically. When the gradient and the weight increase, the curve is shifted upwardly. Since the total weight is determined as 80 kg, only the gradient is indicated as a parameter. When the gradient becomes downhill (negative), the curve is shifted downwardly. If the traction forces are greater than the running resistance, then the bicycle is accelerated until a state of balance is reached when the traction forces become equal to the running resistance. The bicycle is decelerated when the traction forces are smaller than the running resistance.”);
identify an existence of a transmission loss of the transmission of the electric bicycle (it is considered that given the BRI the existence of a transmission loss is part of the rolling resistance as explained in for example Fig. 15 and paras:
“(86) In the present system, great importance is attached to the system efficiency. It is important to minimize mechanical losses including the rolling resistance of the electric motor, the transmission mechanism, and the wheels, and the windage loss of the rider and the bicycle body, and electrical losses of the battery, the control circuit, and the electric motor. If these losses are small, the amount of the electric current required to run the bicycle uphill is reduced, and the amount of the electric current generated in the regenerated mode when the bicycle runs downhill is increased.
(87) Reducing the electrical losses, for example, will be described below.
(88) Since a typical electrical loss is a resistance, distances that the bicycle can travel at various gradients as the resistances of the electric motor and the lines, and the battery internal resistance are reduced are simulated. The results of the simulation are shown in FIG. 11. The total resistance is indicated by: (86) In the present system, great importance is attached to the system efficiency. It is important to minimize mechanical losses including the rolling resistance of the electric motor, the transmission mechanism, and the wheels, and the windage loss of the rider and the bicycle body, and electrical losses of the battery, the control circuit, and the electric motor. If these losses are small, the amount of the electric current required to run the bicycle uphill is reduced, and the amount of the electric current generated in the regenerated mode when the bicycle runs downhill is increased.”);
and control an assist motor of the electric bicycle based on the identified existence of the transmission loss and the determined condition of the electric bicycle (in for example Fig. 15 and para:
“(114) The optimum conditions need to be considered taking into account a combination of the efficiency of the power system (the electric motor, the transmission apparatus, the control circuit, the battery, etc.) and the running efficiency. To increase the combined efficiency, an efficient transmission and a field-weakening control process are also additionally considered.
(126) Pulsed forces applied to the pedals may not be used directly for assistance, but may be smoothed to avoid a pulsed current, and the tire air pressure and the lubrication of the running transmission system may be detected by suitable means and indicated to the rider by suitable means for prompting servicing of the bicycle. It is important to construct the system in view of these considerations.”).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2019], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
While given the BRI Eguchi appears to teach the invention as claimed and explained above, if Applicant is of the opinion that Eguchi does not appear to expressly disclose identify an existence of a transmission loss of the transmission of the electric bicycle,
and control an assist motor of the electric bicycle based on the identified existence of the transmission loss and the determined condition of the electric bicycle then resort may be had to the analogous art of Wiegel, who teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image7.png
461
730
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
409
748
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
761
499
media_image9.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts identify an existence of a transmission loss of the transmission of the electric bicycle (wherein it is understood that a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) would connote a transmission as inter alia the “drivetrain 116” of the electric bicycle “pedelec 100” shown in for example figures 1, 3 and 5 above and transmission loss is identified in step 516 as explained in for example only paras:
“[0012] FIG. 1 shows a pedelec 100 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. The pedelec 100 may be generally constructed like a traditional bicycle, with a frame 108, handlebars 112, a front wheel 120, a rear wheel 128, pedals 120, and a drivetrain 116. The drivetrain 116 may comprise, for example, a chain that transfers force from one or more power input systems (e.g., pedals, electric motor) to one or more gears in force-transmitting communication with the drive wheel of the pedelec (e.g., the rear wheel). In some embodiments, a power transmission device other than a chain may be used. Also in some embodiments, the front wheel of the pedelec may be the drive wheel. Embodiments of the present disclosure may also be used with tricycles or quadricycles, which may have more than one drive wheel.
[0013] The pedelec 100 also comprises a motor 104 in force-transmitting communication with the drivetrain 116. The motor 104 may be any electric motor suitable for use on a bicycle. The motor 104 may be an AC motor or a DC motor. The motor 104 may also be a brush or brushless motor. The motor 104 may be a slotted or slotless motor. Generally, the motor 104 has a lower horsepower output, as larger horsepower motors are both bigger and heavier and not necessarily suitable for inclusion on this pedelec 100. However, the present disclosure does not impose any constraints on the horsepower output of the motor 104. In some embodiments, the motor 104 may be a three-phase, direct current, brushless, slotless outrunner style motor. In some embodiments, the motor 104 may be a direct drive motor, while in other embodiments the motor 104 may comprise or utilize a gearbox to achieve an output rotations per minute (RPM) that is different than the operating RPM of the motor 104 itself. Such a gearbox may also be used to enable the motor 104 to provide greater or lesser torque to the drivetrain 116 and/or to the rear wheel 128.
[0016] The motor 104b transfers power to the drivetrain 116, which in turn transfers that power to the rear wheel 128 via the drivetrain 116, thus enabling the motor 104b to drive the rear wheel 128. As ordinarily skilled artisans will recognize based upon the present disclosure, a motor 104 may be placed elsewhere on the pedelec 100 and provided with a force transmission path that enables the motor 104 to drive the rear wheel 128.
[0047] In step 516, the controller 136 can determine the required torque in order to limit or eliminate the amount of friction and/or resistance imposed by the motor 104 on the drivetrain 116 and thus on the user's pedaling. Here, the controller 136 may obtain or extract data, such as in data structure 404, to determine the torque required or to look up the amount of torque required based on the motor type 420, bike type 412, bike ID 408, motor ID 416, and/or operating status 424. As described above, this information may be used to determine the amount of torque required to provide zero resistance from the motor 228 to the user while pedaling the pedelec 100.”),
and control an assist motor of the electric bicycle based on the identified existence of the transmission loss and the determined condition of the electric bicycle (as shown in Fig. 5 steps 516 and 524 as explained in for example only para:
“[0048] Once the amount of torque is determined, the controller 136 can control the motor to provide that required torque in step 524. Here, the controller can send signals to the motor 104 or the battery management system 224 to provide the proper amount of amperage and torque angle to the motor 104 to ensure that the amount of torque provided is just enough to overcome the resistance of the motor to the pedaling of the user.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transmission loss detection and compensation disclosed in Wiegel with the electric bicycle control taught in Eguchi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have ensured “that the motor does not provide additional and unnecessary resistance to the drivetrain and so that the motor does not push the user's feet by driving the pedals” as taught by Wiegel Para:
“[0003] Pedal Electric Cycles (pedelecs) have become a popular means for transportation. Pedelecs have traditional bicycle pedals but are also equipped with an electric motor that is configured to assist in the propulsion of the bicycle. The motor support level for a pedelec is controllable in the range from no support to maximum support. A mechanical “pedal clutch” and a mechanical “motor clutch” are used to engage and disengage the pedals and the electric motor from the bicycle drivetrain. For example, if the user is pedaling without motor support, the pedal clutch is engaged and the motor clutch is disengaged. If the user is pedaling with motor support, both the pedal clutch and the motor clutch are engaged. If the user is back-pedaling, both clutches are disengaged. If the user is coasting on the pedelec, then both clutches are disengaged. Thus, the motor clutch allows the motor to be disengaged from the drivetrain when the motor is off or when the drivetrain is moving faster than the motor, so that the motor does not provide additional and unnecessary resistance to the drivetrain and so that the motor does not push the user's feet by driving the pedals.
Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the electronic component of claim 1, wherein the processor being configured to identify the existence of the transmission loss comprises the processor being configured to determine a speed of an output of the clutch of the electric bicycle (see Eguchi para:
“(13) Manual forces applied to the crank 1 are detected by the treading force detecting circuit 3. The motor drive/output control circuit 12 determines an assistive power from the treading forces and the bicycle speed, and controls a current and a voltage of the electric motor 4. If necessary, the motor drive/output control circuit 12 confirms that the voltage and the current are properly controlled. The assistive power is such that it produces the same traction forces as the treading forces up to a bicycle speed of 15 km/h, reduces the traction forces depending on the bicycle speed when the bicycle speed exceeds 15 km/h, and eliminates the traction forces when the bicycle speed is 24 km/h.”).
Claims 3-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6320336 B1 to Eguchi; Yasuhito in view of US 20190176930 A1 to Wiegel; Christopher D. et al. (hereinafter Wiegel, cited in the 09/25/2025 IDS) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20090118933 A1 to Heap; Anthony H.
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Eguchi and Wiegel does not appear to expressly disclose, however in analogous art Heap teaches (in the portions in parenthesis below) the limitations wherein the processor being configured to identify the existence of the transmission loss (in the title “METHOD TO COMPENSATE FOR TRANSMISSION SPIN LOSS FOR A HYBRID POWERTRAIN SYSTEM“ and abstract) comprises the processor being further configured to (in the figures below:
PNG
media_image10.png
440
660
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
421
606
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
416
644
media_image12.png
Greyscale
determine a speed of an input to the clutch
“[0028] Each of the transmission operating range states is described in the table and indicates which of the specific clutches C1 70, C2 62, C3 73, and C4 75 are applied for each of the operating range states. A first continuously variable mode, i.e., EVT Mode 1, or M1, is selected by applying clutch C1 70 only in order to "ground" the outer gear member of the third planetary gear set 28. The engine state can be one of ON (`M1_Eng_On`) or OFF (`M1_Eng_Off`). A second continuously variable mode, i.e., EVT Mode 2, or M2, is selected by applying clutch C2 62 only to connect the shaft 60 to the carrier of the third planetary gear set 28. The engine state can be one of ON (`M2_Eng_On`) or OFF (`M2_Eng_Off`). For purposes of this description, when the engine state is OFF, the engine input speed is equal to zero revolutions per minute (`RPM`), i.e., the engine crankshaft is not rotating. A fixed gear operation provides a fixed ratio operation of input-to-output speed of the transmission 10, i.e., N.sub.I/N.sub.O. A first fixed gear operation (`G1`) is selected by applying clutches C1 70 and C4 75. A second fixed gear operation (`G2`) is selected by applying clutches C1 70 and C2 62. A third fixed gear operation (`G3`) is selected by applying clutches C2 62 and C4 75. A fourth fixed gear operation (`G4`) is selected by applying clutches C2 62 and C3 73. The fixed ratio operation of input-to-output speed increases with increased fixed gear operation due to decreased gear ratios in the planetary gears 24, 26, and 28. The rotational speeds of the first and second electric machines 56 and 72, N.sub.A and N.sub.B respectively, are dependent on internal rotation of the mechanism as defined by the clutching and are proportional to the input speed measured at the input shaft 12.”);
determine a difference between the speed of the output of the clutch and the speed of the input of the clutch (in for example para:
“[0032] In operation, the operator inputs to the accelerator pedal 113 and the brake pedal 112 are monitored to determine the operator torque request. The operator inputs to the accelerator pedal 113 and the brake pedal 112 comprise individually determinable operator torque request inputs including an immediate accelerator output torque request (`Output Torque Request Accel Immed`), a predicted accelerator output torque request (`Output Torque Request Accel Prdtd`), an immediate brake output torque request (`Output Torque Request Brake Immed`), a predicted brake output torque request (`Output Torque Request Brake Prdtd`) and an axle torque response type (`Axle Torque Response Type`). As used herein, the term `accelerator` refers to an operator request for forward propulsion preferably resulting in increasing vehicle speed over the present vehicle speed, when the operator selected position of the transmission gear selector 114 commands operation of the vehicle in the forward direction. The terms `deceleration` and `brake` refer to an operator request preferably resulting in decreasing vehicle speed from the present vehicle speed. The immediate accelerator output torque request, the predicted accelerator output torque request, the immediate brake output torque request, the predicted brake output torque request, and the axle torque response type are individual inputs to the control system. Additionally, operation of the engine 14 and the transmission 10 are monitored to determine the input speed (`Ni`) and the output speed (`No`).”);
and a processor being configured to control an assist motor
“7. Method for controlling a powertrain system including an engine coupled to an input member of a hybrid transmission, the hybrid transmission operative to transmit torque between the input member and first and second electric machines and an output member, the method comprising: monitoring an operator torque request; determining an output torque command and an output speed of the output member; iteratively selecting candidate input speeds to the input member; determining mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission for each of the candidate input speeds and the output speed; and selecting a preferred input speed comprising the candidate input speed that achieves a minimum mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission at the output speed.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of controlling the powertrain disclosed in Heap with the method of controlling the powertrain taught in the combination of Eguchi and Wiegel with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have achieved a minimum mechanical power loss (which would have provided the additional benefit of extending the range of the electric bicycle) as taught by Heap Para(s):
“[0005] A powertrain system includes an engine coupled to an input member of a hybrid transmission. The hybrid transmission is operative to transmit torque between the input member and a torque generating machine and an output member. A method for controlling the powertrain system includes monitoring an operator torque request, determining an output torque command and an output speed of the output member, iteratively selecting candidate input speeds to the input member, determining mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission for each of the candidate input speeds and the output speed, and selecting a preferred input speed comprising the candidate input speed that achieves a minimum mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission at the output speed.”.
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation the electric component of claim 3, wherein the processor configured to determine the condition of the electric bicycle comprises determining a speed of the electric bicycle (see the teachings of Eguchi:
“(13) Manual forces applied to the crank 1 are detected by the treading force detecting circuit 3. The motor drive/output control circuit 12 determines an assistive power from the treading forces and the bicycle speed, and controls a current and a voltage of the electric motor 4. If necessary, the motor drive/output control circuit 12 confirms that the voltage and the current are properly controlled. The assistive power is such that it produces the same traction forces as the treading forces up to a bicycle speed of 15 km/h, reduces the traction forces depending on the bicycle speed when the bicycle speed exceeds 15 km/h, and eliminates the traction forces when the bicycle speed is 24 km/h.””).
Regarding claim 5 and the limitation the electric component of claim 4, wherein the processor being configured to control the speed of the assist motor of the electric bicycle based on the determined difference comprises the processor controlling the speed of the assist motor so that the speed of the input of the clutch is less than an engagement speed of the clutch when the speed of the electric bicycle meets or exceeds a threshold speed (see the teachings of Eguchi:
“(13) Manual forces applied to the crank 1 are detected by the treading force detecting circuit 3. The motor drive/output control circuit 12 determines an assistive power from the treading forces and the bicycle speed, and controls a current and a voltage of the electric motor 4. If necessary, the motor drive/output control circuit 12 confirms that the voltage and the current are properly controlled. The assistive power is such that it produces the same traction forces as the treading forces up to a bicycle speed of 15 km/h, reduces the traction forces depending on the bicycle speed when the bicycle speed exceeds 15 km/h, and eliminates the traction forces when the bicycle speed is 24 km/h.”
And Heap para:
“[0028] Each of the transmission operating range states is described in the table and indicates which of the specific clutches C1 70, C2 62, C3 73, and C4 75 are applied for each of the operating range states. A first continuously variable mode, i.e., EVT Mode 1, or M1, is selected by applying clutch C1 70 only in order to "ground" the outer gear member of the third planetary gear set 28. The engine state can be one of ON (`M1_Eng_On`) or OFF (`M1_Eng_Off`). A second continuously variable mode, i.e., EVT Mode 2, or M2, is selected by applying clutch C2 62 only to connect the shaft 60 to the carrier of the third planetary gear set 28. The engine state can be one of ON (`M2_Eng_On`) or OFF (`M2_Eng_Off`). For purposes of this description, when the engine state is OFF, the engine input speed is equal to zero revolutions per minute (`RPM`), i.e., the engine crankshaft is not rotating. A fixed gear operation provides a fixed ratio operation of input-to-output speed of the transmission 10, i.e., N.sub.I/N.sub.O. A first fixed gear operation (`G1`) is selected by applying clutches C1 70 and C4 75. A second fixed gear operation (`G2`) is selected by applying clutches C1 70 and C2 62. A third fixed gear operation (`G3`) is selected by applying clutches C2 62 and C4 75. A fourth fixed gear operation (`G4`) is selected by applying clutches C2 62 and C3 73. The fixed ratio operation of input-to-output speed increases with increased fixed gear operation due to decreased gear ratios in the planetary gears 24, 26, and 28. The rotational speeds of the first and second electric machines 56 and 72, N.sub.A and N.sub.B respectively, are dependent on internal rotation of the mechanism as defined by the clutching and are proportional to the input speed measured at the input shaft 12.”
wherein it is understood that a POSITA would find it obvious to select the “preferred” speed as taught by AT LEAST Heap.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of controlling the powertrain disclosed in Heap with the method of controlling the powertrain taught in the combination of Eguchi and Wiegel with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have achieved a minimum mechanical power loss (which would have provided the additional benefit of extending the range of the electric bicycle) as taught by Heap Para(s):
“[0005] A powertrain system includes an engine coupled to an input member of a hybrid transmission. The hybrid transmission is operative to transmit torque between the input member and a torque generating machine and an output member. A method for controlling the powertrain system includes monitoring an operator torque request, determining an output torque command and an output speed of the output member, iteratively selecting candidate input speeds to the input member, determining mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission for each of the candidate input speeds and the output speed, and selecting a preferred input speed comprising the candidate input speed that achieves a minimum mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission at the output speed.”.
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation the electric component of claim 4, wherein the processor being configured to control the speed of the assist motor of the electric bicycle based on the determined difference comprises the processor controlling the speed of the assist motor so that the speed of the input of the clutch is less than the speed of the output of the clutch when the speed of the electric bicycle meets or exceeds a threshold speed (see the teachings of Eguchi para (13) and Heap paras [0005] and [0028] above and the motivation to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of at least claim 4 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that a POSITA would find it obvious to select the “preferred” speed as taught by AT LEAST Heap.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of controlling the powertrain disclosed in Heap with the method of controlling the powertrain taught in the combination of Eguchi and Wiegel with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have achieved a minimum mechanical power loss (which would have provided the additional benefit of extending the range of the electric bicycle) as taught by Heap Para(s):
“[0005] A powertrain system includes an engine coupled to an input member of a hybrid transmission. The hybrid transmission is operative to transmit torque between the input member and a torque generating machine and an output member. A method for controlling the powertrain system includes monitoring an operator torque request, determining an output torque command and an output speed of the output member, iteratively selecting candidate input speeds to the input member, determining mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission for each of the candidate input speeds and the output speed, and selecting a preferred input speed comprising the candidate input speed that achieves a minimum mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission at the output speed.”.
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation the electric component of claim 3, wherein the processor being configured to control the speed of the assist motor of the electric bicycle based on the determined difference comprises the processor controlling the speed of the assist motor so that the speed of the input of the clutch is less than or equal to the speed of the output of the clutch (see the teachings of Eguchi para (13) and Heap paras [0005] and [0028] above and the motivation to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of at least claim 4 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that a POSITA would find it obvious to select the “preferred” speed as taught by AT LEAST Heap.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of controlling the powertrain disclosed in Heap with the method of controlling the powertrain taught in the combination of Eguchi and Wiegel with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have achieved a minimum mechanical power loss (which would have provided the additional benefit of extending the range of the electric bicycle) as taught by Heap Para(s):
“[0005] A powertrain system includes an engine coupled to an input member of a hybrid transmission. The hybrid transmission is operative to transmit torque between the input member and a torque generating machine and an output member. A method for controlling the powertrain system includes monitoring an operator torque request, determining an output torque command and an output speed of the output member, iteratively selecting candidate input speeds to the input member, determining mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission for each of the candidate input speeds and the output speed, and selecting a preferred input speed comprising the candidate input speed that achieves a minimum mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission at the output speed.”.
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation the electric component of claim 3, wherein the processor being configured to identify the speed of the input to the clutch of the electric bicycle comprises the processor being configured to receive a speed data of the input to the clutch from a clutch input speed sensor (see the teachings of Eguchi para (13) and Heap paras [0005] and [0028] above and the motivation to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of at least claim 4 above incorporated herein by reference. See also Heap para:
“[0012] The exemplary engine 14 comprises a multi-cylinder internal combustion engine selectively operative in several states to transfer torque to the transmission 10 via an input shaft 12, and can be either a spark-ignition or a compression-ignition engine. The engine 14 includes a crankshaft (not shown) operatively coupled to the input shaft 12 of the transmission 10. A rotational speed sensor 11 monitors rotational speed of the input shaft 12. Power output from the engine 14, comprising rotational speed and engine torque, can differ from the input speed N.sub.I and the input torque T.sub.I to the transmission 10 due to placement of torque-consuming components on the input shaft 12 between the engine 14 and the transmission 10, e.g., a hydraulic pump (not shown) and/or a torque management device (not shown).”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of controlling the powertrain disclosed in Heap with the method of controlling the powertrain taught in the combination of Eguchi and Wiegel with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have achieved a minimum mechanical power loss (which would have provided the additional benefit of extending the range of the electric bicycle) as taught by Heap Para(s):
“[0005] A powertrain system includes an engine coupled to an input member of a hybrid transmission. The hybrid transmission is operative to transmit torque between the input member and a torque generating machine and an output member. A method for controlling the powertrain system includes monitoring an operator torque request, determining an output torque command and an output speed of the output member, iteratively selecting candidate input speeds to the input member, determining mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission for each of the candidate input speeds and the output speed, and selecting a preferred input speed comprising the candidate input speed that achieves a minimum mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission at the output speed.”.
Regarding claim 9 and the limitation the electric component of claim 3, wherein the assist motor includes one or more gear reductions, and an output of one of the one or more gear reductions is connected to the input of the clutch (see the teachings of Eguchi paras (6) “higher speed gears” (13) and Heap paras [0005] and [0028] above and the motivation to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of at least claim 4 above incorporated herein by reference.). See Heap para:
“[0012] The exemplary engine 14 comprises a multi-cylinder internal combustion engine selectively operative in several states to transfer torque to the transmission 10 via an input shaft 12, and can be either a spark-ignition or a compression-ignition engine. The engine 14 includes a crankshaft (not shown) operatively coupled to the input shaft 12 of the transmission 10. A rotational speed sensor 11 monitors rotational speed of the input shaft 12. Power output from the engine 14, comprising rotational speed and engine torque, can differ from the input speed N.sub.I and the input torque T.sub.I to the transmission 10 due to placement of torque-consuming components on the input shaft 12 between the engine 14 and the transmission 10, e.g., a hydraulic pump (not shown) and/or a torque management device (not shown).”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of controlling the powertrain disclosed in Heap with the method of controlling the powertrain taught in the combination of Eguchi and Wiegel with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have achieved a minimum mechanical power loss (which would have provided the additional benefit of extending the range of the electric bicycle) as taught by Heap Para(s):
“[0005] A powertrain system includes an engine coupled to an input member of a hybrid transmission. The hybrid transmission is operative to transmit torque between the input member and a torque generating machine and an output member. A method for controlling the powertrain system includes monitoring an operator torque request, determining an output torque command and an output speed of the output member, iteratively selecting candidate input speeds to the input member, determining mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission for each of the candidate input speeds and the output speed, and selecting a preferred input speed comprising the candidate input speed that achieves a minimum mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission at the output speed.”.
Regarding claim 10 and the limitation the electric component of claim 9, wherein the speed of the input of the clutch is equal to a speed of the output of one of the one or more gear reductions (see the teachings of Eguchi para (13) and Heap paras [0005] and [0028] above and the motivation to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of at least claim 4 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that a POSITA would find it obvious to select the “preferred” speed as taught by AT LEAST Heap.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of controlling the powertrain disclosed in Heap with the method of controlling the powertrain taught in the combination of Eguchi and Wiegel with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have achieved a minimum mechanical power loss (which would have provided the additional benefit of extending the range of the electric bicycle) as taught by Heap Para(s):
“[0005] A powertrain system includes an engine coupled to an input member of a hybrid transmission. The hybrid transmission is operative to transmit torque between the input member and a torque generating machine and an output member. A method for controlling the powertrain system includes monitoring an operator torque request, determining an output torque command and an output speed of the output member, iteratively selecting candidate input speeds to the input member, determining mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission for each of the candidate input speeds and the output speed, and selecting a preferred input speed comprising the candidate input speed that achieves a minimum mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission at the output speed.”.
Regarding claim 11 and the limitation the electric component of claim 10, wherein the processor being configured to determine the speed of the input to the clutch of the electric bicycle comprises the processor being configured to receive a speed data of the output of one of the one or more gear reductions from a gear reduction output speed sensor (see the teachings of Heap para:
“[0016] The transmission 10 includes an output member 64, e.g. a shaft, which is operably connected to a driveline 90 for a vehicle (not shown), to provide output power to the driveline 90 that is transferred to vehicle wheels 93, one of which is shown in FIG. 1. The output power at the output member 64 is characterized in terms of an output rotational speed N.sub.O and an output torque To. A transmission output speed sensor 84 monitors rotational speed and rotational direction of the output member 64. Each of the vehicle wheels 93 is preferably equipped with a friction brake 94 and a sensor (not shown) adapted to monitor wheel speed, V.sub.SS-WHL, the output of which is monitored by a control module of a distributed control module system described with respect to FIG. 2, to determine vehicle speed, and absolute and relative wheel speeds for braking control, traction control, and vehicle acceleration management.
[0023] The TCM 17 is operatively connected to the transmission 10 and monitors inputs from sensors (not shown) to determine states of transmission operating parameters. The TCM 17 generates and communicates command signals to control the transmission 10, including controlling the hydraulic control circuit 42. Inputs from the TCM 17 to the HCP 5 include estimated clutch torques for each of the clutches, i.e., C1 70, C2 62, C3 73, and C4 75, and rotational output speed, N.sub.O, of the output member 64. Other actuators and sensors may be used to provide additional information from the TCM 17 to the HCP 5 for control purposes. The TCM 17 monitors inputs from pressure switches (not shown) and selectively actuates pressure control solenoids (not shown) and shift solenoids (not shown) of the hydraulic control circuit 42 to selectively actuate the various clutches C1 70, C2 62, C3 73, and C4 75 to achieve various transmission operating range states, as described hereinbelow.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system controlling the powertrain disclosed in Heap with the system controlling the powertrain taught in the combination of Eguchi and Wiegel with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have achieved a minimum mechanical power loss (which would have provided the additional benefit of extending the range of the electric bicycle) as taught by Heap Para(s):
“[0005] A powertrain system includes an engine coupled to an input member of a hybrid transmission. The hybrid transmission is operative to transmit torque between the input member and a torque generating machine and an output member. A method for controlling the powertrain system includes monitoring an operator torque request, determining an output torque command and an output speed of the output member, iteratively selecting candidate input speeds to the input member, determining mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission for each of the candidate input speeds and the output speed, and selecting a preferred input speed comprising the candidate input speed that achieves a minimum mechanical power loss in the hybrid transmission at the output speed.”.
Regarding claim 12 and the limitation the electric component of claim 9, wherein the clutch and one or more gear reductions are part of the assist motor (see the teachings of the combination of references in see the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 9, 3, 2 and 1 above incorporated herein by reference in light of MPEP 2144.04.VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS wherein it is understood that it would have been obvious to reverse, duplicate and/or rearrange the parts of the combination of Eguchi, Wiegel and Heap above as an obvious matter of design choice since merely expected results would be produced.)
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 13 and the limitation the electric component of claim 9, wherein the clutch and one or more gear reductions are separate from the assist motor (see the teachings of the combination of references in see the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 9, 3, 2 and 1 above incorporated herein by reference in light of MPEP 2144.04.VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS wherein it is understood that it would have been obvious to reverse, duplicate and/or rearrange the parts of the combination of Eguchi, Wiegel and Heap above as an obvious matter of design choice since merely expected results would be produced.)
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 14 and the limitation the electric component of claim 3, wherein the input to the clutch is connected to a rotor of the motor, and the speed of the input to the clutch is equal to a speed of the rotor of the motor (see the teachings of the combination of references in see the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 9, 3, 2 and 1 above incorporated herein by reference in light of MPEP 2144.04.VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS wherein it is understood that it would have been obvious to reverse, duplicate and/or rearrange the parts of the combination of Eguchi, Wiegel and Heap above as an obvious matter of design choice since merely expected results would be produced.)
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 15 and the limitation the electric component of claim 14, wherein the processor being configured to determine the speed of the input to the clutch of the electric bicycle comprises the processor being configured to receive a speed data of the rotor from a rotor speed sensor (see the teachings of the combination of references in see the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 9, 3, 2 and 1 above incorporated herein by reference in light of MPEP 2144.04.VI. REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS wherein it is understood that it would have been obvious to reverse, duplicate and/or rearrange the parts of the combination of Eguchi, Wiegel and Heap above as an obvious matter of design choice since merely expected results would be produced.)
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/479,231 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown by the side by side comparison below.
Those claims not explicitly cited below are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims of instant application
Claims of Application 18/479,231
1. An electronic component for an electric bicycle, the electric bicycle including a transmission, the electronic component comprising:
a processor configured to: determine a condition of the electric bicycle;
identify an existence of a transmission loss of the transmission of the electric bicycle;
and control an assist motor of the electric bicycle based on the identified existence of the transmission loss and the determined condition of the electric bicycle.
1. An electronic component for an electric bicycle, the electric bicycle including a transmission, the electronic component comprising:
a processor configured to: identify an operating condition of the electric bicycle;
determine transmission losses of the transmission of the electric bicycle based on the identified operating condition;
and control an assist motor of the electric bicycle based on the determined transmission losses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of electric bicycles and electric bicycle transmissions at the time of the invention. For example:
WO 2023280743 A1 to NICOLAI KARLHEINZ teaches, inter alia a DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AN AUXILIARY DRIVE OF A BICYCLE PROVIDED WITH A MECHANICAL TRANSMISSION, AS WELL AS AUXILIARY DRIVE AND BICYCLE in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“An output power 25d arrives at the rear wheel 84 of the bicycle 64 . The output power 25d can not only be calculated by the computer device 63, but can optionally also be detected by an output power sensor 134, which transmits output power data 136 wirelessly and/or by wire to the computer device 63. An output torque sensor 138 can detect an output torque 140 acting on the rear wheel and transmit output torque data 142 representative of the output torque 140 wirelessly and/or by wire to the control unit 62 or the computer device 63 . A speed of the rear wheel 84 can be determined by an output frequency sensor 144, which transmits output frequency data 146, which is representative of the output frequency or speed of the rear wheel 84, wirelessly and/or by wire to the control unit 62 or the computing device 63. A travel speed of the bicycle can be derived from the drive frequency data 146 if the wheel circumference is known. Alternatively or additionally, the control unit or the computer device 63 can have a position sensor 145, for example a GPS, GLONASS and/or the GALILEO sensor. The driving speed can be determined with the aid of the position sensor 145 . If the wheel circumference is known, the driving speed can also be calculated from the known transmission ratio currently provided by the gearshift 4 and the cadence data 118 . The vehicle speed is represented by vehicle speed data 147 .
In Fig. 6 qualitative representations of the gear shift characteristics 150 of two different gear shifts are shown. The gear shift characteristic 150a shows the power loss Pv as a function of the torque M present at a transmission input 10 (FIG. 1). This gear shift characteristic 150a shows the gear-dependent losses. With three gears, for example, each gear has a different curve 150a-1, 150a-2, 150a-3. The gear shift characteristic 150b contains the power loss Pv of another transmission, which is dependent on the torque M present at the transmission input 10, for the gears provided there, which can have the same or a different transmission ratio. Again, each gear has a different curve 150b-1, 150b-2 and 150b-3. Depending on the gear ratio provided by the gear shift 4, which is presented in the gear shift data 151, the gear shift characteristic 150 of FIG Power loss is compensated or only the relative power loss to the other gear shift. Other transmission ratios can also be simulated. What is not shown in FIG. 6 is that the gear shift characteristics 150a, 150b of the two manual transmissions can also depend on the rotational speed present on the input side. The gear shift characteristics can optionally also represent additional parameters. Temperature and operating time or mathematical time derivations generated electronically in the computer device 63 or transformations of the above-mentioned parameters are mentioned here as examples.”.
US 20160318576 A1 to JOHANNESSEN; Jørgen Mosbaek teaches, inter alia A Transmission For A Human Powered Vehicle (HPV) And Such Vehicle in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“The transmission is for transmitting a reciprocating pedal movement into a rotational movement and comprises a pair of pedals suspended for reciprocating movement, two rotating cam members (29) rotating around respective cam axes (33), each rotating cam member (29) having a peripheral cam surface (31), the rotating cam members (29) being coupled to a rotating member (35) through a respective one-way clutch. Flexible tension members (63) are connecting either pedal to a respective one of the rotating cam members (29), which are eccentric to provide for a gearing ratio between angular movement of the rotating cam member (29) and translational movement of the respective pedal to vary, such that the gearing ratio has a minimum value when the pedal is in an intermediate position between its extended position and its retracted position, and major values when the pedal is in its retracted or extended position.”.
US 20050077096 A1 to Kokatsu, Kyosuke et al. teaches, inter alia an Electrically powered assist bicycle in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image13.png
424
545
media_image13.png
Greyscale
“An electromotive power assisted bicycle comprises a drive shaft 4 to be rotated by a pedal effort; a primary sprocket 2 fixed to the drive shaft 4 for transmitting the pedal effort to a drive wheel 22; a secondary sprocket fixed to the drive shaft 4 coaxially with the primary sprocket 2; a pedal effort detection sensor for detecting a pedal effort; an electromotive power output unit box 13 detachably attached to the body for outputting an electromotive power in response to the pedal effort detected by the pedal effort detection sensor; a power sprocket coupled to a rotating output shaft of the electromotive power output unit box 13; an auxiliary chain stretched across between the secondary sprocket and the power sprocket; and a battery bracket 165 capable of accommodating a battery 162 for the electromotive power output unit box 13. Since the degree of flexibility for installing respective components has been significantly extended and also the overall system has been made light and compact, a bicycle of an ordinary frame can be easily powered by electricity.
[0083] The electromotive power output unit box 13 is mounted to a frame similar to that of a typical bicycle, and its housing contains an electric motor 37 that is supplied with electric power from the battery (FIG. 2) and a reduction gear mechanism 35 coupled to an output shaft 37a of said motor 37 for reducing a revolving speed of the motor and transmitting it to the power shaft 35a of the power sprocket 33. A so-called one-way clutch (not shown) for transmitting the power only in one direction is provided in the course of the transmission path of the assisting power in the reduction gear mechanism 35. This one-way clutch is configured and connected so that it can transmit the assisting power from the electric motor 37 to the power sprocket 33 but not transmit a torque in the inverse direction, or from the power sprocket 33 to the reduction gear mechanism 35.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260110