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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2005/0087379 A1 to Holland.
Regarding claim 1, Holland discloses an electric power-assisted bicycle (Fig. 1) comprising:
a bottom bracket (A) configured to support a crankshaft (22) (Annotated Fig. 1 & [0041] disclose the circled portion of the frame supporting the crankshaft 22 which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be a bottom bracket.);
a motor unit (28) which includes an electric motor (28), a housing (28) which houses the electric motor (28), and an output shaft (42) protruding from the housing to output torque of the electric motor, and is disposed at a distance from the bottom bracket (A) (Figs. 1-2 & [0043] disclose the motor unit 28 includes a motor and a case and the motor unit drives the sprocket 42 and therefore is interpreted as including an output shaft. At a minimum the sprocket which is
PNG
media_image1.png
516
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
mounted to the motor can be interpreted as the output shaft.);
a frame (12) including a head tube (B) configured to support a steering shaft (C), a frame bottom part (D) which supports the bottom bracket (A), and a down frame part (E) extending obliquely downward from the head tube (B) toward the frame bottom part (D) (Annotated Fig. 1, Fig. 2, & [0041] disclose the frame bottom part is the area of the frame surrounding the bottom bracket.); and
a battery (36) attached to the down frame part (E) (Annotated Fig. 1 & [0041]), wherein
the motor unit (28) is located above the bottom bracket (A) and behind the battery (36) when the electric power-assisted bicycle (10) is viewed in an upright and ridable orientation (Annotated Fig. 1 noting that at least a portion of the bottom bracket is behind the battery), and
PNG
media_image2.png
456
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a lower end (F) of the battery (36) is located below a rotational center of the electric motor (28) (Annotated Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Holland further discloses wherein
a whole of a lower surface (F) of the battery (36) is located below a lower end of the electric motor (28) (Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Holland further discloses wherein
a distance from the crankshaft to an end portion of the battery is shorter than at least one of a distance from the crankshaft to the rotational center of the electric motor, and a distance from the crankshaft to a rotational center of the output shaft (Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 1, Holland further discloses, further comprising:
a first sprocket (26) provided to the crankshaft (22) (Annotated Fig. 1 & [0041]);
a second sprocket (40) which is provided to the output shaft, and has a smaller number of teeth than the first sprocket (26); and
a chain (32) which is wound around the first sprocket (26) and the second sprocket (40), and is configured to transmit rotations of the first sprocket (26) and the second sprocket (40) to a rear wheel (14) (Annotated Figs. 1-2 & [0041]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 1, Holland further discloses wherein
the frame (12) includes a mainframe part (34) which extends rearward from the head tube (B), and is located above the down frame part (E) (Annotated Figs. 1-2 depict the main frame part 34 extending from the from the frame rearward of the headtube and above from the downtube E),
at least a rear portion of the mainframe part (E) includes a right extension part and a left extension part separated in a left-right direction (Annotated Figs. 1-2 & [0041]-[0043]. See also generally alternate embodiment shown in Fig. 6 which depicts non-drive side of main frame part), and
a part of the motor unit (28) overlaps at least one of the right extension part and the left extension part in a side view (Annotated Figs. 1-2 & [0041]-[0043] disclose the main frame part 34 overlaps the motor 28 on both sides.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0289335 A1 to Spaggiari in view of Holland.
Regarding claim 1, Spaggiari discloses an electric power-assisted bicycle (11) (Fig. 1B & Abstract) comprising:
a bottom bracket (A) configured to support a crankshaft (17) (Annotated Fig. 5B & [0036] disclose the circled portion of the frame supporting the crankshaft 17 which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be a bottom bracket);
PNG
media_image3.png
554
898
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a motor unit (10) which includes an electric motor (14), a housing (12) which houses the electric motor (14) (Figs. 2A-E & [0087]), and an output shaft (160) protruding from the housing (12) to output torque of the electric motor (14), and is disposed at a distance from the bottom bracket (A) (Annotated Fig. 5B, Figs. 2A-E & [0061]);
a frame (13) including a head tube (B) configured to support a steering shaft (C), a frame bottom part (D) which supports the bottom bracket (A), and a down frame part (132) extending obliquely downward from the head tube (B) toward the frame bottom part (D) (Annotated Figs. 1B and 5B & [0098]); and
the motor unit (10) is located above the bottom bracket (A) and … when the electric power-assisted bicycle (11) is viewed in an upright and ridable orientation (Annotated Fig. 1B).
PNG
media_image4.png
571
708
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Spaggiari does not appear to specifica disclose a battery attached to the down frame part, wherein the motor unit (10) is located above the bottom bracket (A) and behind the battery, and a lower end of the battery is located below a rotational center of the electric motor.
Holland teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electric bicycles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a battery (36) attached to the down frame part (E) (Annotated Fig. 1 & [0041]), wherein
the motor unit (28) is located above the bottom bracket (A) and behind the battery (36) (Annotated Fig. 1 noting that at least a portion of the bottom bracket is behind the battery), and
a lower end (F) of the battery (36) is located below a rotational center of the electric motor (28) (Annotated Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electric bicycles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric drive system disclosed by Spaggiari to incorporate a battery attached to the down frame part, wherein the motor unit (10) is located above the bottom bracket (A) and behind the battery, and a lower end of the battery is located below a rotational center of the electric motor as taught by Holland in order to provide a power source for the electric motor mounted low and centered on the bicycle to increase safety, e.g., see [0010] and [0033], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Spaggiari/Holland further discloses wherein a whole of a lower surface of the battery (Holland – F) is located below a lower end of the electric motor (Spaggiari – 14/Holland – 28) (Spaggiari – Annotated Fig. 1B. Holland - Annotated Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spaggiari in view of the teachings of Holland for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Spaggiari/Holland further discloses wherein a distance from the crankshaft (Spaggiari – 17/Holland – 22) to an end portion of the battery (Holland - F) is shorter than at least one of a distance from the crankshaft (Spaggiari – 17/Holland – 22) to the rotational center of the electric motor (Spaggiari – 14/Holland – 28), and a distance from the crankshaft (Spaggiari – 17/Holland – 22) to a rotational center of the output shaft (Spaggiari – 160/Holland – 42) (Spaggiari Annotated Figs. 1B and 5B. Holland - Annotated Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spaggiari in view of the teachings of Holland for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Spaggiari/Holland further discloses a first sprocket (191) provided to the crankshaft (17); a second sprocket (16) which is provided to the output shaft (160), and has a smaller number of teeth than the first sprocket (191) (Fig. 5B & [0038], [0048], and [0053]); and
a chain (193) which is wound around the first sprocket (191) and the second sprocket (16), and is configured to transmit rotations of the first sprocket (191) and the second sprocket (16) to a rear wheel (152) (Figs. 1B and 5B & [0040] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 1, Spaggiari further discloses wherein the output shaft (160) is located above the electric motor (14) (Annotated Fig. 5B depicts the center H of the electric motor 14 is below the sprocket 16 which is coaxial with the output shaft 160, e.g., see Figs. 2A-2E.).
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 1, Spaggiari further discloses wherein
PNG
media_image5.png
734
874
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the frame (13) includes a mainframe part (W) which extends rearward from the head tube (B), and is located above the down frame part (132), at least a rear portion (X,Y) of the mainframe part (W) includes a right extension part (X) and a left extension part (Y) separated in a left-right direction, and a part of the motor unit (Z) overlaps at least one of the right extension part (X) and the left extension part (Y) in a side view (Annotated Figs. 1A/B and 2D and Figs. 5A/B disclose and depict motor mounts Z that overlap inside frame portions X,Y from the side view.).
PNG
media_image6.png
330
385
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaggiari in view of Holland and further in view of US 2018/0072379 A1 to Talavasek et al (hereinafter Talavasek).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 1, Spaggiari further discloses a rear arm (E) coupled to the frame (13) via a point (F) (Annotated Figs. 1B and 5B).
Although Spaggiari discloses a rear arm attached to the front portion of the frame at a point, it is unclear if the rear portion of the frame is attached with a pivot shaft; and a rear suspension which supports the rear arm so that the rear arm is allowed to move upward and downward.
Talavasek teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electric bicycles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a rear arm (42) attached to the front portion of the frame (30) with a pivot shaft (72) (Figs. 2 -4 & [0027]); and a rear suspension (50) which supports the rear arm (42) so that the rear arm (42) is allowed to move upward and downward (Figs. 1-3 & [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electric bicycles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric bicycle disclosed by the modified combination of Spaggiari/Holland to incorporate for the rear portion of the frame to be attached with a pivot shaft; and a rear suspension which supports the rear arm so that the rear arm is allowed to move upward and downward as taught by Talavasek in order to provide a smoother ride by pivotally connecting a rear frame to the front frame with pivots and a shock absorber, e.g., see [0025]-[0027], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 4, the modified combination of Spaggiari/Holland/Talavasek further discloses wherein a position of the pivot shaft (Spaggiari – F/Talavasek - 72) is higher than the rotational center (Spaggiari – H) of the electric motor (Spaggiari – 14) (Spaggiari – Annotated Figs. 1B and 5B. Talavasek – Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spaggiari in view of the teachings of Holland/Talavasek for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 4, the modified combination of Spaggiari/Holland/Talavasek further discloses a first sprocket (Spaggiari – 191) provided to the crankshaft (Spaggiari – 17) (Figs. 1A-B and 5A-B & [0038]-[0039]);
a second sprocket (Spaggiari – 16) provided to the output shaft (Spaggiari – 160) (Figs. 1A-B and 5A-B & [0053]); and
a chain (Spaggiari – 193) wound around the first sprocket (Spaggiari – 191) and the second sprocket (Spaggiari – 16), wherein positions of both the pivot shaft (Spaggiari – F/Talavasek - 72) and the output shaft (Spaggiari – 160) are higher than the rotational center of the electric motor (Spaggiari – 14) (Spaggiari – Annotated Figs. 1B and 5B. Talavasek Figs. 2-4 & [0027]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spaggiari in view of the teachings of Holland/Talavasek for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 4, the modified combination of Spaggiari/Holland/Talavasek further discloses wherein the output shaft (Spaggiari – 160) is located in front of the pivot shaft (Spaggiari – F/ Talavasek - 72) (Spaggiari – Annotated Figs. 1B and 5B. Talavasek Figs. 2-4 & [0027]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spaggiari in view of the teachings of Holland/Talavasek for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 4, the modified combination of Spaggiari/Holland/Talavasek further discloses wherein a distance (Spaggiari – I) from the output shaft (Spaggiari – 160) to the pivot shaft (Spaggiari – F) is shorter than a distance (Spaggiari – J) from the output shaft to (Spaggiari – 160) the crankshaft (Spaggiari – 17) (Spaggiari – Annotated Figs. 1B and 5B. Talavasek Figs. 2-4 & [0027]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Spaggiari in view of the teachings of Holland/Talavasek for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaggiari in view of Holland and further in view of US 2020/0062325 A1 to Talavasek et al (hereinafter Talavasek II)
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Spaggiari/Holland does not appear to further disclose wherein the battery (Holland - 36) is housed in the down frame part (Spaggiari - 132) (Spaggiari – Figs. 1B and 5B. Holland – Figs. 1-2).
Talavasek teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electric bicycles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the battery (58) to be housed in the down frame part (72) (Figs. 2 and 6 & [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electric bicycles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric bicycle disclosed by the modified combination of Spaggiari/Holland to incorporate for the battery to be housed in the down frame part as taught by Talavasek II in order to provide an electric bicycle with the battery, cables and wires incorporated into the frame to provide a cleaner aesthetic, e.g., see [0002], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
