DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-5, 15 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-12 and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,148,775 B2 (‘775).
All limitations of claims 1-5 of the current application are encompassed in claims 1 and 9-11 of the ‘775 Patent. Further, all limitations of current claims 15 and 17, except the controller being an electronic controller, are encompassed in claims 12 and 14-15 of the ‘775 Patent. It is however noted that it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to make the controller of the ‘775 Patent as an electronic controller. Having such an arrangement would have yielded a compact and efficient controller.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 27-31 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,151,795 B2 (‘795).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of current claims 1-14 are encompassed in claims 1-14 of the ‘795 Patent. Further, all limitations of current claims 15-19 are also encompassed in claims 27-31 of the ‘795 Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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, 4-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by CN 209700906 U (‘906). See the attached English translation.
CN ‘906 shows drive system for a watercraft, comprising: a manual drive train comprising a pair of pedals [211]; a lower unit [9, 13] coupled to the pair of pedals such that actuation of the pedals results in a thrust output at the lower unit; an assist drive train [61] configured to transfer a torque from a motor [61] of the assist drive train to the lower unit; a sensor arrangement for monitoring at least one operational parameter of the manual drive train; a controller in operable communication with the sensor [11] arrangement to interpret information from the sensor arrangement regarding the at least one operational parameter; and wherein the controller is operably connected to the assist drive train to selectively adjust operation of the assist drive train based on a sensed change in the at least one operational parameter (see ¶0031, ¶0064 and ¶0065 of the attached English translation).
Applicant many note that the preamble limitation “for a watercraft” is merely an intended use limitation and not a positive recitation of the watercraft. Therefore, such limitation does not carry any patentable weight in the claim.
Re claim 4, the assist drive train has an engaged configuration and a disengaged configuration, wherein in the engaged configuration the drive train is configured to transfer the torque from the motor to the lower unit; wherein the controller selectively adjusts the operation of the assist drive train by transitioning the drive train between the engaged configuration and the disengaged configuration (see ¶0026-0029 of the translation).
Re claim 5, in the engaged configuration the torque from the motor of the assist drive train is transferred to the lower unit to supplement a manual pedal force input from a user operating the pair of pedals, and wherein in the disengaged configuration, at least a portion of the assist drive train is decoupled from the lower unit.
Re claim 6, the at least one operational parameter includes pedaling speed or pedaling direction (see ¶0030, ¶0054, ¶0057 and ¶0063 of the translation).
Re claim 7, the at least one operational parameter is a pedaling direction, the controller transitions the assist drive train from the engaged configuration to the disengaged configuration when the sensor arrangement senses that the pedaling direction is in a reverse direction that would drive the lower unit in a direction opposite a direction the assist drive train drives the lower unit (see ¶0030, ¶0057 and ¶0063)
Re claim 8, the at least one operational parameter of the drive system is pedaling of the manual drivetrain, and the controller adjusts the torque output of the motor when the sensor arrangement senses that pedaling of the manual drivetrain has begun (see ¶0031 and ¶0065).
Re claim 9, the controller is configured to control the assist drive train to provide at least two different levels of torque to the lower unit.
Re claim 10, a user interface [12] operably communicates with the controller for switching between the at least two different levels.
Re claim 12, the controller is configured to operate in a first mode in which the controller controls the assist drive train to provide all of the torque for generating the thrust provided by the lower unit (¶0028, ¶0033 and ¶0061).
Re claim 13, when in the first mode, the assist drive train would remain engaged with the thrust unit even force input is briefly interrupted by the manual drive train.
Re claim 15, the controller is configured to operate the assist drive train in a first mode and a second mode, wherein: in the first mode, the controller controls the assist drive train to provide all of the force for generating the thrust provided by the lower unit while no manual force input is provided to the lower unit from the manual drive train such that all input to the lower unit is provided by the assist drive train (see ¶0028, ¶0033 and ¶0061); and in the second mode, the controller controls the assist drive train to provide less than all of the force for generating the thrust provided by the lower unit
Re claim 16, the sensor arrangement is configured for monitoring at least one operational parameter of the manual drive train, the controller in operable communication with the sensor arrangement to interpret information from the sensor arrangement regarding the at least one operational parameter; and wherein the controller, in the second mode, dynamically adjusts control of the assist drive train relative to a change in manual input by the user sensed by the sensor arrangement.
Re claim 18, the change in manual input by the user sensed by the sensor arrangement is input force by the user.
Re claim 19, the controller can operate the assist drive train in the first mode when the assist drive train is engaged with the lower unit.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 209700906 U (‘906).
CN ‘906 shows drive system for a watercraft, comprising: an assist drive train with a controller in operable communication with the torque sensor [11] to interpret information from the sensor and selectively adjust operation of the assist drive train based on a sensed information, as described above. CN ‘906 also describes monitoring the speed of the pedal crank [212] so that when the speed of the motor exceeds the speed of the pedal crank in the assist mode, the manual drive becomes disengaged from the lower unit (see ¶0022 and ¶0054)
CN ‘906 however fails to disclose a speed sensor for measuring the speed of the pedal crank.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the sensor arrangement of CN ‘906 with a speed sensor. Providing such speed sensor would have allowed a simple yet efficient mechanism for accurately measuring the speed of the pedal crank for enabling the manual drive to properly disengage from the lower unit.
Re claim 3, the torque sensor is arranged on a crank associated with one of the pair of pedals (see Fig 3).
Re claim 17, with the above modification in place, the pedaling speed would be one of the manual input sensed by the sensor arrangement.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 209700906 U (‘906) in view of Jansen (US 7,549,902 B2)
CN ‘906 shows drive system for a watercraft, comprising: an assist drive train with a controller and a user interface operably communicating with the controller, as described above.
CN ‘906 however fails to disclose the ability to provide varying levels of torque to the lower unit, or maintain a desired speed or thrust even when no force input is provided by the manual drive train.
Jansen shows drive system for a watercraft, comprising: an assist drive train with a controller and a user interface operably communicating with the controller, wherein the controller is configured to control the assist drive train to provide varying levels of torque to a lower unit, and wherein the level or torque is selected by using the user interface (see Fig 9; col. 9, lines 1-26, col. 10, lines 21-44; and col. 11, lines 1-17)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the controller of CN ‘906 to enable a user to select a desired levels of torque to the lower unit or maintain a desired speed or thrust, as taught by Jansen. Having such a modification would allowed the user to maintain greater control of the assist drive train, thereby enhancing comfort, enjoyment and safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chan (US 8646560) discloses a pedal assist mechanism with a controller and a torque sensor
Kokatsu et al. (US 7357209) discloses a pedal assist mechanism with a controller and a speed sensor
Hamann (US 10232736) discloses a pedal assist mechanism for a watercraft comprising a controller, a torque sensor and a speed sensor
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY VASUDEVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6689. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 3:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/AJAY VASUDEVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights