DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/31/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 6-22 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1-3 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/02/2026.
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.
Claim 6-9, 11, 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20210147034 A1) in view of Lowe (DE 102018207969 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses a second motor (see Fig. 9; 87); and a strain wave gear mechanism (2, 3, 4) operatively connected to the second motor, wherein: the strain wave gear mechanism includes a circular spline (4), a wave generator (2), and a flexspline (3), the second motor is configured to drive the wave generator (see Fig. 9). Wang fails to disclose a first motor, the first motor is at least one of directly connected to the circular spline or connected to the circular spline via a pinion, the first motor is configured to drive the circular spline. However, Lowe teaches a first motor (see Fig. 1; EM2), the first motor is at least one of directly connected to the circular spline or connected to the circular spline (5) via a pinion (ST), the first motor is configured to drive the circular spline (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Wang with a first motor configured to drive the circular spline, as taught by Lowe, so that it is possible to set or vary both a desired level of assistance or torque assistance and a desired cadence at each driving speed. As a result, no conventional mechanical ratio adjusting means such as a derailleur, a hub gear or a mechanical hub CVT is required (see NPL of 03/13/2026, page 2 lines 26-29). The combination above would necessarily result in the following limitations: a continuously variable transmission system, comprising: a strain wave gear mechanism (Wang; 2, 3, 4) operatively connected to both the first motor (Lowe; EM2) and the second motor (Wang; 87) and driving the circular spline (Wang; 4) and the wave generator (Wang; 2) provides variable reduction ratios (Lowe; see NPL of 03/13/2026, page 2 lines 26-29), and the flexspline (Wang; 3) is configured to output power based on the variable reduction ratios (Wang, Fig. 1; Lowe, see NPL of 03/13/2026, page 2 lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of claim 6 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the first motor (Lowe; EM2) is operatively connected to the circular spline (Wang; 4), and the circular spline is driven by the first motor while the flexspline (Wang; 3) outputs power to a chainring (Wang; 81).
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses the flexspline (3) is operatively connected to an output shaft (67).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses a gear (60) connected between the flexspline (3) and the output shaft (67).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses a chainring (81) and a crank (inherently attached between 82 and disclosed pedals), wherein the strain wave gear mechanism (2, 3, 4) is operatively coupled to the chainring, and the chainring and the crank are configured to spin at different speeds (via 7).
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses a crank spindle (82) operatively connected to the wave generator (2), wherein movement of the crank spindle drives the wave generator (see Fig. 9), wherein a reduction ratio is provided between at least one of: the second motor (87) and the flexspline (3), the crank spindle (82) and the flexspline (3), or a combination thereof (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses a second motor (see Fig. 9; 87), and a crank spindle (82); and a strain wave gear mechanism (2, 3, 4) operatively connected to the second motor and the crank spindle (see Fig. 9), wherein: the strain wave gear mechanism comprises a circular spline (4), a wave generator (2), and a flexspline (3), the crank spindle is operatively connected to the wave generator such that movement of the crank spindle drives the wave generator (see Fig. 9), and the flexspline is directly connected to an output shaft (63). Wang fails to disclose a first motor and the first motor is configured to drive the circular spline. However, Lowe teaches a first motor (see Fig. 1; EM2) and the first motor is configured to drive the circular spline (5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Wang with a first motor configured to drive the circular spline, as taught by Lowe, so that it is possible to set or vary both a desired level of assistance or torque assistance and a desired cadence at each driving speed. As a result, no conventional mechanical ratio adjusting means such as a derailleur, a hub gear or a mechanical hub CVT is required (see NPL of 03/13/2026, page 2 lines 26-29). The combination above would necessarily result in the following limitations: a continuously variable transmission (CVT) system, comprising: a strain wave gear mechanism (Wang; 2, 3, 4) operatively connected to the first motor (Lowe; EM2), the second motor (Wang; 87), and the crank spindle (Wang; 82), the flexspline (Wang; 3) is directly connected to an output shaft (Wang; 63), and is configured to output power based on variable reduction ratios (Lowe; see NPL of 03/13/2026, page 2 lines 26-29), and the first motor (Lowe; EM2) is configured to drive the circular spline (Wang; 4) and at least one of the second motor (Wang; 87) and the crank spindle (Wang; 82) is configured to drive the wave generator (Wang; 2) to provide the variable reduction ratios (Wang, Fig. 1; Lowe, see NPL of 03/13/2026, page 2 lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 16, Wang discloses the strain wave gear mechanism (2, 3, 4) is operatively coupled to a chainring (81) or a gear (60).
Regarding claim 17, Wang discloses a crank (inherently attached between 82 and disclosed pedals) operatively attached to the crank spindle (82), wherein a chainring (81) and the crank are configured to spin at different speeds (via 7).
Regarding claim 20, Wang discloses movement of the crank spindle (82) drives the wave generator (2, 3, 4), and a reduction ratio is provided between the second motor (87) and the flexspline (3), between the crank spindle (82) and the flexspline (3), or a combination thereof (see Fig. 9).
Claim 10, 12-13, 18-19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20210147034 A1) in view of Lowe (DE 102018207969 A1) and Yamamoto (DE 112015005678 T5).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Lowe fail to disclose a motor output controller configured to perform at least one of: adjusting one of the variable reduction ratios output by the transmission system by correspondingly driving the first motor, providing power to assist an operator pedal by correspondingly driving the second motor, or a combination thereof. However, Yamamoto teaches a motor output controller (see Fig. 2; 52) configured to perform at least one of: adjusting one of the variable reduction ratios output by the transmission system (40) by correspondingly driving the first motor (50), providing power to assist an operator pedal by correspondingly driving the second motor (48), or a combination thereof (see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 6 lines 31-37, wherein “The controller 52 drives the first engine 48 on a forward rotational moment on the carrier 62 transferred to. This adds an assistance or supporting force to the torque…The controller 52 drives the second engine 50 to apply a torque in the reverse direction to the sun gear 54…This increases the rotational speed of the ring gear 56 and increases the gear ratio GR”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Wang in view of Lowe with a controller, as taught by Yamamoto, to control the first and second motor (see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 3 line 12-13) to accurately provide the required speed and gear ratio of the transmission by providing a supporting force to the torque and increasing the gear ratio (see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 6 lines 31-37).
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Lowe fails to disclose a controller configured to adjust a rotational speed of the chainring by adjusting a speed of the first motor. However, Yamamoto teaches a controller (52) configured to adjust a rotational speed of the chainring (30) by adjusting a speed of the first motor (48; see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 6 line 17, wherein the controller 52 controls the first engine 48 and the second engine 50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang in view of Lowe with a controller, as taught by Yamamoto, to control the first and second motor (see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 3 line 12-13) to accurately provide the required speed and gear ratio of the transmission.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of claim 10 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: an operation of the motor output controller (Yamamoto; 52) is based at least in part on at least one input signal received from at least one of a user-operated controller or a sensor, wherein the sensor comprises a speed sensor or a pedal speed sensor (Yamamoto, see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 6 lines 17-18, wherein the controller 52 controls the first engine 48 and the second engine 50 due to signals from, for example, a torque sensor and a bicycle speed sensor).
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Lowe fail to disclose a controller configured to adjust a rotational speed of the chainring by adjusting a speed of the first motor. However, Yamamoto teaches a controller (52) configured to adjust a rotational speed of the chainring (30) by adjusting a speed of the first motor (48; see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 6 line 17, wherein the controller 52 controls the first engine 48 and the second engine 50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang in view of Lowe with a controller, as taught by Yamamoto, to control the first and second motor (see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 3 line 12-13) to accurately provide the required speed and gear ratio of the transmission.
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Lowe fail to disclose a controller configured to perform at least one of: adjusting a gear ratio output using the first motor, providing power to assist an operator pedal using the second motor, or a combination thereof. However, Yamamoto teaches a controller (see Fig. 2; 52) configured to perform at least one of: adjusting a gear ratio output by the transmission system by correspondingly driving the first motor, providing power to assist an operator pedal by correspondingly driving the second motor, or a combination thereof (see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 6 line 17, wherein the controller 52 controls the first engine 48 and the second engine 50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Wang in view of Lowe with a controller, as taught by Yamamoto, to control the first and second motor (see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 3 line 12-13) to accurately provide the required speed and gear ratio of the transmission.
Regarding claim 21, Wang fails to disclose a speed sensor. However, Yamamoto teaches a speed sensor (see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 6 lines 17-18, wherein the controller 52 controls the first engine 48 and the second engine 50 due to signals from, for example, a torque sensor and a bicycle speed sensor). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Lowe with a speed sensor, as taught by Yamamoto, to provide the controller with signals which allows the assistance power and gear ratio to be adjusted to desired levels (see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 6 lines 17-24). As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the speed sensor configured to detect a speed at which the crank spindle is rotating, wherein the second motor is configured to match a speed at which the crank spindle is turning (the speed sensor attached to the controller is inherently capable of performing the above limitations, i.e., detecting a speed of the crank spindle and matching a speed of the crank spindle).
Regarding claim 22, Wang in view of Lowe fail to disclose a controller configured to perform at least one of: adjusting a gear ratio output by the transmission system by correspondingly driving the first motor, providing power to assist an operator pedal by correspondingly driving the second motor, or a combination thereof. However, Yamamoto teaches a controller (see Fig. 2; 52) configured to perform at least one of: adjusting a gear ratio output by the transmission system by correspondingly driving the first motor, providing power to assist an operator pedal by correspondingly driving the second motor, or a combination thereof (see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 6 lines 31-37, wherein “The controller 52 drives the first engine 48 on a forward rotational moment on the carrier 62 transferred to. This adds an assistance or supporting force to the torque…The controller 52 drives the second engine 50 to apply a torque in the reverse direction to the sun gear 54…This increases the rotational speed of the ring gear 56 and increases the gear ratio GR”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Wang in view of Lowe with a controller, as taught by Yamamoto, to control the first and second motor (see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 3 line 12-13) to accurately provide the required speed and gear ratio of the transmission by providing a supporting force to the torque and increasing the gear ratio (see English translation attached 03/13/2026, page 6 lines 31-37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections that were necessitated by an amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights