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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt of the preliminary amendment filed 08/10/2016 is acknowledged. This amendment cancelled claims 1-10 and added claims 11-19.
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 1-2 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 1, line 2 claims “a motor drive housing comprising a motor drive housing …”. The claim is unclear as the claim is attempting to either claim a housing inside a housing or a housing inside itself.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (US 2020/0391822) in view of Turner (US 2002/0014366) and Wang (US 2013/0260958).
With respect to claim 1, Edwards et al. discloses a power assembly (fig. 15) for electric-assisted bicycle (fig. 1), the power assembly comprising: a motor drive housing (111) comprising a motor drive housing (111) having a motor drive housing thread (paragraph 197 describing “may be joined by threaded portions”) at one end thereof; a gear housing (103), the gear housing having a gear housing thread at one end thereof (paragraph 197 describing “may be joined by threaded portions”); a crankshaft (2) having regular teeth at both ends thereof (fig. 15); a side cover (38) being a circular cover (fig. 4), and the side cover (38) being arranged on one side of the motor drive housing (102) (paragraph 181, “End cap 38 is positioned over the motor module 102”); wherein the motor drive housing (111) and the reduction gear housing (103) are formed into one body (fig. 15) by being threaded together (paragraph 197 describing “may be joined by threaded portions”) to form an encapsulation (fig. 15); wherein the crankshaft (2) is inserted into an axial center position (fig. 15) of each component of the power assembly to form the power assembly for electric-assisted bicycle. (Figs. 1-16, paragraphs 113-196.) Edwards et al. is silent regarding a details of the motor and gear housing. Turner teaches of a motor structure comprising a motor stator (66), a motor rotor (60) and a driver (92) arranged inside the motor drive housing (48). (Fig. 3, paragraphs 58-82.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motor structure as described in Turner into the invention of Edwards et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate packaging and manufacturing of the motor assembly. (Paragraph 15.) Edwards et al., as modified, is silent regarding a reduction gear set. Wang teaches of a reduction gear housing (81), a reduction gear set (40) arranged inside the reduction gear housing (81). (Figs. 1-7, paragraphs 20-36.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the reduction gear structure as described in Wang into the invention of Edwards et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to avoid power loss and allow transfer of the rotational kinetic energy rapidly and efficiently without bearing much load. (Abstract.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al., Turner and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawakami (US 2025/0282444).
With respect to claim 2, Edwards et al., as modified, is silent regarding the crankshaft formed with a hollow axis. Kawakami teaches of the crankshaft (30) is formed with a hollow axis (paragraphs 60, 232). (Figs. 1-4, 22-23, paragraphs 37-97, 229-278.) It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the crankshaft of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Teng et al. (US 11,958,567) shows a similar structure of a motor (20) with stator (26) and rotor (28) and reduction gear seat (30) within a housing (12). The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
