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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the aforementioned Application filed May 14, 2025. Claims 1-16 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on German Patent Application No. DE10 2024 204 515.2, filed May 15, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 14, 2025, and June 25, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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 1-7, 9, 11-13, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murthy (US 20200216141), in view of Ziemer (US 20250136245).
Regarding Claim 1,
Murthy teaches
A method for operating a drive unit of an electric bicycle, (Murthy: Abstract) wherein the drive unit includes a motor, (Murthy: Paragraph [0037], FIG. 1; Electric Assist Motor 245) an output element (Murthy: Paragraph [0037], FIG. 1; “The electric vehicle 200 may also include an electric assist motor 245. The electric assist motor 245 may provide power to a front wheel (e.g., front wheel 155) (FIG. 1) of the electric vehicle 200, a back wheel (e.g., back wheel 150) (FIG. 1) of the electric vehicle 200, and/or to a drivetrain (e.g., the pedals 140, chain, and/or gears) (FIG. 1) of the electric vehicle 200.”) and a bidirectional freewheel between the motor and the output element, (Ziemer: Paragraph [0042]; Brake Shift Element B2) the method comprising:
determining a non-output state in which the output element is in a state of being substantially free of output torque, (Murthy: Paragraph [0036]; “A torque sensor 225 detects whether the rider is applying torque to the pedals/crank (e.g., pedals 140) (FIG. 1) of the electric vehicle 200. ”)
...
Murthy does not explicitly teach closing a bidirectional freewheel into a blocked state.
However in the same field of endeavor, Ziemer teaches
...the method comprising:
...
controlling actuation of the motor during the non-output state for closing the bidirectional freewheel into a blocked state. (Ziemer: Paragraph [0043])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the hill holding method of an electric bicycle of Murthy with the free wheel blocking of Ziemer for the benefit of an enhanced method for preventing a bicycle from rolling backwards on a hillside. (Ziemer: Paragraph [0043])
Regarding Claim 2,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling actuation of the motor occurs such that the motor rotates in the forward direction of rotation. (Murthy: Paragraph [0022])
Regarding Claim 3,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, teaches
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
detecting the blocked state of the bidirectional freewheel by way of a control unit. (Ziemer: Paragraph [0043])
The motivation to combine Murthy and Ziemer is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, teaches
The method according to claim 3, wherein:
the detecting the blocked state of the bidirectional freewheel occurs in response to a detection of a slope-holding state, (Ziemer: Paragraph [0043]) and
in the slope-holding state, a predetermined minimum motor torque of the motor is required in order to maintain or achieve a motor speed of substantially equal to zero. (Murthy: Paragraph [0051])
The motivation to combine Murthy and Ziemer is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, teaches
The method according to claim 3, wherein the detecting the blocked state of the bidirectional freewheel occurs in response to a detection of a rotation of the motor in the reverse direction of rotation. (Ziemer: Paragraph [0051])
The motivation to combine Murthy and Ziemer is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, teaches
The method according to claim 3, wherein the detecting the blocked state of the bidirectional freewheel occurs in response to a detection of a predetermined minimum motor load. (Ziemer: Paragraph [0040])
The motivation to combine Murthy and Ziemer is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, teaches
The method according to claim 3, wherein the controlling actuation of the motor during the non-output state is carried out until the blocked state of the bidirectional freewheel has been detected. (Ziemer: Paragraph [0043])
The motivation to combine Murthy and Ziemer is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling actuation of the motor during the non-output state occurs so as to rotate the motor by a predetermined angle of rotation. (Murthy: Paragraph [0022], [0067]-[0068])
Regarding Claim 11,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method is carried out during a slope-holding operation of the electric bicycle.(Murthy: Paragraph [0033]-[0034], [0051])
The motivation to combine Murthy and Ziemer is the same as stated for Claim x above.
Regarding Claim 12,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, teaches
The method according to claim 11, wherein the slope-holding operation is carried out in response to a manually generated assist signal by a driver of the electric bicycle via an input unit of the electric bicycle. (Murthy: Paragraph [0047]; “Thus, if the rider cadence sensor 220 detects that a user is not pedaling and the front brake sensor 210 and/or the rear brake sensor 215 indicate the rider is also applying the brakes, the motor control system 230 may determine that the electric vehicle 200 is going to stop. In such cases, the processor 240 of the motor control system 230 may deactivate the electric assist motor 245.” Applying the brakes is a form of user input. [0049])
Regarding Claim 13,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, teaches
The method according to claim 11, wherein:
in the slope-holding operation, the electric bicycle is held at a slope by maintaining a motor speed of substantially zero by controlled generation of a motor torque by way of the motor. (Murthy: Paragraph [0033]-[0034], [0051])
Regarding Claim 15,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling actuation of the motor during the non-output state comprises multiple rotations of the motor. (Schumacher: Paragraph [0079])
The motivation to combine Murthy and Ziemer is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Claims 8, 10, 14, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murthy, in view of Ziemer, as applied to claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, and 15 above, and further in view of Schumacher et al. (US 20250242886; hereinafter Schumacher).
Regarding Claim 8,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, teaches
The method according to claim 1,...
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, does not explicitly teach certain specific actuation controls for the motor of an electric bicycle.
However in the same field of endeavor, Schumacher teaches
...wherein the controlling actuation of the motor occurs continuously during the non-output state for a predetermined period of time. (Schumacher: Paragraph [0023], [0025], [0078]-[0079])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Murthy, in view of Ziemer, with the actuation controls of Schumacher for the benefit of improved assistance to a user of an electric bicycle. (Schumacher: Paragraph [0003])
Regarding Claim 10,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, and further in view of Schumacher, teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling actuation of the motor during the non-output state comprises multiple rotations of the motor. (Schumacher: Paragraph [0079])
The motivation to combine Murthy, Ziemer, and Schumacher, is the same as stated for Claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 14,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, and further in view of Schumacher, teaches
The method according to claim 11, wherein the slope-holding operation is deactivated when the motor is operated load-free for at least a predetermined period of time. (Schumacher: Paragraph [0023], [0025], [0078]-[0079])
The motivation to combine Murthy, Ziemer, and Schumacher, is the same as stated for Claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 16,
Murthy, in view of Ziemer, and further in view of Schumacher, teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling actuation of the motor during the non-output state comprises multiple pulsations of the motor. (Schumacher: Paragraph [0079])
The motivation to combine Murthy, Ziemer, and Schumacher, is the same as stated for Claim 8 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights