CTNF 19/229,916 CTNF 95996 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This Office action is in response to the application filed on 06/05/2025. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and are presented for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, which was filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement submitted on 07/18/2025 is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-22-07 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference character 111 in FIG. 1 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 6, it appears that “the detection of the engagement state” should be changed to “the detection determination of the engagement state.” In claim 2, it appears that the phrase “detecting the start-up operation” should be changed to “ detecting recognizing the start-up operation.” In claim 4, line 2, it appears that the phrase “wherein start-up operation” should be changed to “wherein the start-up operation.” Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Note that the following claim limitations are interpreted as contingent limitations: “recognizing a start-up operation in response to the detection of the engagement state and when the detected rotary movement is at least equal to a predetermined start-up rotary movement” (claim 1) “enabling full motor torque generation of the motor in response to detecting the start-up operation” (claim 2) “wherein recognizing of a start-up operation takes place if, during the determined engagement state, the motor speed is at least equal to a predetermined start-up speed for at least a predetermined period of time” (claim 3) “wherein start-up operation is recognized when the detected motor angle is at least equal to a predetermined start-up motor angle” (claim 4) “wherein the engagement state is detected when the determined drive torque is greater than or equal to the determined motor torque” (claim 6) “detecting a blocked state of the drive train when, in response to the detected engagement state, the predetermined start-up rotary movement remains undetected within a predetermined period of time” (claim 9) “preventing full motor torque generation of the motor in response to the detection of the blocked state of the drive train” (claim 10) Consistent with MPEP 2111.04(II), the limitations listed above are not required to occur, because they are each contingent on a condition that is not required to apply. For example, in claim 1, the recited step of “recognizing a start-up operation in response to the detection of the engagement state and when the detected rotary movement is at least equal to a predetermined start-up rotary movement” does not need to apply when the detected rotary movement is less than a predetermined start-up rotary movement. Further, in claim 2, the recited step of “enabling full motor torque generation of the motor in response to detecting the start-up operation” does not need to occur since the recognition of the start-up operation as described in claim 1 does not need to occur. Note that claims 13-14 require the capability for “recognizing a start-up operation in response to the detection of the engagement state and when the detected rotary movement is at least equal to a predetermined start-up rotary movement,” because claims 13-14 are structural claims. MPEP 2111.04(II) explains that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” The examiner respectfully suggests making amendments to the claims that positively recite the occurrence of the conditions that are required for the contingent limitations to occur. For example, claim 1 could potentially be amended as follows: 1. A method for operating a drive assembly of an electric bicycle, comprising: actuating, in a controlled manner, a motor of the drive assembly to generate a predetermined test torque; determining an engagement state of a drive train of the electric bicycle; detecting a rotary movement of the motor; determining that the detected rotary movement is at least equal to a predetermined start-up rotary movement; and recognizing a start-up operation in response to the detection determination of the engagement state and when in response to the determination that the detected rotary movement is at least equal to [[a]] the predetermined start-up rotary movement. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 9-10 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. Regarding claim 9: Claim 9 recites “detecting a blocked state of the drive train when, in response to the detected engagement state, the predetermined start-up rotary movement remains undetected within a predetermined period of time.” However, it is unclear how the predetermined start-up rotary movement could be undetected, as this appears to be a known threshold value that is set in advance. For examination purposes, claim 9 is interpreted as if it instead recited “detecting a blocked state of the drive train when, in response to the detected engagement state, the predetermined start-up rotary movement remains undetected within a predetermined period of time.” Clarification is required. Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected because of its dependency upon rejected claim 9. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claims 1 and 13-14: Step 1: Claim 1 is directed toward a method for operating a drive assembly of an electric bicycle. Claim 13 is directed to the corresponding drive assembly, and claim 14 is directed to the corresponding electric bicycle. Claims 1 and 13-14 are each directed to at least one of the four statutory categories. Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 1 and 13-14 recite the abstract concept of operating a drive assembly of an electric bicycle. This abstract idea is described by the steps of determining an engagement state of a drive train of the electric bicycle; and recognizing a start-up operation in response to the detection of the engagement state and when the detected rotary movement is at least equal to a predetermined start-up rotary movement. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as they include a human mentally identifying an engagement state of the drive train and mentally recognizing a start-up operation based on the identified engagement state and a comparison of a detected rotary movement to a predetermined threshold. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the human mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components. As explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this Office action, the step of “recognizing a start-up operation in response to the detection of the engagement state and when the detected rotary movement is at least equal to a predetermined start-up rotary movement” is a contingent limitation that is not required by claim 1. Accordingly, this step cannot contribute to the patent-eligibility of claim 1. However, claims 13-14 are structural claims that require the functionality for performing this step, and the above analysis explains why the step is interpreted as a mental process step in the context of claims 13-14. With respect to claims 1 and 13-14, other than reciting “a control unit,” nothing in the steps of determining the engagement state and recognizing the start-up operation precludes the abstract idea from practically being performed in the human mind. If not for the “control unit” language, the claims encompass a human mentally determining the engagement state and recognizing the start-up operation. Step 2A, prong 2: The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the steps of actuating, in a controlled manner, a motor of the drive assembly to generate a predetermined test torque; and detecting a rotary movement of the motor. These steps are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as they simply gather data necessary for performing the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). The mere recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 13 recites a control unit which is set up for actuating the motor, wherein the control unit is set up for carrying out the method of claim 1. The instant specification does not describe the control unit as anything other than a generic computer component that is employed as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The use of the claimed control unit for performing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 13 further recites a drive assembly of an electric bicycle, comprising a motor; and a drive train. This merely serves as a general linking limitation to apply the abstract idea within the technological field of electric bicycles. Because this limitation merely specifies that the abstract idea is performed in relation to an electric bicycle that comprises a motor and a drive train, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 14 recites an electric bicycle. This merely serves as a general linking limitation to apply the abstract idea within the technological field of electric bicycles. Since this limitation merely specifies that the abstract idea is performed in relation to an electric bicycle, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Step 2B: The additional elements are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the claimed control unit is anything other than a conventional computer. The mere use of such generic and conventional computer components for executing the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp. , 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC , 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the recited steps of actuating a motor to generate a predetermined test torque and detecting a rotary movement of the motor merely amount to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). MPEP 2106.05(h) explains that claim “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.” Therefore, the limitations of claims 13-14 claiming an electric bicycle, a motor, and a drive train do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as they merely specify that the abstract idea is performed in relation to an electric bicycle. For the above reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, whether considered individually or in combination. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1 and 13-14 are not patent-eligible. Regarding claims 2-12: Claims 3-4 recite additional steps of detecting a motor speed; and detecting a motor angle. These steps amount to additional insignificant extra-solution activity, because they are additional data gathering steps that are necessary for performing the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, consistent with MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g). As explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this Office action, claims 2-4, 6, and 9-10 each include contingent limitations that are not required to occur consistent with MPEP 2111.04(II). Since these limitations are not required to apply, they cannot contribute to the patent-eligibility of the claims. The dependent claims include several limitations that merely serve to further define the mental process steps of claim 1. For example, claim 5 specifies that the determination of the engagement state is based on a determination of a motor torque of the motor and a determination of a drive torque in the drive train at a chainring and/or at a real wheel. These limitations are considered to be additional mental process steps because they do not include any limitations which preclude the mental process from being practically performed in the human mind. As explained above, dependent claims 2-12 only recite limitations further defining the mental process, additional insignificant extra-solution activity, and contingent limitations that are not required to apply. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As such, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-12 are not patent-eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Reck et al. (US 2023/0166810 A1), hereinafter referred to as Reck . Regarding claim 1: Reck discloses the following limitations: “A method for operating a drive assembly of an electric bicycle, comprising: actuating, in a controlled manner, a motor of the drive assembly to generate a predetermined test torque.” (Reck ¶ 28: “In startup operation, a small torque is applied to a drivetrain, i.e., a small motor torque is controlled, in order to check whether motor 2 can rotate freely or is blocked.”) “determining an engagement state of a drive train of the electric bicycle.” (Reck ¶ 43: “If the driver actuates a brake of bicycle 3, which can be recognized by a sensor through an actuation of the brake lever or a detection of a brake pressure of brake 3, then it can be inferred that a drivetrain of bicycle 3 is being deliberately held in a pre- tensioned state by the driver, because the driver himself is at the same time exerting a driver torque, and at the same time the forward movement is being actively prevented by an actuation of the brake.”) “detecting a rotary movement of the motor.” (Reck ¶ 7: “a rotational speed sensor acquires whether a rotation of the motor is taking place.”) As explained in the Claim Interpretation of this Office action, the step of “recognizing a start-up operation in response to the detection of the engagement state and when the detected rotary movement is at least equal to a predetermined start-up rotary movement” is a contingent limitation that is not required to occur. Regardless, the examiner notes that Reck at least discloses “recognizing a start-up operation in response to the detection of the engagement state.” (Reck ¶ 43: “If the driver actuates a brake of bicycle 3, which can be recognized by a sensor through an actuation of the brake lever or a detection of a brake pressure of brake 3, then it can be inferred that a drivetrain of bicycle 3 is being deliberately held in a pre-tensioned state by the driver, because the driver himself is at the same time exerting a driver torque, and at the same time the forward movement is being actively prevented by an actuation of the brake. In this state blocking operation 40 is to be maintained, so that the motor torque also continues to be provided. … If in blocking operation 40 motor 2 is not rotating but the brake is applied, then no critical situation can arise, because the driver is actively bringing the bicycle to a standstill, but presumably with the intention of starting up again soon. The drivetrain is thus deliberately being pre-tensioned by the driver, for example in order to make a quick start or during a balancing situation.”) Regarding claim 2: Reck discloses “The method according to claim 1.” Further, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this Office action, the step of “enabling full motor torque generation of the motor in response to detecting the start-up operation” is a contingent limitation that is not required to occur. Regardless, the examiner notes that Reck discloses the limitation. (Reck ¶ 3: “In order to ensure safe operation, the motor support is enabled only when the motor is actually rotating. If the motor rotational speed falls below a threshold for a certain period of time, the motor support is disabled until a startup process is again recognized.” Further, Reck ¶¶ 28-29: “In startup operation, a small torque is applied to a drivetrain, i.e., a small motor torque is controlled, in order to check whether motor 2 can rotate freely or is blocked. If motor 2 can rotate freely, then a changeover to normal operating mode 30 takes place. … In normal operating mode 30, the full motor support by motor 2 is enabled.”) Regarding claim 3: Reck discloses “The method according to claim 1,” and Reck also discloses “wherein the detecting of the rotary movement of the motor comprises detecting a motor speed.” (Reck ¶ 54: “Control electronics 4 is also set up to prevent a shutting off of the motor torque during blocking operation 40 and/or during normal operation 30 when an acquired negative rotational speed of the motor is above an eighth threshold value. The control electronics thus preferably changes from blocking operation 40 to idle operation 10 when the present motor rotational speed also does not indicate that bicycle 3 is rolling backwards. Positive motor rotational speeds result in a change to normal operating mode 30.”) As explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this Office action, the limitation that “the recognizing of a start-up operation takes place if, during the determined engagement state, the motor speed is at least equal to a predetermined start-up speed for at least a predetermined period of time” is a contingent limitation that is not required to occur. Regarding claim 5: Reck discloses “The method according to claim 1,” and Reck also discloses “wherein the determination of the engagement state is based on a determination of a motor torque of the motor and a determination of a drive torque in the drive train at a chainring and/or at a rear wheel.” (Reck ¶ 43: “If the driver actuates a brake of bicycle 3, which can be recognized by a sensor through an actuation of the brake lever or a detection of a brake pressure of brake 3, then it can be inferred that a drivetrain of bicycle 3 is being deliberately held in a pre-tensioned state by the driver, because the driver himself is at the same time exerting a driver torque, and at the same time the forward movement is being actively prevented by an actuation of the brake. In this state blocking operation 40 is to be maintained, so that the motor torque also continues to be provided. … If in blocking operation 40 motor 2 is not rotating but the brake is applied, then no critical situation can arise, because the driver is actively bringing the bicycle to a standstill, but presumably with the intention of starting up again soon. The drivetrain is thus deliberately being pre-tensioned by the driver, for example in order to make a quick start or during a balancing situation.”) Regarding claim 6: Reck discloses “The method according to claim 5.” Further, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this Office action, the limitation “wherein the engagement state is detected when the determined drive torque is greater than or equal to the determined motor torque” is a contingent limitation that is not required to apply. Regarding claim 7: Reck discloses “The method according to claim 5,” and Reck also discloses “wherein the drive torque in the drive train is determined by way of a sensor.” (Reck ¶ 7: “a rotational speed sensor acquires whether a rotation of the motor is taking place. An associated torque sensor can acquire whether a driver torque is being exerted. This information is usually known anyway, because it is preferably required for the controlling of the motor torque in normal operation.”) Regarding claim 8: Reck discloses “The method according to claim 5,” and Reck also discloses “wherein the drive torque in the drive train is determined by calculation based on a determined motor torque of the motor and a mathematical model of the drive train.” (Reck ¶ 5: “The motor torque is a torque that is provided by the motor via a drivetrain of the bicycle to advance the bicycle. In normal operation, the motor torque is controlled based on the acquired driver torque. This means that typically a driver torque is acquired and an associated motor torque is calculated, the motor being controlled by the control electronics in such a way that these electronics provide the calculated motor torque.” Calculating the torque that is provided by the drivetrain based on acquired data implies the use of a mathematical model representing the drive train.) Regarding claim 9: Reck discloses “The method according to claim 1.” Further, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this Office action, the method “further comprising: detecting a blocked state of the drive train when, in response to the detected engagement state, the predetermined start-up rotary movement remains undetected within a predetermined period of time” is a contingent limitation that is not required to occur. Regardless, the examiner notes that Reck does disclose “detecting a blocked state of the drive train when… the [] rotary movement remains undetected.” (Reck ¶ 28: “In startup operation, a small torque is applied to a drivetrain, i.e., a small motor torque is controlled, in order to check whether motor 2 can rotate freely or is blocked. If motor 2 can rotate freely, then a changeover to normal operating mode 30 takes place. If motor 2 does not rotate, then a change back to idle operation 10 takes place.”) Regarding claim 10: Reck discloses “The method according to claim 9.” Further, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this Office action, the method “further comprising: preventing full motor torque generation of the motor in response to the detection of the blocked state of the drive train” is a contingent limitation that is not required to occur. Regardless, the examiner notes that Reck discloses this limitation. (Reck ¶ 28: “If motor 2 does not rotate, then a change back to idle operation 10 takes place.” Also, Reck ¶ 27: “In idle operating mode 10, no motor support takes place. Idle operating mode 10 is carried out when bicycle 3 is standing still, and is an initial state of the system. In idle operation 10, the motor support is disabled.”) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US 2022/0212751 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tsukamoto . Regarding claim 4: Reck discloses “The method according to claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein detecting the rotary movement of the motor comprises detecting a motor angle.” However, Tsukamoto does teach this limitation. (Tsukamoto ¶ 73: “The rotational angle sensor 134 is provided on the electric motor 58 or the housing 52, and configured to detect the motor rotational angle or the rotational angle (absolute angle) of the rotational output member 64.”) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Reck by detecting a rotation angle of the motor as taught by Tsukamoto, as this is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Detecting the motor angle would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the electric bicycle power assist method of Tsukamoto or whether integrated into the electric bicycle motor control method of Reck. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that identifying the motor angle could be useful for monitoring the state of the bicycle and to ensure that proper operation takes place. As explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this Office action, the limitation that the “start-up operation is recognized when the detected motor angle is at least equal to a predetermined start-up motor angle” is a contingent limitation that is not required to occur . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weinmann et al. (US 2025/0026438 A1), hereinafter referred to as Weinmann . Regarding claim 11: Reck discloses “The method according to claim 1,” but Reck does not explicitly disclose “wherein the test torque corresponds to a maximum of 10% of a maximum torque of the motor, and/or wherein the test torque is a maximum of 5 Nm.” However, Weinmann does teach this limitation. (Weinmann ¶¶ 48-50: “When maintenance mode is activated, operation of the drive unit 3 can be initiated by the input unit 2 in response to a one-time user input. This means, for example, that after pressing a button once, the drive unit 3 is operated, preferably until the button is pressed again or until a condition for ending the operation of the drive unit 3 occurs. … In particular, automatic diagnostics, i.e. functional tests, of various components of the electric bike 1 can be carried out.” Further, Weinmann ¶ 14: “Preferably, the drive unit is operated with a predetermined maintenance torque, which is a maximum of 20%, in particular a maximum of 10%, preferably a maximum of 5%, of a maximum torque of the drive unit. In particular, the maintenance torque is a maximum of 5 Nm, preferably a maximum of 2 Nm.”) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Reck by limiting the test torque to 10% of a maximum motor torque or limiting the test torque to a maximum value of 5 Nm as taught by Weinmann with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Weinmann ¶ 14 teaches that “This is a simple way of passively preventing hazards for the operator and/or unintentional forward movement of the electric bike during maintenance mode.” 07-22-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guers et al. (WO 2021/116353 A1), hereinafter referred to as Guers . Regarding claim 12: Reck discloses “The method according to claim 1,” but Reck does not specifically disclose “wherein the method is performed exclusively during a standstill of the electric bicycle.” However, Guers does teach this limitation. (Guers ¶ 34: “accelerating by triggering the electric assistance motor by activating a single trigger can pose a safety problem for an inexperienced user, especially when starting from a standstill. In other words, there is a need to guarantee the safety of a user of an electric assisted bicycle, or that of individuals nearby, by ensuring that when the bicycle is stopped, or even at any speed of the bicycle, the electric motor cannot start without the assurance of an intentional action by the user.”) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Reck by allowing the method to be performed when the bicycle is at a standstill as taught by Guers with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Guers ¶¶ 33-34 teach that this can help to improve safety for inexperienced users by ensuring that “the electric motor cannot start without the assurance of an intentional action by the user.” 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gibbings (US 2017/0183057 A1) . Regarding claim 13: Reck discloses “the method according to claim 1,” and Reck further discloses “A drive assembly of an electric bicycle, comprising: a motor; a drive train; and a control unit which is set up for actuating the motor, wherein the control unit is set up for carrying out the method.” (Reck ¶ 25 and FIG. 1 disclose “a device 1 according to the present invention for controlling a motor 2 of the electric bicycle 3. An associated method for controlling motor 2 of electric bicycle 3 is carried out by control electronics 4.” Further, Reck ¶ 5: “The motor torque is a torque that is provided by the motor via a drivetrain of the bicycle to advance the bicycle.”) While the step of “recognizing a start-up operation in response to the detection of the engagement state and when the detected rotary movement is at least equal to a predetermined start-up rotary movement” is not required by method claim 1, this step is required by claim 13. Reck discloses “recognizing a start-up operation in response to the detection of the engagement state.” (Reck ¶ 43: “If the driver actuates a brake of bicycle 3, which can be recognized by a sensor through an actuation of the brake lever or a detection of a brake pressure of brake 3, then it can be inferred that a drivetrain of bicycle 3 is being deliberately held in a pre-tensioned state by the driver, because the driver himself is at the same time exerting a driver torque, and at the same time the forward movement is being actively prevented by an actuation of the brake. In this state blocking operation 40 is to be maintained, so that the motor torque also continues to be provided. … If in blocking operation 40 motor 2 is not rotating but the brake is applied, then no critical situation can arise, because the driver is actively bringing the bicycle to a standstill, but presumably with the intention of starting up again soon. The drivetrain is thus deliberately being pre-tensioned by the driver, for example in order to make a quick start or during a balancing situation.”) Reck does not specifically disclose “recognizing a start-up operation … when the detected rotary movement is at least equal to a predetermined start-up rotary movement.” However, Gibbings does teach this limitation. (Gibbings Abstract: “A electric motor system for supplying assistive propelling power to a bicycle, comprising: one or more drivetrains, each comprising a motor-drive shaft having a pinion with fixed drive system driving a crown and bearing assembly connected to a spindle; and a controller for executing a motor control sequence comprising: an initial state activated by a rider's start command where the motor speed is being detected for an initial period, and if the motor speed is higher than a first speed threshold continuously for a first period, then the motor is turned on to output a rider-selected torque level.”) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Reck by allowing start-up to occur when the motor speed exceeds a threshold as taught by Gibbings with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that a stabilized and sufficient motor speed would serve as a suitable indicator that the bicycle is ready for start-up, and that verifying the motor speed before start-up would help improve reliability of the bicycle by ensuring that it is ready for start-up before enabling full motor torque. Regarding claim 14: The combination of Reck and Gibbings teaches the “drive assembly according to claim 13,” and Reck also teaches “An electric bicycle comprising a drive assembly.” (Reck ¶ 25 and FIG. 1 disclose “a device 1 according to the present invention for controlling a motor 2 of the electric bicycle 3.”) Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fingerhut et al. (WO 2025/180873 A1) ¶ 20 discloses an electric bicycle with hill start assist, where the “Hill start assist is understood to be, in particular, an operating mode in which, preferably starting from a standstill of the electric bicycle, a motor torque is specifically generated, while pedaling is carried out by the user of the electric bicycle with a rider torque. Hill start assist is preferably performed when the driver torque corresponds to at least a predetermined torque threshold.” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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. /Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 11 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 12 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 13 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 14 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 15 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 16 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 17 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 18 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 19 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/229,916 Page 20 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights