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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 11, and 15 have been amended. Claims 4-5, 7-8, and 13-14 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-11, and 15-20 are pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments pertain to newly amended limitations not addressed in the prior Office Action of record. Applicant argues that Hu et al (20180322504; hereinafter Hu, already of record) fails to teach to change the traveling performance of the human-power vehicle by changing the assist output of the electric device. Additionally, Applicant argues that Hu fails to teach of the outputs of electric assist device consisting of at least one of an output ratio, steady output, or maximum output.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hu recites:
“the user can use the article ... without waiting for an article use authentication result ... the user can directly use the article after triggering authentication without waiting for the authentication result” ¶ 66,
“The blocked use state is a state where the use function of the article is lost. For example, when the article is a riding vehicle such as a bicycle, a moped, an electric vehicle and so on, the user may be prevented from riding by ... slow braking, automatic gear shift and so on may be preferred so that the vehicle will stop slowly without incurring any danger” ¶ 88
“the server may send the article use authentication result to a corresponding article and/or user equipment, and finally, the article is maintained in the available state” ¶ 97
“The article is changed from the available state to a disabled state... after the normal riding is ended, the user can leave voluntarily after normal stopping without any redundant operations” ¶ 66,
“when the article is a vehicle, the event of ending usage may be that ... the vehicle enters a predetermined area such as a parking area preset by the system” ¶ 139.
Wherein it can be seen that Hu does disclose of an output ratio of the electric assist device and changing the electric assist output based on the area and state of the electric vehicle. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the recited an output ratio, steady output, or maximum output, and changing of a performance output is recited at a broad level of generality which can encompass nearly any change to the vehicle electric assist system. Therefore, by disclosing enabling the constant use of the electric assist device of the electric vehicle during travel, and changing gearing and braking outputs of the electric assist device electric vehicle based on a cancel condition, Hu does teach of the claimed limitations.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a communication unit that receives ...” in claim 1.
“a storage unit that stores ...” in claims 1, 11, and 16.
“the electric assist device is set to ...” in claims 1, 11, and 15.
“the electric assist device is changed to ...” in claims 1, 11, and 15
“... store, in the storage unit ...” in claim 6.
“a communication unit that transmits ...” in claim 11.
“a communication unit that communicates ...” in claim 15.
“a second communication unit that transmits ...” in claim 16.
“a third communication unit that communicates ...” in claim 17.
The communication unit is described in the specifications in paragraphs 43, 44, 47, and 48 as consisting of a central processing unit and/or a micro processing unit. The storage unit is described in paragraph 45 of the specification as consisting at least one of a read-only memory, EPROM, EEPROM, and, a flash memory for example. The electric assist device is described in paragraph 39 of the Specification as a drive unit that includes an electric motor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11-12, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al (20180322504; hereinafter Hu, already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches a controlling device comprising:
a communication unit (Hu: Fig. 4 Element 4400) that receives setting information for setting at least one of an output ratio (Hu: “slow braking, automatic gear shift and so on may be preferred so that the vehicle will stop slowly without incurring any danger” ¶ 88), a steady output, and a maximum output of an electric assist device of a human-powered vehicle to a predetermined setting (Hu: “An article in an available state is provided. Article use authentication is performed on a user who uses the article only when the article is actually in use or when the user requires” ¶ 65);
a storage unit that stores (Hu: Fig. 4 Element 4200) therein at least one of an output ratio, a steady output, and a maximum output of as a previous setting (Hu: Fig. 1, “The article is changed from the available state to a disabled state when an article use authentication result is not acquired or the authentication is failed” ¶ 66, see also ¶ 88,) before setting at least one of an output ratio, a steady output, and a maximum output of the electric assist device to the predetermined setting based on the received setting information (Hu: “An article in an available state is provided. Article use authentication is performed on a user who uses the article only when the article is actually in use or when the user requires” ¶ 65, “providing an article in an available state is to provide an article which can be directly used by a user, for example, providing a vehicle which has already been unlocked or has no lock and can be directly ridden or driven by the user such as a bicycle” ¶ 74); and
a controller (Hu: Fig. 4 Element 4100, “a processor for being controlled by the instructions” ¶ 189) that sets at least one of an output ratio, a steady output, and a maximum output of the electric assist device to the predetermined setting, based on the setting information received by the communication unit (Hu: “providing an article in an available state is to provide an article which can be directly used by a user” ¶ 74), wherein
the controller determines whether or not a position of the human-powered vehicle is within or out of a first predetermined range (Hu: “it indicates that the article corresponding to the article identifier is closest to the user corresponding to the user equipment and keeps the distance within a predetermined period of time and this user is the user who uses the article” ¶ 132),
the at least one of the output ratio, the steady output, and the maximum output of the electric assist device is set to the predetermined setting (Hu: “providing an article in an available state is to provide an article which can be directly used by a user, for example, providing a vehicle which has already been unlocked or has no lock and can be directly ridden or driven by the user” ¶ 74) based on the setting information received from a transmitting device outside the human-powered vehicle so as to change a traveling performance of the human-powered vehicle by changing an assist output of the electric assist device while the human-powered vehicle is traveling within the first predetermined range (Hu: “the user can use the article ... without waiting for an article use authentication result ... the user can directly use the article after triggering authentication without waiting for the authentication result” ¶ 66, “the server may send the article use authentication result to a corresponding article and/or user equipment, and finally, the article is maintained in the available state” ¶ 97, see also ¶ 99), and
the at least one of the output ratio, the steady output, and the maximum output of the electric assist device is changed to the previous setting from the predetermined setting based on cancel information received from the transmitting device outside the human- powered vehicle so as to change the traveling performance of the human-powered vehicle by changing the assist output of the electric assist device while the human-powered vehicle is traveling out of the first predetermined range (Hu: “The article is changed from the available state to a disabled state... after the normal riding is ended, the user can leave voluntarily after normal stopping without any redundant operations” ¶ 66, “when the article is a vehicle, the event of ending usage may be that ... the vehicle enters a predetermined area such as a parking area preset by the system” ¶ 139, “The blocked use state is a state where the use function of the article is lost. For example, when the article is a riding vehicle such as a bicycle, a moped, an electric vehicle and so on, the user may be prevented from riding by ... slow braking, automatic gear shift and so on may be preferred so that the vehicle will stop slowly without incurring any danger” ¶ 88).
Regarding claim 3, Hu teaches the controlling device according to claim 1, wherein the controlling device is arranged in a housing that is separate from the electric assist device (Hu: Fig. 5 Element 31000, see also ¶ 60).
Regarding claim 11, Hu teaches a transmitting device comprising:
a storage unit (Hu: Fig. 4 Element 4200) that stores therein setting information for setting at least one of an output ratio, a steady output, and a maximum output of an electric assist device of a human-powered vehicle to a predetermined setting (Hu: “the memory 3200 of the article use control device 3000 is used for storing instructions which are configured to control the processor 3100 to operate to perform the article use control method provided in the embodiment” ¶ 192, (Fig. 1, “An article in an available state is provided” ¶ 65), and further stores therein cancel information for setting at least one of an output ratio, a steady output, and a maximum output of the electric assist device to a previous setting before setting the electric assist device to the predetermined setting based on the stored setting information (Hu: “when the article use authentication result is not acquired or the authentication is failed before the countdown ends, the article is set to change from the available state to a disabled state.” ¶ 85, “The blocked use state is a state where the use function of the article is lost ... the user may be prevented from riding by preventing the wheel from rotating by means of locking of the front shaft/middle shaft/rear shaft of the vehicle and/or preventing the vehicle steering by means of blocking the rotation of the vehicle handlebar” ¶ 88, see also ¶ 92, 97, 99);
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 11, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 12, Hu teaches the transmitting device according to claim 11, wherein the communication unit transmits the setting information to the controlling device (Hu: “when the article use authentication result is not acquired or the authentication is failed before the countdown ends, the article is set to change from the available state to a disabled state.” ¶ 85) having predetermined identification information from among the plurality of controlling devices existing within the second predetermined range (Hu: “a short range communication device, a storage area and a control unit may also be provided in the article. The storage area stores a corresponding article identifier ... The article identifier is sent by means of short range communication” ¶ 73, “The article 5000 communicates with the user equipment ... and the user equipment 6000 communicates with the server 7000” ¶ 56).
Regarding claim 15, Hu teaches ...
a controller that authenticates, when the controlling device sets the electric assist device to the predetermined setting, the controlling device (Hu: “authenticates whether the user corresponding to the user identifier has a right to use the article and returns a corresponding article use authentication result” ¶ 135), and does not authenticate the controlling device when the electric assist device is set to the previous setting (Hu: “the article use authentication result is still not acquired or the authentication is still failed before the last countdown ends, changing the article from the available state to the disabled state” ¶ 145), wherein
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 1 and 11, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 18, Hu teaches the controlling device according to claim 1, wherein the controller determines whether or not a cancel condition for cancelling the predetermined setting is satisfied,
the controller determines that the cancel condition is satisfied when the position of the human-powered vehicle is out of the first predetermined range (Hu: “when the article is a vehicle, the event of ending usage may be that ... the vehicle enters a predetermined area such as a parking area preset by the system” ¶ 139 see also ¶ 131, 132), and
responsive to determining that the cancel condition for cancelling the predetermined setting is satisfied, the controller cancels the predetermined setting of the electric assist device and sets the electric assist device to the previous setting stored in the storage unit (Hu: “when an event representing that the use of the article is finished occurs, ending the use for the user” ¶ 137, see also ¶ 164).
Regarding claim 16, Hu teaches A setting system comprising:
the controlling device according to claim 1 (Hu: “The article 5000 at least includes an article use control device 3000 or an article use control device 4000” ¶ 57); and
the transmitting device (Hu: “a user equipment 6000” ¶ 55),
wherein the controlling device is provided on the human-powered vehicle to control the electric assist device (Hu: “The article 5000 at least includes an article use control device 3000 or an article use control device 4000” ¶ 57),
the communication unit is a first communication unit (Hu: “the article use control device 3000 may be as shown in FIG. 3 and includes a processor 3100, a memory 3200, an interface device 3200, a communication device 3400” ¶ 58),
the controller is a first controller (Hu: “the article use control device 3000 may be as shown in FIG. 3 and includes a processor 3100” ¶ 57),
the transmitting device comprises:
a storage unit that stores therein the setting information for setting the electric assist device of the human-powered vehicle to the predetermined setting (Hu: “the user equipment 6000 may be as shown in FIG. 9 and may include a processor 6100, a memory 6200, an interface device 6300, a communication device 6400” ¶ 62);
a second controller (Hu: “the user equipment 6000 may be as shown in FIG. 9 and may include a processor 6100” ¶ 62); and
a second communication unit that transmits the setting information to the controlling device (Hu: “the article use authentication request may be sent by the user equipment or the article side to trigger the server for performing article use authentication” ¶ 97), and
the second communication unit transmits the setting information to a plurality of controlling devices existing within a second predetermined range (Hu: “the article identifier is acquired by the user equipment used by the user by means of short range communication” ¶ 107).
Regarding claim 17, Hu teaches the setting system according to claim 16, further comprising:
an external device comprising:
a third communication unit that communicates with the controlling device that sets, in response to reception of the setting information, the electric assist device to the predetermined setting (Hu: “the article use authentication request is sent to a server to trigger the server to authenticate whether the user has a right to use the article” ¶ 96); and
a third controller that authenticates, when the controlling device sets the electric assist device to the predetermined setting, the controlling device (Hu: “after obtaining an article use authentication result, the server may send the article use authentication result to a corresponding article and/or user equipment, and finally, the article is maintained in the available state or changed from the available state to the disabled state according to the corresponding article use authentication result” ¶ 97).
In regards to claim(s) 19 and 20, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim 18, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu.
Regarding claim 2, Hu teaches the controlling device according to claim 1, wherein the controlling device is arranged in a housing (Hu: Fig. 5 Element 31000, see also ¶ 60, Note: Hu merely teaches of the controlling device arranged in a housing, not of the controlling device arranged in a housing of the electric assist device) of the electric assist device (see obviousness discussion below).
While Hu fails to teach that controlling device in arranged in the housing of the electric assist device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the controlling device in the housing of the electric assist device, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Olsson et al. (20140154535, already of record).
Regarding claim 6, Hu in view of Olsson teaches the controlling device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
in response to reception of the setting information by the communication unit, store, in the storage unit, identification information (Hu: “a storage area and a control unit may also be provided in the article. The storage area stores a corresponding article identifier. The article identifier is read from the storage area under the control of the control unit” ¶ 73) of an electric-power supply device connected to the electric assist device (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to ); and
in response to connection of an electric-power supply device having identification information different from the identification information stored in the storage unit to the electric assist device, cause at least one of a notification device and the electric assist device to execute an emergency operation (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Olsson).
While Hu remains silent regarding of an electric-power supply device having identification information different from the identification information stored in the storage unit to the electric assist device, cause at least one of a notification device and the electric assist device to execute an emergency operation, in a similar field of endeavor, Olsson teaches the claim limitation of an electric-power supply device having identification information different from the stored identification information, execute an emergency operation (Olsson: “controlling or disabling battery output as described subsequently herein based on device serial numbers or other identification information” ¶ 128, see also ¶ 226). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the system of Hu so that it also includes the element of comparing identification information and executing emergency operations, as taught by Olsson, in order to improve security measures of the vehicle (Olsson: ¶ 128).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Park (20180370593, already of record).
Regarding claim 9, Hu teaches the controlling device according to claim 1, wherein in the predetermined setting, a value (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Park) of the at least one of the output ratio (Hu: “The blocked use state is a state where the use function of the article is lost. For example, when the article is a riding vehicle such as a bicycle, a moped, an electric vehicle and so on, the user may be prevented from riding by ... slow braking, automatic gear shift and so on may be preferred so that the vehicle will stop slowly without incurring any danger” ¶ 88), the steady output, and the maximum output of the electric assist device is larger than before setting to the predetermined setting (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Park).
While Hu remains silent regarding a value ... of the electric assist device is larger than before setting to the predetermined setting, in a similar field of endeavor, Park teaches the claim limitation of a value of output ratio of the electric assist device being larger (Park: “the deceleration of the bike, and the control device controls the braking force of the braking device to keep the deceleration below a predetermined value” ¶ 52, see also ¶ 59). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the vehicle system of Hu so that it also includes the element of various outputs of electric assist device, as taught by Park, in order to improve control response to vehicle conditions (Park: ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 10, Hu fails to teach the controlling device according to claim 1, wherein in the predetermined setting, a value (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Park) of the at least one of the output ratio (Hu: “The blocked use state is a state where the use function of the article is lost. For example, when the article is a riding vehicle such as a bicycle, a moped, an electric vehicle and so on, the user may be prevented from riding by ... slow braking, automatic gear shift and so on may be preferred so that the vehicle will stop slowly without incurring any danger” ¶ 88), the steady output, and the maximum output of the electric assist device is smaller than before setting to the predetermined setting (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Park).
While Hu remains silent regarding a value ... of the electric assist device is smaller than before setting to the predetermined setting, in a similar field of endeavor, Park teaches the claim limitation of the claim limitation of a value of output ratio is smaller than before (Park: “a flat road or downhills, the role of the motor is changed to a generator and therefore there is no driving force from the motor”, ¶ 65). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the vehicle system of Hu so that it also includes the element of various outputs of electric assist device, as taught by Park, in order to improve control response to vehicle conditions (Park: ¶ 61, 88).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gillett (20210165404) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of vehicle control.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights