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 .
This is a NON-FINAL action in response to Applicant’s amendment of 14 July 2025. Claims 1-15 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 February 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 and 14-15 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 10 April 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-7 and 14-15 set forth in the office action of 10 April 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect art rejections have been fully considered and are not persuasive, Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection for claims 1-15 set forth in office action of 10 April 2025 but is moot in view of new obviousness rejection necessitated by the amendments. The combination of Ohashi, Watarai, and Tsuchizawa teaching each and every limitation and the amended claims as discussed below.
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 11-13 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 11 is unclear because the limitation: a case where at least one of the pitch angle of the human-powered vehicle being greater than or equal to the predetermined pitch angle and the human driving force input to the input rotary body of the human-powered vehicle being less than or equal to the predetermined value is satisfied in a state in which the human-powered vehicle is traveling at the predetermined speed or lower is redundant since the predetermined pitch angle and human driving force input have been previously recited in the list of “at least one of“ cases. It is unclear if the limitation requires both the pitch angle and human driving force limitations to be met in the predetermined condition, or if the limitation was repeated language.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ohashi et al. (US 20160297499 A1) in view of TSUCHIZAWA et al. (US 20170355420 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ohashi teaches: A human-powered vehicle control device for a human-powered vehicle, the human-powered vehicle control device comprising: (” The two-wheeled electric vehicle 1 is an electric vehicle provided with an arrangement to transmit a driving force from an electric motor to a wheel, and more specifically, is a saddle type electric vehicle. The two-wheeled electric vehicle 1 includes a front wheel 3 and a rear wheel 4. Further, the two-wheeled electric vehicle 1 includes a human power drive system to drive the rear wheel 4 by human power”, [paragraph 31]);
a controller configured to control a motor to apply a propulsion force to the human-powered vehicle, the controller being configured to control the motor in at least one of
a first control state and a second control state, the first control state being one in which the controller controls the motor in accordance with a human driving force input to an input rotary body of the human-powered vehicle, (“Standard state: A state in which the controller 70 is powered on, and a standard assist force based on a pedal force is generated from the electric motor 31”, [paragraph 63]);
the first control state including a plurality of assist stages (FIG. 5 is a state transition diagram for describing control state transitions of the controller 70. The controller 70 is able to perform a plurality of control states.”, [paragraph 59]) switchable by an operation unit differing from the input rotary body (“The switch unit 41 includes a power switch 51, a self-propelling switch 52, and a running mode changeover switch 53U and 53D”, [paragraph 41]; “The running mode changeover switch includes an assist-up switch 53U to increase the assist force and an assist-down switch 53D to reduce the assist force”, [paragraph 43]),
the plurality of assist stages each differing in at least one of assist state and upper limit torque (standard assist state, strong assist state, and weak assist state (ECO), [paragraph 70-71])
and the second control state being one in which the controller controls the motor in accordance with an operation of the operation unit (“Self-propelling state: A driving state in which the self-propelling switch 52 is being operated, and a driving force is being generated from the electric motor 31.”, [paragraph 67);
and in a case where human driving force is input to the input rotary body in the second control state, the controller controls the motor in the first control state, (“if the torque sensor 71 or the crank sensor 72 detects a pedal operation in the self-propelling state, the control state transitions to the assist state (basic state) before the transition to the self-propellable state. This transition is a direct transition that is not via the self-propellable state. Therefore, when the pedals 20 are operated, an assist force according to the pedal force is immediately generated. “, [paragraph 75], Fig. 5)
Ohashi does not explicitly teach the plurality of assist stages each differing in at least one of assist ratio and upper limit torque and the second control state in a case of walking.
TSUCHIZAWA, directed to a bicycle controller teaches the plurality of assist stages each differing in at least one of assist ratio and upper limit torque (assist ratio R and upper limit value TL of the output Torque TA, [paragraph 49, Tsuchizawa]) and the second control state in a case of walking (walk mode, [paragraph 47, Tsuchizawa]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Ohashi’s method of controlling the vehicle in a self-propel state to incorporate the teachings of TSUCHIZAWA, which teaches the plurality of assist stages each differing in at least one of assist ratio and upper limit torque and the second control state in a case of walking since they are both directed to bicycle control methods. Doing so would increase the utility of the system and decrease the energy user would have to exert when pushing the vehicle while walking next to it.
Regarding claim 2, Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa teaches: The human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the second control state includes a control state in which the motor applies the propulsion force to the human-powered vehicle (" Self-propelling state: A driving state in which the self-propelling switch 52 is being operated, and a driving force is being generated from the electric motor 31“, [paragraph 67, Ohashi]).
However, TSUCHIZAWA ,directed to a bicycle controller teaches: regardless of the human driving force input to the input rotary body ("Another example of the other operation mode further configured to control the output of the motor 24 regardless of the manual driving force “, [paragraph 47, Tsuchizawa]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ohashi’s self-propel driving force of a two-wheeled electric vehicle to include TSUCHIZAWA’s disclosed known technique of controlling an output motor regardless of a manual driving force with a reasonable expectation of success. Motivation for doing so would be to improve Ohashi motor control so that it propels the vehicle regardless of the human driving force and resulted in an improved control method.
Motivation to combine Ohashi and TSUCHIZAWA not only comes from knowledge well known in the art, but also from TSUCHIZAWA (“It is preferable to switch operation modes that control the motor in accordance with the riding environment of the bicycle”, [paragraph 4] “to provide a bicycle controller that assists in propelling of a bicycle in accordance with the riding environment of a bicycle in a further appropriate manner”, [paragraph 5]).
Regarding claim 3, Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa teaches: The human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to switch from the second control state to the first control state in a case where a traveling speed of the human-powered vehicle becomes higher than or equal to a predetermined traveling speed that is determined in advance (“the controller 70 judges whether a vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed sensor 73 is above a predetermined running determination threshold (for example, 2 km/h) (step S8). “, [paragraph 82, Ohashi]). This operation is described in Figure 6, step S8 which determines if the vehicle speed is greater than the predetermined threshold. The flow continues to S9, S10 and then S11 “return to original assist state (Basic State)” which is first control state of the instant application.
Regarding claim 4, Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa teaches: The human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to switch from the second control state to the first control state in a case where the input rotary body is rotated (“if the torque sensor 71 or the crank sensor 72 detects a pedal operation in the self-propelling state, the control state transitions to the assist state (basic state) …Therefore, when the pedals 20 are operated, an assist force according to the pedal force is immediately generated.”, [paragraph 75], Fig. 5 , Ohashi). The second control state is anticipated by the self-propelling state, while first control state anticipated by to the assist states: power-saving state, standard state and high-power state (Fig. 5, Ohashi).
Regarding claim 5, Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa teaches: The control device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to perform switching of a first motor control mode, a second motor control mode, and a third motor control mode in the first control state in accordance with the operation of the operation unit (“If the assist-up switch 53U is operated in the standard state, the control state transitions to the high-power state… When the assist-down switch 53D is operated in the high-power state, due to a transition to the standard state, the running mode becomes a standard assist state”, [paragraph 70, Ohashi]. “If the assist-down switch 53D is operated in the standard state, the control state transitions to the power-saving state”, [paragraph 71, Ohashi]). Fig. 5 shows switching between assist control states. Fig. 4 shows an operator unit or switch unit up and down buttons 53U and 53D.
Regarding claim 6, Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa teaches: The human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to perform switching of the first control state and the second control state in accordance with the operation of the operation unit. ("If the self-propelling switch 52 is operated in the self-propellable state, the control state transitions to the self-propelling state (driving state), and the controller 70 drives the electric motor 31 based on a torque command value set for self-propelling. Due to this driving force, the two-wheeled electric vehicle 1 on which a driver is riding is caused to run. If the operation of the self-propelling switch 52 is canceled in the self-propelling state, the control state returns to the self-propellable state. That is, it becomes the self-propelling state only for a period of time when the self-propelling switch 52 is being operated, and the electric motor 31 generates a driving force. ", [paragraph 74, Ohashi]);
Regarding claim 7, Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa teaches: The human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 5, wherein the first control state includes a fourth motor control mode that stops the motor, (“Assist-Off state: A non-assist state in which the controller 70 has been powered on, but a driving force is not generated from the electric motor 31” [paragraph 68, Ohashi]); and the controller is configured to switch from the first control state to the second control state in accordance with the operation of the operation unit while in the fourth control mode (“If the assist-down switch 53D is operated in the power-saving state, the control state transitions to the assist-Off state, and the running mode becomes a non-assist state accordingly, and the electric motor 31 is put into a standstill state. That is, it becomes a state in which a driving force entirely by human power is applied to the vehicle body.”, [paragraph 71, Ohashi], Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Ohashi teaches: A human-powered vehicle control device for a human-powered vehicle, the human-powered vehicle control device comprising: a controller configured to control a motor to apply a propulsion force to the human-powered vehicle, (” The two-wheeled electric vehicle 1 is an electric vehicle provided with an arrangement to transmit a driving force from an electric motor to a wheel, and more specifically, is a saddle type electric vehicle. The two-wheeled electric vehicle 1 includes a front wheel 3 and a rear wheel 4. Further, the two-wheeled electric vehicle 1 includes a human power drive system to drive the rear wheel 4 by human power”, [paragraph 31, Ohashi]); wherein the controller being configured to control the motor in a first control state, in which the controller controls the motor in accordance with human driving force input to an input rotary body of the human-powered vehicle, (“Standard state: A state in which the controller 70 is powered on, and a standard assist force based on a pedal force is generated from the electric motor 31”, [paragraph 63, Ohashi]); a second control state being one in which the controller controls the motor in accordance with an operation of an operation unit differing from the input rotary body (“Self-propelling state: A driving state in which the self-propelling switch 52 is being operated, and a driving force is being generated from the electric motor 31.”, [paragraph 67, Ohashi]); the controller being configured to switch from the second control state to the first control state in a case where a traveling speed of the human-powered vehicle becomes higher than or equal to a predetermined traveling speed in the second control state, the controller being configured to controls the motor in the first control state (“the controller 70 judges whether a vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed sensor 73 is above a predetermined running determination threshold (for example, 2 km/h) (step S8). “, [paragraph 82, Ohashi]). This operation is described in Figure 6, step S8 which determines if the vehicle speed is greater than the predetermined threshold. The flow continues to S9, S10 and then S11 “return to original assist state (Basic State)” which is first control state of the instant application.
Ohashi does not explicitly teach a second control state being one in which the controller controls the motor regardless of the human driving force input to the input rotary body.
TSUCHIZAWA, directed to a bicycle controller teaches a second control state being one in which the controller controls the motor regardless of the human driving force input to the input rotary body ("Another example of the other operation mode further configured to control the output of the motor 24 regardless of the manual driving force “, [paragraph 47, Tsuchizawa]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ohashi’s self-propel driving force of a two-wheeled electric vehicle to include TSUCHIZAWA’s disclosed known technique of controlling an output motor regardless of a manual driving force with a reasonable expectation of success. Motivation for doing so would be to improve Ohashi motor control so that it propels the vehicle regardless of the human driving force and resulted in an improved control method.
Motivation to combine Ohashi and TSUCHIZAWA not only comes from knowledge well known in the art, but also from TSUCHIZAWA (“It is preferable to switch operation modes that control the motor in accordance with the riding environment of the bicycle”, [paragraph 4] “to provide a bicycle controller that assists in propelling of a bicycle in accordance with the riding environment of a bicycle in a further appropriate manner”, [paragraph 5]).
Regarding claim 9, Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa teaches: The human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 8, further comprising a sensor configured to detect information related to a traveling state of the human- powered vehicle, (torque sensor 71, crank sensor 72, and speed sensor 73, [paragraph 88, Ohashi]); and the controller being configured to control the motor in accordance with a detection result of the sensor (“By monitoring in this manner the output of the sensors to be used for drive control of the electric motor 31”, [paragraph 88, Ohashi]).
Regarding claim 10, Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa teach: The human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 9, wherein the sensor includes at least one of a vehicle speed sensor configured to detect information related to a rotational speed of a wheel of the human-powered vehicle, (“The vehicle speed sensor 73 is preferably a sensor that detects a rotation speed of the front wheel 3 or the rear wheel 4 (wheel speed)", [paragraph 52, Ohashi]); a position information detection sensor configured to detect information related to a position of the human-powered vehicle; and an acceleration sensor configured to detect information related to acceleration of the human-powered vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, Ohashi teaches: A human-powered vehicle control device for a human- powered vehicle, the human-powered vehicle control device comprising: a controller configured to control a motor to apply a propulsion force to the human- powered vehicle(” The two-wheeled electric vehicle 1 is an electric vehicle provided with an arrangement to transmit a driving force from an electric motor to a wheel, and more specifically, is a saddle type electric vehicle. The two-wheeled electric vehicle 1 includes a front wheel 3 and a rear wheel 4. Further, the two-wheeled electric vehicle 1 includes a human power drive system to drive the rear wheel 4 by human power”, [paragraph 31, Ohashi]), the controller being configured to control the motor in a first control state and a second control state, the first control state being one in which the controller controls the motor in accordance with human driving force input to an input rotary body of the human- powered vehicle (“Standard state: A state in which the controller 70 is powered on, and a standard assist force based on a pedal force is generated from the electric motor 31”, [paragraph 63, Ohashi]), and the second control state being one in which the controller controls the motor in accordance with an operation of an operation unit differing from the input rotary body (“Self-propelling state: A driving state in which the self-propelling switch 52 is being operated, and a driving force is being generated from the electric motor 31.”, [paragraph 67, Ohashi]), and in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied in the first control state, the controller being configured to switch to the second control state (switch from a basic assist state to the self-propelling state when the predetermined condition of the self-propel switch 52 is operated, [paragraph 72-74, Ohashi]).
Ohashi does not explicitly teach a second control state being one in which the controller controls the motor regardless of the human driving force input to the input rotary body and the predetermined condition including at least one of a case where a still state in which the human-powered vehicle is still continues over a first redetermined period, a case where a traveling speed of the human-powered vehicle is lower than or equal to a predetermined speed, a case where a second predetermined period elapses from a time point at which the human driving force of a predetermined value or greater is detected in a state in which the human-powered vehicle is traveling at the predetermined speed or lower, a case where a pitch angle of the human-powered vehicle is greater than or equal to a predetermined pitch angle, a case where the human driving force input to the input rotary body of the human- powered vehicle is greater than or equal to the predetermined value, and a case where at least one of the pitch angle of the human-powered vehicle being greater than or equal to the predetermined pitch angle and the human driving force input to the input rotary body of the human-powered vehicle being less than or equal to the predetermined value is satisfied in a state in which the human-powered vehicle is traveling at the predetermined speed or lower.
TSUCHIZAWA, directed to a bicycle controller teaches a second control state being one in which the controller controls the motor regardless of the human driving force input to the input rotary body ("Another example of the other operation mode further configured to control the output of the motor 24 regardless of the manual driving force “, [paragraph 47, Tsuchizawa]) and the predetermined condition including at least one of a case where a still state in which the human-powered vehicle is still continues over a first redetermined period, a case where a traveling speed of the human-powered vehicle is lower than or equal to a predetermined speed, a case where a second predetermined period elapses from a time point at which the human driving force of a predetermined value or greater is detected in a state in which the human-powered vehicle is traveling at the predetermined speed or lower, a case where a pitch angle of the human-powered vehicle is greater than or equal to a predetermined pitch angle (“In step S31, the electronic control unit 12 determines whether or not the inclination D is greater than or equal to the fourth angle Y4. In a case that the electronic control unit 12 determines in step S31 that the inclination D is greater than or equal to the fourth angle Y4, the electronic control unit 12 proceeds to step S32 and controls the motor 24 in the third operation mode. In a case that the electronic control unit 12 determines in step S31 that the inclination D is less than the fourth angle Y4, the electronic control unit 12 proceeds to step S33 and controls the motor 24 in the second operation mode.”, [paragraph 70], Fig. 4), a case where the human driving force input to the input rotary body of the human- powered vehicle is greater than or equal to the predetermined value, and a case where at least one of the pitch angle of the human-powered vehicle being greater than or equal to the predetermined pitch angle (“In step S31, the electronic control unit 12 determines whether or not the inclination D is greater than or equal to the fourth angle Y4. In a case that the electronic control unit 12 determines in step S31 that the inclination D is greater than or equal to the fourth angle Y4, the electronic control unit 12 proceeds to step S32 and controls the motor 24 in the third operation mode. In a case that the electronic control unit 12 determines in step S31 that the inclination D is less than the fourth angle Y4, the electronic control unit 12 proceeds to step S33 and controls the motor 24 in the second operation mode.”, [paragraph 70], Fig. 4) and the human driving force input to the input rotary body of the human-powered vehicle being less than or equal to the predetermined value is satisfied in a state in which the human-powered vehicle is traveling at the predetermined speed or lower.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ohashi’s self-propel driving force of a two-wheeled electric vehicle to include TSUCHIZAWA’s disclosed known technique of controlling an output motor regardless of a manual driving force with a reasonable expectation of success. Motivation for doing so would be to improve Ohashi motor control so that it propels the vehicle regardless of the human driving force and resulted in an improved control method. The motivation to combine Ohashi and TSUCHIZAWA not only comes from knowledge well known in the art, but also from TSUCHIZAWA (“It is preferable to switch operation modes that control the motor in accordance with the riding environment of the bicycle”, [paragraph 4] “to provide a bicycle controller that assists in propelling of a bicycle in accordance with the riding environment of a bicycle in a further appropriate manner”, [paragraph 5]).
Regarding claim 14, Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa teaches: The human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured not to drive the motor during a period in which the operation unit is not operated in the second control state, and the controller is configured to drive the motor during a period in which the operation unit is continuously operated in the second control state (“If the self-propelling switch 52 is operated in the self-propellable state, the control state transitions to the self-propelling state (driving state), and the controller 70 drives the electric motor 31 based on a torque command value set for self-propelling. Due to this driving force, the two-wheeled electric vehicle 1 on which a driver is riding is caused to run … If the operation of the self-propelling switch 52 is canceled in the self-propelling state, the control state returns to the self-propellable state”, [51, Ohashi]).
Regarding claim 15, Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa teaches: A human-powered vehicle operation system comprising the human- powered vehicle control device according to claim 1; and further comprising the operation unit, (“The switch unit 41”, [paragraph 74, Ohashi], Fig. 4).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ohashi et al. (US 20160297499 A1) in view of TSUCHIZAWA et al. (US 20170355420 A1) as applied to claims 1-11 and 14-15 and further in view of Watarai et al. (US 20160318583 A1). The applied reference has a common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 12, Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa teach: The human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 11.
TSUCHIZAWA ,directed to a bicycle controller teaches: wherein the predetermined condition further includes a case where the vibration is greater than a threshold value (“As shown in FIG. 6…step S52 and determines whether or not the vibration amount VR is greater than or equal to the threshold value X. “, [paragraph 74] “The vibration sensor can be realized, for example, with an acceleration sensor, a speed sensor, or a displacement sensor.")
Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa does not explicitly teach: wherein the predetermined condition further includes a case where a rotational speed of the input rotary body is fluctuating.
Watarai, directed to a bicycle motor control system -- teaches: where a rotational speed of the input rotary body is fluctuating (“In other embodiments, the controller 32 is configured to reduce the predetermined assist ratio or boost ratio according to input from at least a cadence sensor 36.”, [paragraph 43]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the vibration threshold in TSUCHIZAWA with a cadence threshold from Watarai so that as a mechanism to switch motor control modes while a user is riding the bicycle with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be “to switch operation modes that control the motor in accordance with the riding environment of the bicycle. “, [paragraph 4, TSUCHIZAWA]. Motivation to combine TSUCHIZAWA and Watarai not only comes from knowledge well known in the art, but also from Watarai (“One potential advantage of this configuration is that driving force may be appropriately reduced according to a user's preferences”, [paragraph 3, Watarai]).
Regarding claim 13, Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa teaches: The human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 11, further comprising at least one of a vehicle speed sensor configured to detect information related to a rotational speed of a wheel of the human-powered vehicle (“The vehicle speed sensor 73 is preferably a sensor that detects a rotation speed of the front wheel 3 or the rear wheel 4 (wheel speed)", [paragraph 52]).
However, Ohashi in view of Tsuchizawa does not explicitly teach: a crank rotation sensor configured to detect information related to a rotational speed of a crank, and the controller being configured to obtain the rotational speed of the crank from an output of the crank rotation sensor.
Watarai, directed to a bicycle motor control system -- teaches: a crank rotation sensor configured to detect information related to a rotational speed of a crank (“The cadence sensor 36 is provided on the crank portion 20, and detects the rotations of a crank shaft 26”, [paragraph 41]), and the controller being configured to obtain the rotational speed of the crank from an output of the crank rotation sensor (“The controller 32 of the bicycle is configured to receive input from a cadence sensor 36, torque sensor 38, and speed sensor 40 that are communicatively coupled with the controller 32” [paragraph 41], Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the methods of collecting riding environment information to include the cadence sensor from Watarai with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to obtain the cadence of the rider to “to switch operation modes that control the motor in accordance with the riding environment of the bicycle. “, [paragraph 4, TSUCHIZAWA].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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.Khuu, Irene
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664