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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 08/04/2025. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10, and 19 have been amended. Claim(s) 5-6 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-20 are pending examination. Rejection to claim(s) 10-18 over the 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-9 is improper as the cited art does not teach all claim limitations of the independent claims 1. Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach “a motor controller” and its associated limitations.
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 10-18 is improper as the cited art does not teach all claim limitations of the independent claims 10. Applicant asserts that the claim is substantially similar to claim 1.
Applicant asserts that the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 19-20 is improper as the cited art does not teach all claim limitations of the independent claims 19. Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach the “current or predicted route traveled.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. The applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach all claim limitations of the independent claim 1. After further search and consideration the examiner would point towards the newly cited art, Hsu (US PG Pub 2022/0281545) to teach these limitations in addition to Seol. Regarding “a motor controller,” Seol teaches this in Fig. 1 item 210 and at least [0049] which teaches a controller for an eBike motor. Regarding receiving information from this controller, Fig. 1 and at least [0018] of Hsu teach getting a signal from a motor controller in the event that a tamper sensor is triggered. As [0018] teaches, “In step S20, after the electronic anti-theft function is activated, whether the electric vehicle is moving is determined. The method for determining whether the electric vehicle is moving includes detecting, by a sensor, whether the wheels are rotated or whether the phase of the synchronous motor has changed.” (Emphasis added). The detection that the motor phase is changing would cover the claim language of “polling a motor controller.” This polling is carried out by the teaching of Hsu in the event that the eBike is determining by an anti-theft system that the bike is moving. Incorporating Hsu with Akins and Seol would render claim 1 as obvious, as such the claim is rejected under 35 USC 103. Accordingly the dependent claims would be rejected. See section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103.”
Regarding applicant’s argument C, the examiner finds it moot. The applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach all claim limitations of the independent claim 9. After further search and consideration the examiner would point towards the newly cited portion of Akins [0045], which recites, “Discrimination of routine disturbances from more serious disturbances can be based on an expected orientation of a bicycle (for example, tilted on a bike carrier on a trunk) or location in a usual region or along a frequently traveled route. Transport along public transportation routes (bus routes, light rail routes) can be detected based on position reports. Such transport can be indicative of theft or of user access to public transportation. If a user is carrying a cell phone that reports GPS or other coordinates, user location can be communicated to a cloud based server. If the user and the bicycle are determined to be following a common route, disturbances such as vibration, displacement, and jostling can be discounted as unlikely to indicate theft.” (Emphasis added. The teachings of Akins show that the system is able to determine that the eBike route is in conjunction with a user. The user and the eBike being on the same route would count towards “contextual information,” and would render the independent claim 19 as obvious. Accordingly the dependent claims would be rejected. See section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103.”
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument B, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant alleges that claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1 and the same reason for allowance would exist. However, claim 10 was not amended to recite operations such as polling the motor controller. Accordingly the same rationale as the previous rejection would be carried forward. Akins teaches polling additionally sensors in the event that the system determines that a theft is occurring as detailed in the rejection. The teachings of Akins and Seol would render independent claim 10 as obvious. Accordingly the dependent claims would be rejected. See section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103.”
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) 1, 3-4, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akins (US PG Pub 2013/0150028) in view of Seol (US PG Pub 2012/0146429) and Hsu (US PG Pub 2022/0281545).
Regarding claim 1, Akins teaches a method for performing an action associated with ([0032] teaches the system and method associated with bicycle security)
receiving an alert from a tamper sensor or a location sensor of the electric bicycle; ([0035] teaches a 3 axis gyroscope that can be used to detect an event, i.e. theft, as described as a vibration or other movement. [0035] explicitly teaches that the eBike sensor can detect “tampering with a bicycle,” therefore the sensor as described would be a tamper sensor)
polling ([0044] teaches that a series of sensors may be used to detect an asset disturbance; such a disturbance may be based on multiple signals and/or thresholds exceeded; [0050] teaches that a central processor can correlate the events detected by multiple sensors, i.e. poll multiple sensors to get a full picture of the event as it takes place)
selecting a security action, from multiple performable security actions, to perform for the electric bicycle that is based the information received ([0039] teaches a plethora of security actions to perform, including audible and visual alerts at/on the bike, sending alerts to a user/owner of the bike, and causing a camera to take pictures at the time of the event; [0052] furthers this by including recording audio profiles of the event; [0080]-[0081] teach the user of the system as able to configure the system to determine which action should be taken if appropriate) and
causing the electric bicycle to perform the selected security action. ([0052]-[0053] teach the activation of an alarm by the bicycle system)
Akins does not teach the system as an electric bicycle, a motor controller, and information received from the motor controller.
However, Seol teaches “an electric bicycle” ([0038]-[0039] teach the use of an electric bicycle) and “a motor controller” (Fig. 1, item 210 and [0049] teach a motor controller for an eBike)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. It would be obvious to try for one of ordinary skill, as the systems would both work together. Akins establishes an electronic system within a bicycle that electrical components and wiring, a central battery, and other electrized components. The system of Akins would work on an electric bicycle as it is just a modified version of a bike. The system of Seol further teaches that there is an interest in equipping an electric bicycle with anti-theft/tracking devices. These devices help to ensure that your bicycle is not stolen.
The combination of Akins and Seol does not teach information received from the motor controller.
However Hsu teaches “information received from the motor controller.” (Fig. 1 and [0018] teach the motor controller receiving information that the motor is moving in response to the eBike being in an anti-theft mode and determining that motion is occurring)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins and Seol with Hsu; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to anti-theft systems for eBike and bicycles. By determining that motion is occurring in the motor the controller can further determine that theft is occurring. The system can also determine various actions to take such as unlocking the motor in order to prevent overheating and damage, Hsu [0004]. By unlocking the motor the damage is prevented even though the bicycle may be moved further. This allows the recovery of the bicycle to not end in tragedy as the bike is damaged beyond usage, and ensures the bike may be used by the user for a long time.
Regarding claim 3, Akins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving an alert from a sensor of the electric bicycle includes receiving an alert from a movement sensor of the electric bicycle. ([0035] teaches the suite of sensors on the bike, including the 3-axis gyro, as able to detect unauthorized motion of the bike)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Akins and Seol teaches the method of claim 1,
The combination of Akins and Seol does not teach wherein polling the motor controller of the electric bicycle to provide information about the electric bicycle include polling the motor controller of the electric bicycle to provide status information associated with a current operation of the electric bicycle.
However, Hsu teaches “wherein polling the motor controller of the electric bicycle to provide information about the electric bicycle include polling the motor controller of the electric bicycle to provide status information associated with a current operation of the electric bicycle.” ([0018] teaches determining the bicycle is moving and that the temperature of the motor has exceeded a value based on the polling of the motor controller)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins and Seol with Hsu; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to anti-theft systems for eBike and bicycles. By determining that motion is occurring in the motor the controller can further determine that theft is occurring. The system can also determine various actions to take such as unlocking the motor in order to prevent overheating and damage, Hsu [0004]. By unlocking the motor the damage is prevented even though the bicycle may be moved further. This allows the recovery of the bicycle to not end in tragedy as the bike is damaged beyond usage, and ensures the bike may be used by the user for a long time.
Regarding claim 7, Akins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes sending a notification to a mobile device associated with the electric bicycle. ([0062] teaches the system as able to send alerts to servers, PCs, mobile devices, etc. regarding the status of the bike system)
Regarding claim 8, Akins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selecting a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes selecting performance of an alarm at the electric bicycle. ([0052] teaches the system as able to determine the type of alarm to use at the bicycle, i.e. audible alarm, flash alarm, camera tracking. This would be analogous to the selection of a performance of an alarm)
Regarding claim 9, Akins teaches the method of claim 1.
Akins does not teach wherein selecting a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes causing the motor controller of the electric bicycle to disable operation of an electric motor of the electric bicycle.
However, Seol teaches “wherein selecting a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes causing the motor controller of the electric bicycle to disable operation of an electric motor of the electric bicycle” ([0058]-[0059] teaches the disabling of a motor of an ebike in the event of theft)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. As taught in [0058] the disabling of the motor is an effective way to prevent an eBike from being stolen. This would be obvious to incorporate into an anti-theft system for a bicycle as it adds another layer of protection.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akins, Seol, and Hsu in view of Craven (US PG Pub 2016/0031525).
Regarding claim 2, Akins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving an alert from a sensor of the electric bicycle includes receiving an alert from the tamper sensor of the electric bicycle. ([0006] teaches an intrusion detection sensor, which the examiner is taking to mean tampering; [0035] teach that the suite of sensors installed on the bike may be used to detect tampering with the bike) .
The combination of Akins, Seol, and Hsu does not teach that indicates a lock of the electric bicycle has been disabled.
However, Craven teaches “that indicates a lock of the electric bicycle has been disabled” ([0125] teaches the system detecting a tampering of an eBike lock by determining that the lock has been damaged in some way)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins, Seol, and Hsu with Craven; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to bicycle security systems. As Craven teaches in [0125] tamper detection is useful in preventing theft. While not all tampering would be successful, a determination that tampering has occurred may alert a user to move their eBike. Additionally a determination of a damaged lock may alert a user to replace the lock before next use of their eBike.
Claim(s) 10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akins (US PG Pub 2013/0150028) in view of Seol (US PG Pub 2012/0146429).
Regarding claim 10, Akins teaches a non-transitory, computer readable medium whose contents, when executed by a computing system of an ([0153] teaches the systems/methods of to be executed by a processor, when accessing a non-transitory medium on which instructions are stored)
receiving a notification from a sensor of the electric bicycle; ([0035] teaches a 3 axis gyroscope that can be used to detect an event, i.e. theft, as described as a vibration or other movement)
polling one or more additional sensors of the electric bicycle, in response to the alert received from the sensor, to provide information about a current status of operation of the electric bicycle; ([0044] teaches that a series of sensors may be used to detect an asset disturbance; such a disturbance may be based on multiple signals and/or thresholds exceeded; [0050] teaches that a central processor can correlate the events detected by multiple sensors, i.e. poll multiple sensors to get a full picture of the event as it takes place)
determining a security action to perform for the electric bicycle that is based on the information received from the polled one or more additional sensors; ([0039] teaches a plethora of security actions to perform, including audible and visual alerts at/on the bike, sending alerts to a user/owner of the bike, and causing a camera to take pictures at the time of the event; [0052] furthers this by including recording audio profiles of the event; [0080]-[0081] teach the user of the system as able to configure the system to determine which action should be taken if appropriate) and
performing the determined security action. ([0052]-[0053] teach the activation of an alarm by the bicycle system)
Akins does not teach the system as an electric bicycle.
However, Seol teaches “an electric bicycle” ([0038]-[0039] teach the use of an electric bicycle)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. It would be obvious to try for one of ordinary skill, as the systems would both work together. Akins establishes an electronic system within a bicycle that electrical components and wiring, a central battery, and other electrized components. The system of Akins would work on an electric bicycle as it is just a modified version of a bike. The system of Seol further teaches that there is an interest in equipping an electric bicycle with anti-theft/tracking devices. These devices help to ensure that your bicycle is not stolen.
Regarding claim 12, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein receiving a notification from a sensor of the electric bicycle includes receiving an alert from a movement sensor of the electric bicycle ([0035] teaches the suite of sensors on the bike, including the 3-axis gyro, as able to detect unauthorized motion of the bike) that
Akins does not teach detects an abnormal movement of a rear wheel of the electric bicycle.
However, Seol teaches “detects an abnormal movement of a rear wheel of the electric bicycle.” ([0054] teaches the detection of an unauthorized movement of the rear wheel)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. As Seol teaches in [0054] abnormal movement of a rear wheel may indicate an unauthorized party is attempting to take the eBike. This detection would trigger the anti-theft alarm and it would allow for a quicker theft detection compared to other types of movements, i.e. jostles, bumps, etc.
Regarding claim 13, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein polling one or more additional sensors of the electric bicycle to provide information about the electric bicycle include polling a controller of the electric bicycle to provide status information associated with a current operation of the electric bicycle. ([0036] teaches the controller of the bike system as being able to determine the current operational state of the bike, i.e. armed or disarmed; [0052] teaches additional operational/storage states of the bike)
Regarding claim 14, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein polling one or more additional sensors of the electric bicycle to provide information about the electric bicycle include polling a location sensor of the electric bicycle to provide a current location of the electric bicycle. ([0033] teaches a system that can be used to determine the current location of the bike system, via triangulation, GPS, AGPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and/or COMPASS signals)
Regarding claim 15, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein polling one or more additional sensors of the electric bicycle to provide information about the electric bicycle include polling a movement sensor of the electric bicycle to provide information identifying a current speed of the electric bicycle. ([0035] teaches a suite of sensors that may be used to determine if the bike is currently in motion; [0082] teaches having a series of motion profiles that may be used with various thresholds to determine the state of bicycle security; [0099] teaches the system may be able to use motion to determine the type of movement of the bicycle; [0053] teaches the system as storing the speed of the bicycle)
Regarding claim 16, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein determining a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes sending a notification to a mobile device associated with the electric bicycle. ([0062] teaches the system as able to send alerts to servers, PCs, mobile devices, etc. regarding the status of the bike system)
Regarding claim 17, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein determining a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes performing an alarm at the electric bicycle. ([0052] teaches the system as able to determine the type of alarm to use at the bicycle, i.e. audible alarm, flash alarm, camera tracking. This would be analogous to the selection of a performance of an alarm)
Regarding claim 18, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10.
Akins does not teach wherein selecting a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes causing a controller of the electric bicycle to disable operation of an electric motor of the electric bicycle.
However, Seol teaches “wherein selecting a security action to perform for the electric bicycle includes causing a controller of the electric bicycle to disable operation of an electric motor of the electric bicycle” ([0058]-[0059] teaches the disabling of a motor of an ebike in the event of theft)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. As taught in [0058] the disabling of the motor is an effective way to prevent an eBike from being stolen. This would be obvious to incorporate into an anti-theft system for a bicycle as it adds another layer of protection.
Regarding claim 19, Akins teaches a system that performs security actions for an
receiving an alert from a sensor of the electric bicycle that indicates a possible theft event at the electric bicycle; ([0035] teaches a 3 axis gyroscope that can be used to detect an event, i.e. theft, as described as a vibration or other movement)
identifying context information associated with the possible theft event at the electric bicycle, ([0061] teaches identifying the area a bike is in as possibly high theft; [0052] teaches the system may determine the context around a bike such as if it is in a bike rack, and using such information it may increase or decrease thresholds of noise, vibration, jostling, etc. it is expected to receive)
wherein the identified context information includes information identifying a rider or owner of the electric bicycle ([0056] teaches the system as using proximity keys to determine if the rider or another authorized user is near to the system and if it should be in an armed/disarmed state) and route information associated with a current or predicted route traveled the electric bicycle; ([0045] teaches determining that the rider and the bike are on the same current route of travel. [0051] teaches the bike as able to determine it is in a riding mode, during which it will track/determine route information)
determining a security action to perform based on the alert and based on the identified context information; ([0039] teaches a plethora of security actions to perform, including audible and visual alerts at/on the bike, sending alerts to a user/owner of the bike, and causing a camera to take pictures at the time of the event; [0052] furthers this by including recording audio profiles of the event; [0080]-[0081] teach the user of the system as able to configure the system to determine which action should be taken if appropriate) and
performing the determined security action. ([0052]-[0053] teach the activation of an alarm by the bicycle system)
Akins does not teach the system as an electric bicycle.
However, Seol teaches “an electric bicycle” ([0038]-[0039] teach the use of an electric bicycle)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. It would be obvious to try for one of ordinary skill, as the systems would both work together. Akins establishes an electronic system within a bicycle that electrical components and wiring, a central battery, and other electrized components. The system of Akins would work on an electric bicycle as it is just a modified version of a bike. The system of Seol further teaches that there is an interest in equipping an electric bicycle with anti-theft/tracking devices. These devices help to ensure that your bicycle is not stolen.
Regarding claim 20, Akins teaches the system of claim 19, wherein the context information identifies a history of similar theft events to the possible theft event at a geographical location that includes the electric bicycle; ([0079] teaches identifying areas on a map based on the relative theft history of bicycles; [0061] teaches that the system may identify the bicycle as armed if it is stationary in a high-theft area for too long) and
Akins does not teach wherein the security action includes disabling operation of the electric bicycle in response to the received alert and the identified context information.
However, Seol teaches “wherein the security action includes disabling operation of the electric bicycle in response to the received alert and the identified context information” ([0058]-[0059] teaches the disabling of a motor of an ebike in the event of theft)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins with Seol; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to bicycle security systems. As taught in [0058] the disabling of the motor is an effective way to prevent an eBike from being stolen. This would be obvious to incorporate into an anti-theft system for a bicycle as it adds another layer of protection.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akins and Seol in view of Craven (US PG Pub 2016/0031525).
Regarding claim 11, Akins teaches the non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein receiving a notification from a sensor of the electric bicycle includes receiving an alert from a tamper sensor of the electric bicycle ([0006] teaches an intrusion detection sensor, which the examiner is taking to mean tampering; [0035] teach that the suite of sensors installed on the bike may be used to detect tampering with the bike) that
Akins does not teach a lock assembly of the electric bicycle has been damaged.
However, Craven teaches “a lock assembly of the electric bicycle has been damaged.” ([0125] teaches the system detecting a tampering of an eBike lock by determining that the lock has been damaged in some way)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Akins and Seol with Craven; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to bicycle security systems. As Craven teaches in [0125] tamper detection is useful in preventing theft. While not all tampering would be successful, a determination that tampering has occurred may alert a user to move their eBike. Additionally a determination of a damaged lock may alert a user to replace the lock before next use of their eBike.
Conclusion
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 NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665