DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 4/29/2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17 and 20; canceled claims 10-12; and added claim 21. Claims 1-5, 8-9, 13-17 and 20-21 are pending and are examined below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114.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 4/29/2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regard to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant amended claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17 and 20 and requested allowance without providing substantive arguments pertaining to the amendments.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims are in condition for allowance. Namely, the claims shift around previously-presented subject matter which was rejected by the cited prior art. The Action provides below detailed § 103 rejections below pertaining to the amended claims.
Notably, Examiner reviewed the remarks filed on 3/23/2026 but notes that said remarks are moot as they pertain to claim language which is not present in the instant claims.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
As a preliminary note, Examiner respectfully suggests careful review of the claims given the large quantity of informalities and clarity issues — such would ensure compact prosecution of the application and avoid further objections and/or rejections under § 112(b).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 14, 15, 17 and 20 is/are objected to because of claim informalities.
As to claims 1 and 14:
“said motor” – lacks antecedent basis. This issue is only present in claim 1; claim 14 correctly recites “an electric motor”.
“a size of said battery” – the claims establish antecedent for “a battery provided source of power,” “a single battery” and “a plurality of batteries.” However, antecedent is not provided for a battery. Given the inconsistent language, antecedent basis is not provided for “said battery.” Examiner suggests fixing the antecedent issue and amending the claims to use more consistent terminology.
As to claims 2 and 15:
The claims recite “a group of sensors;” however, the standard language for Markush claims requires “the group” (See MPEP 2117).
As to claim 17:
“wherein said said electric vehicle” – element “said” is duplicated.
“"side-by-side"” – the quotation marks should be removed. Also, the element lacks an article. Examiner suggests: “a side-by-side vehicle”.
“a utility task vehicle (UTV) or "side-by-side", or an aircraft” – the use of or is inconsistent and awkward. Incorporating the above “side-by-side” suggestion, Examiner suggests: “a utility task vehicle (UTV), a side-by-side vehicle,
As to claim 20:
There is an extraneous parenthesis “)” after “(Currently Amended)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 limitations are: “an input to receive data about said electric vehicle” and “an input to receive a user-related data” in claim 14 (with dependent claims 15-17 and 20-21).
There does not appear to be corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function — see § 112(a),(b) rejections below.
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.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 14-17 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 14, claim elements “an input to receive data about said electric vehicle” and “an input to receive a user-related data” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for some of the claimed functions. Applicant’s Specification discloses an “input arrow 4146” which may output vehicle data to a switch relay or switch relay circuit (See ¶ 44 and FIG. 4). However, there is no structure tied to the input itself — the input appears to be a signal, wherein the switch relay is downstream of the input signal, not the input itself. Applicant’s specification does describe a communication interface 17732 which “may include a serial port, parallel port, Universal Serial Bus (USB), Ethernet port, Bluetooth, thunderbolt, near field communications port, WiFi, Cellular modem, or other input/output interface” (¶ 198). Yet, the specification does not tie the communication interface 17732 or any of the enumerated structure to the claimed functions; the communication interface is only described generically as coupling the computer system to external entities and other devices. Resultingly, there is no structure in the specification for performing the claimed functions. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claims 15-17, 20 and 21 depend from claim 14.
Therefore, claims 14-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17 and 20 is/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.
As to claims 1 and 14, the recitation “automatically tailor an output power curve of said electric motor to improve performance for said electric vehicle” is vague and indefinite. Specifically, “improve performance” is a comparative term, but neither the claim nor the specification provide a baseline to measure performance against. At most, the specification discusses providing a “best performance,” obtaining “a desired performance,” “improving electric vehicle performance” and achieving “an improved riding experience” (see at least Abstract and ¶¶ 32, 51, 85) — nevertheless, the specification never defines these performances in a substantive manner. Therefore, it is unclear what performance would constitute an “improved performance;” hence, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Specifically as to claim 14, claim elements “an input to receive data about said electric vehicle” and “an input to receive a user-related data” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for some of the claimed functions. Applicant’s Specification discloses an “input arrow 4146” which may output vehicle data to a switch relay or switch relay circuit (See ¶ 44 and FIG. 4). However, there is no structure tied to the input itself — the input appears to be a signal, wherein the switch relay is downstream of the input signal, not the input itself. Applicant’s specification does describe a communication interface 17732 which “may include a serial port, parallel port, Universal Serial Bus (USB), Ethernet port, Bluetooth, thunderbolt, near field communications port, WiFi, Cellular modem, or other input/output interface” (¶ 198). Yet, the specification does not tie the communication interface 17732 or any of the enumerated structure to the claimed functions; the communication interface is only described generically as coupling the computer system to external entities and other devices. Resultingly, there is no structure in the specification for performing the claimed functions. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 8, it is unclear how to read the claim given the placement of the “and/or” conjunction. The claim currently reads: “[1] determining …, [2] utilizing …; and/or: [3] determining …; and [4] utilizing ….” It is unclear whether the “and/or” joins step 2 to step 3, or joins steps 1-2 to steps 3-4 as alternative pairs. Under the first reading, the fourth step has no clear conditional relationship to the preceding steps. Under the second reading, the intended grouping is not conveyed by the claim language, as the two pairs are not set off from each other. The deletion of the conjunction following step 1 further obscures whether steps 1 and 2 remain a linked pair, given that steps 3 and 4 are expressly join by “and.” For the purposes of examination, Examiner is following the second reading.
As to claim 17, the claim is a Markush grouping, which is a closed group of alternatives (see MPEP 2173.05(h)). However, the claim goes on to recite “an e-bike (including but not limited to, …).” The bolded language makes the Markush group open-ended. The MPEP guides that a Markush grouping claiming an open list of alternatives “should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim” (Id). Hence, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-5, 8-9 and 13 depend from claim 1.
Claims 15-17, 20 and 21 depend from claim 14.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
As to the § 112(f)-related rejections, Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR § 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 14, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (US20190300105A1; “Marshall”) in view of Lee (US20120133310A1; “Lee”) and in view of Tikhonov (US7489106B1; “Tikhonov”).
As to independent claim 1, Marshall discloses: a method for controlling an electric vehicle's electric motor output, said method comprising:
obtaining electric vehicle data (“The state of charge … of the battery pack a method for controlling an electric vehicle's electric motor output, said method comprising:30 and/or a remaining voltage capacity of the battery pack 30”—i.e., electric vehicle data—is obtained. Emphases added; see at least ¶ 37 and FIG. 3.);
obtaining user-related data (A rider may provide a “desired e-assist objective … to command the e-assist torque.” Emphasis added; see at least ¶ 20.);
receiving input from at least one sensor (See at least ¶ 37, showing that at least electric vehicle data is inputted from a sensor.);
utilizing a controller to evaluate said electric vehicle data, said user-related data, and said input from said at least one sensor and automatically tailoring an output power curve of an electric motor of said electric vehicle for a given rate of conservation of a battery-provided source of power (“Upon receiving the route destination (P2) and the e-assist objectives of the rider 12, the controller 50 regulates the present operating state of the traction motor 18 by automatically allocating energy from the battery pack 30 to the traction motor 18, i.e., regulating the discharge rate of the battery pack 30 via power flow control actions to energize the traction motor 18 at a particular e-assist level … The controller 50 performs such real-time energy allocation using an energy cost function that minimizes an energy cost associated with meeting the desired e-assist objective(s) along the various road segments, e.g., 14A-D of FIG. 1.” Emphasis added; see at least ¶ 27. Continuing, said tailoring of the output power curve may take into consideration a given rate of conservation of a battery-provided source of power to, e.g., end a trip at a desired “remaining state of charge.” See at least ¶¶ 47–48.); and
wherein said obtaining said electric vehicle data further comprises:
a size of said electric motor, a size of said battery, and a voltage of said battery (“[P]eak power and speed of the electric traction motor” may be obtained – see at least ¶ 9. “[V]oltage capacity information” of the battery pack 30 may be obtained – see at least ¶ 37. Examiner notes that “size” is a broad term in the art with a BRI that encompasses the power capacity of an electrical component.);
monitoring said performance of said battery while said electric vehicle is operating (“[T]he discharge rate of the battery pack 30” is monitored while the electric vehicle is operating – see at least ¶ 27.);
obtaining at least one updated set of data for said battery based on said monitoring (See at least ¶ 27. Note: the successful operation of the invention requires that the monitoring is continuously performed to provide current (i.e., updated) discharge rates of the battery pack 30.); and
automatically updating said tailored output power curve of said electric motor of said electric vehicle for said given rate of conservation of said battery based on said at least one updated set of data for said battery (“Upon receiving the route destination (P2) and the e-assist objectives of the rider 12, the controller 50 regulates the present operating state of the traction motor 18 by automatically allocating energy from the battery pack 30 to the traction motor 18, i.e., regulating the discharge rate of the battery pack 30 via power flow control actions to energize the traction motor 18 at a particular e-assist level … The controller 50 performs such real-time energy allocation using an energy cost function that minimizes an energy cost associated with meeting the desired e-assist objective(s) along the various road segments, e.g., 14A-D of FIG. 1.” Emphasis added; see at least ¶ 27. Continuing, said tailoring of the output power curve may take into consideration a given rate of conservation of a battery-provided source of power to, e.g., end a trip at a desired “remaining state of charge.” See at least ¶¶ 47–48.).
Marshall fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein said controller controls a plurality of switches between said electric motor and said battery provided source of power, wherein said battery provided source of power comprises a single battery which is capable of generating a plurality of output waveforms and said electric motor comprises a single electric motor, wherein said plurality of switches will allow said controller to control a power output of said electric motor by switchably providing said plurality of output waveforms to the single electric motor; or
wherein said electric motor comprises a plurality of electric motors, said controller utilizing a plurality of switches between said plurality of electric motors and said battery provided source of power to control a power output of one or more of said plurality of said electric motors; or
wherein said electric motor comprises at least one electric motor and said battery-provided source of power comprises a plurality of batteries, said controller utilizing a plurality of switches between said at least one electric motor and said plurality of batteries to control a power output of said at least one electric motor.
Nevertheless, Lee teaches:
wherein said electric motor comprises at least one electric motor and said battery-provided source of power comprises a plurality of batteries, said controller utilizing a plurality of switches between said at least one electric motor and said plurality of batteries to control a power output of said at least one electric motor (“A configurable battery 42 with a plurality of cells is mounted to a bicycle frame 44. At least one motor 46 is mounted on the frame 44 and adapted to drive a wheel 48 of the bicycle 40. The battery 42 and the motor 46 are both in communication with a controller 50. The controller 50 may be adapted to control the current supplied to the motor 46 from the battery 42.” ¶ 70 and FIG. 4. “At least one switching means 208 provides electrical connection between the first voltage pole 204 of each battery cell 200 in the series to a first electrical output connection 210 (designated Vout_p).” ¶ 99 and FIGS. 9a-9h. “Closing a switching means 208 between a first voltage pole 204 and the first electrical output connection 210, and closing a switching means 208 between a second voltage pole 206 and the second electrical output connection 212 provides a voltage differential at the electrical output connections, and allows current to flow when the battery 202 is connected to a load (or to a battery charging circuit).” ¶ 102 and FIGS. 9a-9h. “The reconfigurable battery 202 described in the preceding embodiments used in combination with at least one electric motor 226 allows motor speed control by regulating battery output voltage based on the number of cells configured in series.” ¶ 127. “It should further be appreciated that the included embodiments describing a plurality of battery cells may also be interpreted as a plurality of battery banks or a plurality of batteries.” ¶ 138. Note: Summarizing, Lee teaches controlling power output of at least one electric motor by having a controller operate a plurality of switches (i.e., switching means 208 SW-n0 – SW-n7 and/or SW_p0 – SW_p7 in FIGS. 9a-9h) which selectively couple a plurality of batteries to the motor load, regulating battery output voltage delivered to the motor and thereby regulating the motor’s speed and torque.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Marshall to include the feature of: wherein said electric motor comprises at least one electric motor and said battery-provided source of power comprises a plurality of batteries, said controller utilizing a plurality of switches between said at least one electric motor and said plurality of batteries to control a power output of said at least one electric motor, as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for allocating power to a motor in an effective and efficient manner. As shown above, Marshall controls a level of e-assist from a traction motor, but does not specify the switching hardware by which battery power is delivered to the motor. Lee teaches that operating a plurality of processor-controlled switches to reconfigure battery output reduces switching transients in voltage, current and torque relative to conventional PWM control (see ¶ 135); and avoids conversion losses of an inverter (see ¶ 136). Hence, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s hardware into Marshall because both are directed towards conserving battery energy in an electric-assist vehicle, and Lee’s above-listed advantages aid Marshall’s objective of allocating battery energy such that the desired state of charge is reached at a route destination.
The combination of Marshall and Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein said obtaining said electric vehicle data comprises an amperage of said battery.
Nevertheless, Tikhonov teaches: wherein said obtaining said electric vehicle data comprises an amperage of said battery (Maximizing battery capacity in battery optimization considers “ampere-hours (AH)” of a battery – see at least col. 1, ll. 19–39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Marshall and Lee to include the feature of: wherein said obtaining said electric vehicle data comprises an amperage of said battery, as taught by Tikhonov, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to consider battery amperage in “battery optimization system[s] … intended for use with electric powered mobile devices such as cars, motorcycles, scooters, bikes.” (Tikhonov, col. 4, ll. 6–18.) Indeed, battery amperage is a well-known parameter in the art for measuring battery performance.
Independent claim 14 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim by virtue of similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claims 2 and 15, Marshall discloses wherein said at least one sensor is selected from a group of sensors consisting of: an inclinometer (Inclinometer – see at least ¶ 31.).
As to claims 3 and 20, Marshall fails to explicitly disclose: automatically operating at least one valve, wherein said at least one valve is comprised of at least one switch which controls power flow between said battery and said electric motor, to tailor said output power curve of said electric motor of said electric vehicle for said given rate of conservation of said battery-provided source of power.
Nevertheless, Lee teaches: automatically operating at least one valve, wherein said at least one valve is comprised of at least one switch which controls power flow between said battery and said electric motor (“[T]he controller 50 may be a PWM control system adapted to adjust the on-off duty cycle of the PWM switch 59 between the motor 46 and the battery 42 … if the desired amount of current cannot be maintained because the voltage difference between the motor 46 and the battery 42 is too small, the battery 42 may be reconfigured to provide a lower voltage during regenerative charging, or a higher battery voltage for driving or accelerating.” ¶ 77. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Marshall to include the feature of: automatically operating at least one valve, wherein said at least one valve is comprised of at least one switch which controls power flow between said battery and said electric motor, as taught by Lee, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for allocating power to a motor in an effective and efficient manner. As shown above, Marshall controls a level of e-assist from a traction motor, but does not specify the switching hardware by which battery power is delivered to the motor. Lee teaches that its valve may be used to adjust PWM duty cycle “in synchrony with the reconfiguration of the battery, the motor, or both” (¶ 130). Hence, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s hardware into Marshall because both are directed towards conserving battery energy in an electric-assist vehicle, and Lee’s above-listed advantages aid Marshall’s objective of allocating battery energy such that the desired state of charge is reached at a route destination.
As to claim 5, Marshall discloses:
obtaining route information (Route information pertaining to “a travel route having a total ride distance (D)” is obtained – see at least ¶ 26 and FIG. 2.); and
utilizing said controller to evaluate said electric vehicle data, said user-related data, said input from said at least one sensor, and said route information to automatically tailor said output power curve to obtain said improved performance for said electric motor of said electric vehicle for said given rate of conservation of said battery power (“Upon receiving the route destination (P2) and the e-assist objectives of the rider 12, the controller 50 regulates the present operating state of the traction motor 18 by automatically allocating energy from the battery pack 30 to the traction motor 18, i.e., regulating the discharge rate of the battery pack 30 via power flow control actions to energize the traction motor 18 at a particular e-assist level.” – emphasis added; see at least ¶ 27.).
As to claim 8, Marshall discloses:
determining, based on said input received from said sensor, that said electric vehicle is ascending a hill (The presence of “hills” may be determined – see at least ¶ 30. Continuing, the “grade” of a road surface may be obtained through “an inclinometer or other grade sensor” – see at least ¶ 31.); and
utilizing said controller to automatically increase a level of assistance provided by said electric motor (“e-assist or torque boost” is activated “on all hills along a travel route which the e-bike 10 negotiates over a ride time (t).” See at least ¶ 28.).
Claims 4 and 21 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Lee and in view of Tikhonov as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Kurotobi et al. (US20180037294A1; “Kurotobi”) and in view of Komatsu et al. (US20190009771A1; “Komatsu”)
As to claims 4 and 21, the combination of Marshall, Lee and Tikhonov fails to explicitly disclose: automatically adjusting an active valve damper suspension of said electric vehicle using an active valve to adjust said active valve damper suspension to correspond to said output power curve of said electric motor of said electric vehicle, said automatically adjusting of said active valve damper suspension of said electric vehicle further based upon operating parameters of said electric vehicle.
Nevertheless, Kurotobi teaches: automatically adjusting a damper suspension of said electric vehicle using an active valve to adjust said damper suspension to correspond to said output power curve of said electric motor of said electric vehicle, said automatically adjusting of said suspension of said electric vehicle further based upon operating parameters of said electric vehicle(“The electronic controller is configured to control the operational state of the electric suspension. The operational state of the electric suspension is automatically changed based on the operational state of the bicycle electric assist unit” – see at least ¶ 8. “[T]he operational state of the electric suspension includes … damping force” – see at least ¶ 9. Continuing, in accordance with an “assist ratio”—i.e., an output power curve—the operational states of the front electric suspension and the rear electric suspension are automatically changed – see at least ¶ 16. See also ¶¶ 18, 19, 21, 22 which further discuss how the “assist ratio” relates to control of the suspension. See also ¶ 70 which provides further discussion pertaining to the controller 44. Note: The controller 44 meets the BRI of an active valve as the controller effectively functions as a switch for activating (or deactivating) control of the suspension corresponding to an output power curve.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Marshall, Lee and Tikhonov with the feature of: automatically adjusting a damper suspension of said electric vehicle using an active valve to adjust said damper suspension to correspond to said output power curve of said electric motor of said electric vehicle, said automatically adjusting of said suspension of said electric vehicle further based upon operating parameters of said electric vehicle, as taught by Kurotobi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for optimizing operation of an electric bicycle. For instance, based on a given “assist ratio,” control may be optimized such that “driving power is efficiently transmitted to the wheels of the bicycle” or “the electric suspension absorbs shocks applied to the bicycle.” (See at least Kurotobi, ¶ 13.)
The combination of Marshall, Lee, Tikhonov and Kurotobi fails to explicitly disclose: adjusting an active valve damper suspension of said electric vehicle using an active valve to adjust said active valve damper suspension to correspond to said output power curve of said electric motor of said electric vehicle.
Nevertheless, Komatsu teaches: an active valve damper suspension of an electric vehicle which may be adjusted through an active valve (“The valve structure FS3 is configured to change the damping characteristic of the electric suspension FS.” See at least ¶ 79 and FIG. 4.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Marshall, Lee, Tikhonov and Kurotobi with the feature of: an active valve damper suspension of an electric vehicle which may be adjusted through an active valve, as taught by Komatsu, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Komatsu’s active valve damper suspension may function as a simple substitution for Kurotobi’s suspension as the two suspensions perform similar functions, especially in regards to damping. The simple substitution would have a reasonable expectation of success because Kurotobi’s control scheme already considers utilizing an active valve (i.e., a controller) to adjust a damper suspension; Komatsu provides the direct teaching that an active valve mechanically adjusts the suspension. Hence, arriving at the claimed invention would require a mere reconfiguring of Kurotobi’s control scheme to control Komatsu’s active valve rather than Kurotobi’s active valve.
Claims 9, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Lee and in view of Tikhonov as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Craven et al. (US20160304157A1; “Craven”).
As to claims 9 and 161, Marshall discloses: wherein propulsion power for said electric vehicle is generated by the electric motor and by the user of the electric vehicle turning a crank of said electric vehicle (“A pedal electric cycle is disclosed herein. The cycle, referred to hereinafter as an e-bike for simplicity, may include a frame, a road wheel connected to the frame, a crankset, a battery pack, an electric traction motor, and a controller. The crankset is configured to impart a rider torque, i.e., a manual pedaling torque, to the road wheel when a rider of the e-bike manually rotates the crankset.” ¶ 2.).
The combination of Marshall, Lee and Tikhonov fails to explicitly disclose:
setting an assist threshold based on a wattage input generated by a user turning a crank on said electric vehicle;
monitoring a wattage input generated by said user turning said crank on said electric vehicle;
determining that said assist threshold has been met during said user turning said crank on said electric vehicle;
utilizing said controller to increase a level of assistance provided by said electric motor when said assist threshold has been met by said user;
and optionally further comprising:
determining that said assist threshold is no longer being met by said user turning said crank on said electric vehicle; and
utilizing said controller to decrease said level of assistance provided by said electric motor.
Nevertheless, Craven teaches:
setting an assist threshold based on a wattage input generated by a user turning a crank on said electric vehicle (“Pedals 50 … may each be connected to an associated pedal arm 48 and may be configured to drive or propel the bicycle 10, e.g., through a crank. … power sources, such as batteries and an electric motor, may also propel the vehicle in addition to, … user interaction at the pedals 50.” ¶ 19. “ The rider's effort level can be set and stored in the system. The rider's effort can be fixed for this ride. The control algorithm then varies the amount of assist from the motor and battery to maintain a speed with a fixed user effort … For example, when a strong head wind is experienced by the bike, greater motor assist is provided. On a relatively flat surface, the rider effort is set at 100 watts. The motor assist can be twice that when there is no wind (e.g., 200 watts versus 100 watts). If the headwind stops or is reduced by half, the amount of motor assist is reduced by half or by one quarter.” ¶ 37.);
monitoring a wattage input generated by said user turning said crank on said electric vehicle (“The present description uses constant rider input or a fixed rider effort to describe power input into the bike to move the bike. However, fixed or constant power is not constant at every period of time. Constant or fixed as used herein to describe rider effort is within an envelope of effort, e.g., +/−2.0%, 5.0% or up to +/−10% (or any percent between 2% and 10%). The controller will not increase or decrease the amount of assist until the rider effort extends outside the range that defines a constant or fixed rider effort.” ¶ 42; see also ¶ 37 tying rider effort to watts. Note: The process described in ¶ 42 necessarily requires monitoring rider effort in watts, as otherwise the process would be inoperable without acquiring said data.);
determining that said assist threshold has been met during said user turning said crank on said electric vehicle (See at least ¶ 42.);
utilizing said controller to increase a level of assistance provided by said electric motor when said assist threshold has been met by said user (See at least ¶ 42.);
and optionally further comprising:
determining that said assist threshold is no longer being met by said user turning said crank on said electric vehicle (See at least ¶ 42.); and
utilizing said controller to decrease said level of assistance provided by said electric motor (See at least ¶ 42.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Marshall, Lee and Tikhonov with the above features taught by Craven with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for allowing a “rider to set the level of effort and maintain a set speed,” especially in the context of ensuring “that the electrical energy in the battery is used to its maximum extent with some electric motor assist through the entire ride.” (Craven, ¶ 47.)
As to claim 17, Marshall discloses wherein said electric vehicle is an e-bike (“e-bike” - ¶ 1.)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Lee and in view of Tikhonov as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Nicoson (US20120065825A1; “Nicoson”).
As to claim 13, Marshall discloses:
determining a forward ground speed of said electric vehicle (“Additional input signals … to the controller 50 may include the present speed of the e-bike 10” – see at least ¶ 35.); and
utilizing said controller to automatically adjust a level of assistance provided by said electric motor (See at least ¶ 27.)
The combination of Marshall, Lee and Tikhonov fails to explicitly disclose:
determining, based on said input received from said sensor, that said electric vehicle is in a freefall condition; and
utilizing said controller to automatically adjust a level of assistance provided by said electric motor such that a drive wheel is rotating at a speed that is equivalent to a rotational speed said drive wheel would be moving if said electric vehicle was moving forward across said ground at said determined forward ground speed.
Nevertheless, Nicoson teaches:
determining, based on said input received from a sensor, that the electric vehicle is in a freefall condition (“[A]n accelerometer … detect[s] when the motorcycle has left the ground.” See at least ¶ 21.); and
utilizing a controller to automatically adjust a level of assistance provided by an electric motor such that a drive wheel is rotating at a speed that is equivalent to a rotational speed said drive wheel would be moving if said electric vehicle was moving forward across said ground at said determined forward ground speed (“The rotational inertia from accelerating a motorcycle's front wheel while airborne can [b]e dangerous for an unfamiliar rider. This invention reduces or eliminates the effect of rotational inertia by using an accelerometer to detect when the motorcycle has left the ground (large vertical acceleration), then maintaining a steady power level to the front wheel motor-generator.” See at least ¶ 21 and FIG. 3. Here, maintaining a steady power level to the front wheel motor-generator causes the front wheel to maintain a steady speed congruent with its forward ground speed as to avoid acceleration of said front wheel.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Marshall, Lee and Tikhonov to include the features of: determining, based on said input received from a sensor, that the electric vehicle is in a freefall condition; and utilizing a controller to automatically adjust a level of assistance provided by an electric motor such that a drive wheel is rotating at a speed that is equivalent to a rotational speed said drive wheel would be moving if said electric vehicle was moving forward across said ground at said determined forward ground speed, as taught by Nicoson, with a reasonable expectation of success because such is useful for preventing acceleration of an electronic vehicle’s wheel while airborne, which can be dangerous for riders. (See Nicoson, ¶ 21.)
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
1 N.B. The steps following “optionally further comprising” do not carry much, if any, patentable weight given the fact that all the preceding steps must be met for infringement, whereas meeting the optional steps would not infringe the claim if the preceding steps are not met.
Prosecution Insights