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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 5/13/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 6-7 directed towards the previous 112 rejections,
Applicant argues that there is no disclosure in applicant’s specification that a particular housing is necessary or required to mount the sensor and that zip ties, tape, or other such features could be used. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is a difference between claiming a specific location of the sensor on a bicycle as opposed to claiming the manner in which the sensor device itself is configured. When applicant claims a device and the manner in which it is configured, what applicant is claiming is that something about that device is configured to perform or otherwise implement the functional language that follows such a feature. For example, claiming “a car configured to drive on a road” requires that the car itself has some configuration that allows to perform the function of being able to drive on a road. A configuration claim feature like this is about the device/object itself and its own specific configuration. As another example, claiming “a hammer configured to hit a nail into a wall” would require that the hammer itself have some feature about it that would allow it to hit a nail into a wall. However, the nail and wall are not required, because they are not part of the hammer or how it is configured. Instead, such a feature is describing, for example, the usually hammer portion of a hammer used to strike nails into a wall.
A simple analogy would be if applicant originally disclosed a ball that was thrown 50 feet, and then later wanted to claim that the ball was configured to be thrown 50 feet. The ball itself is not configured to be thrown 50 feet, because the ball itself has no configuration that causes it to implement that function of being thrown. Instead, it is another object that throws the ball, and it is that object that is configured to throw the ball 50 feet, not the ball itself.
Here, applicant is claiming that the first end of the sensor is configured to be positioned above the horizontal plane. As such, the first end of the sensor must have something about it that is configured to be positioned in the claimed manner, in the same way the hammer has a designed portion for striking or the way a car must have features, such as tires and an engine, that allow it to drive on a road. However, nothing in the original disclosure describes or explains any feature of the sensor, specifically the first end, that is configured, and thus designed with a feature, that would implement the function of being positioned above a horizontal hub plane.
Applicant’s own explanation emphasizes this issue, where applicant argues that the sensor is mounted to the bicycle in any known fashion such as using zip ties or tape. However, zip ties or tape are not part of the sensor or its first end, and such features furthermore are also not originally disclosed. What applicant is arguing is not the manner in which the sensor is configured, but instead is arguing the manner the which another component not part of the sensor can position the sensor in the claimed manner. Meaning, applicant is arguing that another component, such as zip ties, are used to position the sensor in the claimed manner.
Based on applicant’s arguments, the sensor could be mounted in any position or oriented in any manner because such a sensor can be attached to a bicycle in any orientation or location using zip ties or tape. This, respectfully, is not what applicant is claiming. Applicant is expressly claiming that the sensing device itself itself, and thus some configuration of the sensing device, causes it to be able to positioned in the claimed manner. However, this is not originally disclosed. There is a difference between the sensor being in a specific position because another component was configured to or otherwise caused the sensor to be mounted at an angle relative to the horizontal plane, in contrast with the sensor itself having a feature that causes this function. The sensor is not originally disclosed to have any configuration to cause it to be positioned at the claimed angle, thus raising an issue of new matter.
Applicant then argues that the claim recites that the housing is configured to mount the sensing device at claimed angle and that claim 1 therefore discloses that the sensor is mounted in the housing at an angle in order to be positioned with the first end of the sensor configured to be positioned above the horizontal hub plane. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, applicant uses the phrase “in order to be positioned” in the arguments, again further emphasizing the issue being raised. This phrase is an intended use, because it is reciting the intended use of the housing its angle, and not what applicant now recites, which is a specific configuration.
Second, regardless of what the housing is configured to do does not rectify the fact that applicant is expressly claiming that the sensor has a configured to position it in the claimed manner. Even if the housing did have a configuration to position the sensor in the claimed manner, this does not mean that the sensor itself has this configuration. Applicant, respectfully, is conflating the sensing device own configuration with the manner in which it is positioned by another component, such as the argued zip ties, or in this case, housing.
Third, applicant is now expressly claiming that the housing itself has a configuration to mount the sensor at an angle relative to a horizontal hub plane, but this feature, like the sensing device, introduces new matter. The intended use of the housing, as was previously recited, is to be used to mount the sensor at the claimed angle. However, nothing about the housing is configured “to mount” the sensor in the claimed manner. While the housing may be configured “for” the intended use of being oriented in a manner, it does not have any configuration that is configured “to” implement such a feature itself.
PNG
media_image1.png
360
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen above, the housing 1604 is attached to the hub by cylindrical connection piece 1603 and dropout. This connection piece itself would not restrict and is therefore not configured to cause the housing to be positioned in any particular orientation, as the housing can reasonably be rotated 360 degrees. Instead, it is another component that holds the housing and sensing device in a particular orientation, after a user has positioned the housing in the desired manner.
Nothing about the housing itself is “configured to” limit the orientation of the housing and sensor, or otherwise cause any specific orientation of the housing and sensing device to be in the claimed angle. As such, these components, respectfully, are not “configured to” implement the claim feature, as they have no originally disclosed feature that causes them to perform the claimed function of being oriented in the claimed manner.
The previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to the claims.
With regard to the arguments on pages 7-15 directed towards Suga et al. (Suga) (JP 2018013443 A) in view of Suyama (JP 2012-20690 A),
As to Claim 1,
Applicant argues that Suyama does not disclose housing 40a or portion 405 are configured to engage to an axle opening, or the housing includes a portion configured to engage into an axial opening of a frame of the bicycle, or the portion sized and shaped to receive the axle of the bicycle wheel. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As previously explained, insertion portion 405 is substantially similar to that of applicant, and it is designed to be inserted into a frame portion 300 of the hub, and where is configured to receive axle 402, all of which is seen in Figure 3. As seen below, the insertion portion 405 expressly enters into an axle opening, and expressly receives the axle:
PNG
media_image2.png
452
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As such, the prior art discloses the claim features, as each of the elements are present as claimed. As to the concept of a bicycle, the Examiner respectfully notes that the claim does not require a bicycle, and furthermore, there is almost no difference between a bicycle and a motorcycle. Both a bicycle and motorcycle have two wheels, a frame, hubs, brakes, and where most motorcycles operate using a similar chain as a bicycle to turn the wheels. The only primary differences between motorcycle and bicycle are the fact that a motor present and the motorcycle has a more substantial frame to handle higher speeds. Any sensor system or attachment mechanism that is designed to fit onto a hub of a wheel of a motorcycle would reasonably fit onto a hub of a wheel of a bicycle, because both operate and are in fact constructed in an almost identical manner. The Examiner respectfully notes that applicant provides no evidence or explanation as to why the housing and mechanism for attaching the above components as taught by Suyama would not work, in the combination, or does not actually teach a housing and portion configured to engage and receive the bicycle components other than the reference fails to expressly disclose a bicycle. However, there is no requirement that the prior art make such a statement, when it is clear that such a feature is inherent. As explained in MPEP 2112(II), “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” MPEP 2112(IV) then explains “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Here, the Examiner has explained that a bicycle and motorcycle operate in an almost identical manner and are structurally almost identical. Because both use the same general wheel and hub construction, any attachment device, such as the housing feature being taught in, must reasonably work with a bicycle as well. Lastly, MPEP 2112(V) explains “V. ONCE A REFERENCE TEACHING PRODUCT APPEARING TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IS MADE THE BASIS OF A REJECTION, AND THE EXAMINER PRESENTS EVIDENCE OR REASONING TO SHOW INHERENCY, THE BURDEN OF PRODUCTION SHIFTS TO THE APPLICANT
"[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.” To that point, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant has not provided any evidence or explanation to demonstrate that such a feature taught from Suyama would not inherently work with a bicycle.
Applicant then argues that in explanation that such a feature is inherent, that the Examiner is relying upon hindsight. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the concept of hindsight has nothing to do with inherency. Hindsight deals with an improper reconstruction of a claim based upon applicant’s own teachings. That is not the issue here, as it is not a hindsight reconstruction of applicant’s claim to state that the mechanism used in a prior art reference would work with a bicycle or motorcycle. It is further not hindsight, respectfully, to note that the prior art has a substantially similar mechanism as applicant, and that if applicant’s mechanism can functionally perform a feature, then so much the prior art. This, instead, is evidence of inherency. For example, if the prior art disclosed the exact same sensor device as applicant, and the only difference is that applicant claims and discloses that the sensor device is configured to attach to a bicycle, then it is inherency, not hindsight, to then state that the prior art must also be capable of the same function. If the prior art is identical to the device of applicant, then it must have the same abilities and function as applicant, regardless of whether it was or was not expressly disclosed in the reference.
Applicant then argues that the Examiner is interpreting configured to language as intended use, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. On the outset, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant was not claiming “configured to” previously and instead was claiming “configured for.” That stated, the Examiner acknowledges that what follows the phrase “configured to” is functional language, but the Examiner respectfully notes that the functional nature of the claim feature is claiming what the device itself is configured to do, and does not require external features that are part of the function. The Examiner acknowledges that configured to language does denote the manner in which the device is configured, and such a configuration can link to another feature, such as a bicycle in this case. But, that link is limited to the manner in which it pertains to the device. For example, a housing configured to attach to a hub of a bicycle is describing a configuration of the housing that enables to be attached to a hub of a bicycle. The hub and bicycle are therefore only tied to the housing to the extent that it impacts the actual manner in which the housing itself is configured. But, neither the hub nor bicycle are required in the claim.
To that point, it is the Examiner’s position that the disclosed housing and related claim features are inherently configured to attach to bicycle in the claimed manner, because they disclose all of the structural features of the claim, and because any housing attaching to a wheel of a motorcycle must inherently also be able to attach to a bicycle. This is because the wheels of a bicycle are fundamental the same as that of a motorcycle. As such, the bicycle feature is not being ignored, but rather is being stated to be met by the prior art structure because such a structure must inherently be configured to function with a bicycle in the same manner it does with a motorcycle.
Applicant argues that Suga does not disclose the sensor having a first end and a second end, the second end of the sensor connected to a cable, and the first end of the sensor configured to be position above the horizontal hub plane. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
PNG
media_image3.png
328
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
First, as seen above, Suga expressly shows a sensor with two ends, with one end having a cable as seen above. Second, Suga also discloses a sensor configured to be above a horizontal plane, because the sensor is substantially identical to that disclosed by applicant, and thus if applicant’s sensor itself is configured in the claimed manner, the prior art sensor must also reasonably be configured in the claimed manner. Additionally, the Examiner respectfully notes that this phrase is a relative phrase, completely depending on the orientation of the image or bicycle. Because the claim does not define the plane beyond it being horizontal, the prior art would also disclose the claim feature when the image or bicycle itself were rotated 180 degrees. Another issue at note is that applicant is claiming that the sensor itself is configured to be above the hub horizontal plane, but where such a feature introduces new matter. The Examiner acknowledges that the sensor housing holds the sensor in a certain position relative to the hub plane, but it is the sensor housing, distinctly claimed from the sensor, that positions the sensor in such a manner. The sensor itself is not originally disclosed to have any special or specific configuration that causes it to be located in any particular manner, including the claimed manner. The actual sensor of Suga is substantially identical to that used by applicant as seen below, and if applicant is claiming that the sensor of the instant application is itself configured to be above a hub horizontal plane, then the prior art sensor must also having such a configuration given the similarities between the sensors. As such, Suga does reasonably disclose the claim feature, because it discloses a substantially identical sensor to applicant, it does position at least part of the sensor in the claimed manner when the bicycle is in one position, and because the claimed plane is a relative feature, and the sensor will, like applicant, almost entirety be in the claimed position when the bicycle is positioned in a specific manner.
PNG
media_image4.png
414
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
546
578
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
328
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant then argues that the Examiner’s rationale noting the similarity between the prior art configuration and the instant application is hindsight, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, inherency is not hindsight, and whether or not a reference would inherently disclose a claim feature is always true, regardless of anything disclosed by applicant. The Examiner is meeting the Office’s burden of establishing why such a feature is inherent by, in part, noting the similarities between the prior art and the instant application, and such an explanation is not hindsight, because nothing is being “reconstructed” in any manner with such a statement. Instead, the prior art discloses the feature because it must have been present, and the evidence is applicant’s application. In the same manner that a prior art reference must inherently disclose any configuration claimed by applicant when the prior art is identical to applicant’s disclosure except that it does not expressly recognize that the configuration would allow it to attach to a bicycle, the prior art must also disclose the claim feature due to its similarity. Reconstruction has to do with the “construction” of the claim by the combination of one or more references together, and not what any individual reference discloses.
Applicant then cites MPEP 2144, but this section, respectfully, has to do with the combination of two references, and not inherency. What applicant is citing is an explanation that it is not sufficient if the “combination” of references would yield a structurally similar device with no further explanation. However, that is not the issue at present. Instead, as explained above, the issue here is inherency, and there is, respectfully, a difference. The Examiner is not teaching in the argued feature, and thus obviousness, and thus nothing in MPEP 2144, pertains to these claim features. Instead, the Examiner is asserted that Suga discloses the claim features it is said to disclose, either by when of express or inherent disclosure. For example, if Suga disclosed the housing with a portion configured to engage into an axle opening of a frame of a bicycle, for example, then no 103 rejection would be applied, and instead Suga would be stated to inherently or expressly disclose all claim features.
Applicant then argues that the Examiner is presenting a conclusion as to a per se rule, and has not provided an explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would make the modification suggested. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the only modification of Suga being proposed pertains to the features that Suga is stated to not include, which are subsequently being into in from Suyama. The features being argued by applicant are inherent features found in either Suga or Suyama, and the Examiner has expressly explained why such features are inherent in these references, consistent with MPEP 2112. As to the actual 103 combination, the Examiner has provided the required explanation by following the steps required in Graham v Deere, including a proper motivation to motivate the combination.
Applicant, respectfully, has not explained why the references do not inherently disclose the argued claim features, including any explanation to rebut the Examiner’s findings.
Applicant argues that the Examiner has not provided an explanation as to why or how one of skill would modify the invention of Suga to have one portion of the sensor above the horizontal plane, and that rotating the device would make it impossible to function without significant reconstruction. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, as best understood, applicant is, respectfully, conflating inherency with obviousness, and where the configured to language is not being interpreted as the manner in which the housing or sensor are configured, and instead would actually require a bicycle and a horizontal plane. However, no bicycle and no horizontal plane are required in the claim. This claim, instead, is requiring a housing and sensor that themselves have a configuration that enables them to be attached at an angle to a horizontal plane.
Second, Suga has such a feature, because the manner in which it designed would allow for such a feature. In fact, the manner that applicant is able to provide such a feature stems from the fact that the housing can be rotated about the hub’s axis due to the collar 1603. Because the prior art discloses a similar feature, it must reasonably be able to achieve this claim feature. Suga inherently discloses the argued claimed feature, because the sensor and housing have a design (configuration) that would allow them to be position at an axle relative to the horizontal plane, a feature in fact expressly seen in the above figures.
Third, no actual rotation is being proposed, and no modification of Suga in necessary. The configuration of the sensor and housing, as it, can inherently provide the claim feature because their configuration allows the sensor and housing to be positioned in the claimed manner, as such a configuration would still position the sensor and housing to detect the rotating magnets. No “reconstruction” of the prior art is being made in this manner, respectfully, as the prior art inherently has a configuration that would reasonable allow for the claim feature.
Applicant argues that the Office Action does not provide any logical reason as to why or how the housing can be rotated, but the Examiner again respectfully notes that no actual rotation is being taught in or is required. Applicant’s claim only requires a housing and sensor that are configured such that their own specific configuration would allow them to be placed in the claimed manner, and that the prior art has such a configuration that would also allow it to be placed in the claimed manner.
Applicant’s entire sensor device, sitting in a box in a warehouse with no bicycle present, would be just as configured to be angled with respect to a horizontal plane of a bicycle as it would be while actually being attached to a bicycle. This is because it is the manner in which the device is configured, and not the actual use of the device, that the claim is directed towards.
Lastly, applicant argues that there is no disclosing stopping the rotation such that he housing is configured to mount the sensor at an angle relative to a horizontal hub plane, such that the first end of the sensor is configured to be positioned above the horizontal hub plane, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees because no actual rotation is made, and thus no stopping of any rotation is required. The term “rotation” was merely used as an example to demonstrate how the sensor device can be positioned to meet the claim feature, and why such a feature is inherent. The Examiner could have merely stating that the configuration of the sensor device of Suga is such that it can be removed and attached from many angles, based on its own specific configuration, including the one claimed by applicant, because it is inherently capable and inherently has a configuration that would enable to do to so.
The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Suyama does not disclose the above noted feature, but Suga discloses such a feature, and therefore Suyama need not being relied upon for such feature.
Applicant then notes that Suga is already designed to prevent a speed detection device of a vehicle from falling off or being damaged by an external force and improve reliability, when addressing the previous motivation, that there is no evidence that Suga’s mechanics were insufficient, and that the Office Action is inventing a problem to drive a fanciful construction presented. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Suga, as noted by applicant, is evidence that there was there was a recognized problem in the art where the speed detection device may become damaged or otherwise dropout. As such, the problem being addressed by the Office Action is not an invention of the rejection or Office Action, but instead one in which Suga itself recognizes. Furthermore, merely because Suga attempts one solution to this issue does not mean others are incompatible or could not be added to further help ensure that this issue is addressed. Suyama adds another mechanism to help ensure that the components do not move relative to each other, which can cause measurement inaccuracies or other issues. Suyama adds the idea that the hub and sensor housing can have a configuration such that one is inserted into the other. Such a configuration will further aid in the ability for the system to not have relative movement of the sensor and rotating magnet, thus reducing errors in detection. Suyama further teaches another benefit, where this configuration allows the vehicle speed detection system to be easily attached to a two-wheeled vehicle (Paragraph [0009]).
It is common to add redundant or additional mechanisms in a system to anticipate and prevent issues, especially those that have been identified. The combination of Suga in view of Suyama adds additional protection against errors in detection, and adds the ability to attach a sensing system in an easy manner as noted by Suyama. No hindsight reconstruction is necessary or relied upon for such a combination, and applicant, respectfully, does not explain why such a combination must be a hindsight reconstruction. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Applicant then argues that the Office Action is impermissibly using the present invention as a template for the rejection because the Office Action previously noted that certain aspects of the prior art were similar to that disclosed by applicant. The Examiner respectfully note that such an explanation from the Office Action has no bearing and is not evidence of any hindsight reconstruction. Instead, such an argument is instead demonstrating inherency, in that that if applicant discloses a feature, and the prior art discloses a feature that is the same or substantially the same as applicant, then the prior art must also reasonably disclose any inherent benefit of ability as applicant. Such an explanation is not directed towards any form of hindsight, because such an explanation is about what a reference itself discloses and not about any combination or teaching of features from one reference into another. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to applicant’s arguments on pages 15-20 directed towards Suga et al. (Suga) (JP 2018013443 A) in view of Krauss (US 2017/0120981).
As to Claim 11,
The Examiner notes that much the arguments in this section mirror those pretend above, and these arguments have been responded to above.
Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in Suga of rotating the housing as suggested by the Office Action, but the Examiner is respectfully not proposing any actual rotation, nor modifying the reference in the argued manner.
There is a fundamental difference between claiming “a sensor, the sensor is positioned at on a plane parallel to a horizontal plane of a hub” versus claiming “a sensor, the sensor is configured to be position on a plane parallel to a horizontal plane of a hub.” In the first example, the sensor must actually be positioned in the claimed angle. In the second example, the sensor need only have a configuration that would allow it be positioned at the claimed angle. Applicant’s claims parallel the latter example, and thus the prior art need only provide a sensor that itself has a configuration that would allow it to be positioned at the claimed angle. The Examiner noted rotation, not to actually propose an actual rotation of the sensor, but rather as a mechanism to demonstrate why the sensor is itself configured in a manner that would allow it be positioned at the claimed angle. The sensor can be positioned in another manner than it is actually positioned, such as by rotating it about the hub, so that it would actually be positioned at an angle to the horizontal plane. However, the claim does not require the sensor to actually be positioned in this manner, because it only claims that the housing itself is “configured to” to mount the sensor at this angle.
PNG
media_image4.png
414
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As seen above, neither the housing 1603 or the sensor 1601 have a configuration to mount the sensor in the claimed manner. Instead, it is the dropout and other features that hold the housing and sensor in place. Without the dropout, for example, nothing would keep the housing and sensor at any particular angle, and they would freely rotate about the axle.
By claiming that the housing is configured to mount sensor on a plane parallel to the horizontal hub, applicant therefore must mean that any housing that holds a sensor and that can be positioned by another device to be at the claimed angle reasonably meets the claim feature.
Furthermore, by claiming that the housing is configured to mount the sensor parallel to the horizontal plane, the claim only requires that the housing have a configured that would allow it to mount the sensor in the claimed manner. The housing of the prior art can mount the sensor in this manner, regardless of whether it does or does not actually do so. This is again because applicant is not claiming that the sensor is actually parallel to the plane, but is instead only claiming that the housing has configuration “to mount,” and thus be able to mount the sensor in the claimed manner. Should applicant desire the sensor actually be positioned in the claim manner, applicant, respectfully, must claim such a feature.
Applicant argues that at person of ordinary skill has no reason to rotate the housing (50) of Suga as suggested by the Office Action, and that the Office Action provides no reasoning as to why a person would modify Suga in this manner. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
However, as explained above, no actual rotation is being made, and no actual requirement for the sensor to be at any angle is positively required in the claim. Applicant argues that the Office Action is using hindsight to create a fanciful construction based upon speculation and imagination of the Examiner, but the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant is conflating obviousness with inherency, and is interpreting “configured to” language beyond what the device is configured to perform. As already explained above, no hindsight is present, and no rotation is actually proposed, because the prior art inherently and actually discloses the claim feature. Reciting a housing configured to mount a sensor parallel to a plane does not require the sensor actually mounted parallel to a plane, no more than car configured to drive on a road must actually drive on a road, or even require a road. A housing configured to mount a sensor parallel to a plane only requires the housing itself have a configuration that would allow it to mount a sensor parallel to the plane, but no sensor or plane are positively recited. For example, if the prior art disclosed the exact same housing as applicant, but neither mentioned a sensor or plane, then such a housing must still be configured to mount a sensor parallel to a plane, because it is the exact same housing disclosed by applicant. Here, the Examiner is merely explaining that the housing of the prior art is already configured, either expressly or inherently, to disclose the claim feature because it can mount the sensor in the claimed manner.
Applicant then argues that the Office Action is not viewing the claim as a whole, but provides no further explanation as to why the prior art rejection is not reasonably addressing the entirety of the claim. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and instead notes that there mere combination of references presented in the rejection below reasonably addresses the entirety of the claim.
Applicant then argues what happens if the housing is rotated, but the Examiner again notes that the rejection does not propose the actual rotation of the housing, and in fact, the claim does not require such a rotation. The claim does not require that the sensor actually be on a plane parallel to a horizontal hub plane. Instead, the claim only requires a housing that, based on its own configuration, can be used in some manner to cause the sensor to be on a plane parallel to the horizontal hub plane. The housing of the prior art can be used in the claimed manner, such as by mere rotation of the housing as previously explained. Because a mere rotation of the housing “would” allow for the housing to cause the sensor to be located in the claimed manner, and because such a rotation is reasonably performable, the prior art discloses the claim feature. There is no requirement that the housing actually be rotated, or that the primary reference be modified in any manner to cause such a rotation or cause the sensor to be positioned parallel to the plane. In fact, as expressly stated in MPEP 707.07(f), “If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.” As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant then argues that the phrase “configured to” denotes can actual state of configuration that fundamentally ties mount the sensor on a parallel hub plane to the physical characteristics of the feature preceding the phrase configured to, and that the claim features reach beyond intended use. The Examiner respectfully notes that arguments such a these have already been responded to above, with the exception being that the housing is now claimed to mount the sensor parallel to the plane as opposed to at an angle.
That stated, the claimed “configured to” language does link the housing to the ability to mount the sensor parallel to the plane, but it does not require the housing to actually perform this feature. If a prior art reference disclosed the exact same housing as applicant, it must inherently be able to perform any functional feature applicant’s housing is configured to perform, because it is identical. This is stated to demonstrate that an ability of the housing to mount the sensor parallel to a plane does not require the housing to actually mount the sensor parallel to the plane. Instead, applicant must positively recite the at the sensor is actually located parallel to the plane.
Read in light of the disclosure, the interpretation presented is not only the broadest reasonable, but is also consistent with the manner that the phrase “configured to” must be interpreted. Configured to language is only a positive recitation to the extent that is describes the manner in which a particular device is itself configured. A cup is configured to hold water even when no water is present, for example, because while the configured to language does link the cup to the concept of water, an empty cup is still configured to hold water, regardless of whether water is or is not present. Configuration language therefore only defines the manner in which the device itself is configured, and thus, what it is capable of doing. It does not recite a positive use of the device to actually perform the function.
To that point, as has been explained above, no actual rotation is required, and no actual rotation is proposed. The mention of rotation is merely provided as evidence that the prior art is inherently capable of the claim feature, because the housing, when interpreted in the manner that applicant is interpreting the housing of the disclosure, as best understood, must be able to position the sensor as claimed based upon its own specific configuration.
Applicant then argues that the prior art does not disclose the entire sensor is positioned above the horizontal plane, and that there is no teaching of rotating the housing. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that there is no requirement that the entire sensor “actually” be positioned above the horizontal plane. What applicant is claiming is that the housing itself is configured in a manner that makes it capable of positioning the entire sensor above the horizontal hub plane. While such a feature introduces new matter, the Examiner respectfully notes that the housing of the prior art must be capable of this feature based upon its own configuration, regardless of whether the sensor is or is not entirely positioned above the horizontal hub plane. Again, this claim is not about the sensor, and instead is about what the housing is configured to and thus capable of doing. The prior art’s housing is capable of such a feature, such as being positioned in an manner that would cause the sensor is it holding to be so positioned. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Applicant then argues, as it pertains to Claim 17, that Suga does not disclose a sensor enclosure that fully surrounds the sensor. However, Suga expressly discloses such a feature in Figure 5 and paragraph [0063], where Suga explains that the detection body (sensor) (41) has a case (42) for holding a protecting it. While Figure 5 shows a cutaway portion so that the actual detection body 41 is visible, the case must fully surround the sensor to protect it.
Applicant then argues that Krauss does not route the cable extending out of the sensor opening of the housing, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The definition of the term “route” is “A road, course, or way for travel from one place to another” per https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=routing. This definition is consistent with the disclosure, and reasonably represents the broadest reasonable interpretation. While applicant may desire a more specific definition, the term as claimed only requires that the housing reasonably establish a path for the cable. The circular opening of the housing that the cable travels through reasonably provides such a path, as the cable is bounded by the opening of the housing for at least the portion that is located within the housing. There is no specific amount of the path of the cable that is required to be bounded or otherwise controlled such that a path is established to route the cable, and the prior art therefore reasonably meets the claim features.
Applicant then argues that the claim must be treated as a whole, but applicant respectfully does not reasonably explain why the claim is not being properly addressed. Applicant then notes that Suga is alleged to have a sensor enclosure having an opening, and that combining it with Krauss is improper as it is impossible for the alleged dropout of Krauss to route a cable extending out of the sensor opening of the housing taught by a different reference. However, the Examiner respectfully note that applicant presents no evidence or reasoned explanation as to why the combination would not work. The Examiner respectfully notes that nothing in the combination would preclude the combination from functioning as intended, and the mere addition of a housing feature extending around a portion of the cable to guide it at least partially along its path would not reasonably prevent the combination from functioning, as mere routing of a cable has not bearing on whether the device would work.
Furthermore, it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to implementing a housing, in combination, that would provide some cable routing. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to any remaining arguments, applicant does not provide any specific arguments as to why the prior art fails to disclose any of the argued claim features. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and applicant’s attention is therefore respectfully directed to the rejections found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 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 claim(s) contains 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 a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “the housing configured to mount the sensor at an angle relative to a horizontal hub plane” on lines 3-4 introduces new matter.
At issue here, as explained above, is that the housing itself is not configured to mount the sensor at an angle relative to a horizontal hub plane, because it itself has no disclosed specific feature to cause the housing or sensor to be oriented in the claimed manner. The housing attaches to the hub via a cylindrical component 1603 in Figure 19 that does not cause any specific orientation of the housing or sensor. Instead, it is the manner in which a user selects the orientation as the housing is attached to the hub that causes any such orientation. While the housing may be configured “for,” and thus have a configuration that is intended to be attached in the claimed manner at the claimed angle, it is not configured “to” implement such a feature, as it has no specific feature that causes any particular orientation. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
The phrase “the first end of the sensor configured to be positioned above the horizontal hub plane” on lines 6-7 introduces new matter.
At issue here is that the sensor’s first end is not reasonably originally disclosed to be configured to be position above the horizontal hub plane as claimed, and such a feature therefore introduces new matter. Applicant expressly discloses that the sensor is element (1601), such as that seen in Figure 16. This sensor has no configuration, design, or other feature that causes it to be above the horizontal hub plane, in much the same way that any stick or rod is not itself configured to be positioned at any particular angle. Instead, it is the distinctly claimed housing (1602), see in Figure 18, that it configured to position the sensor. The housing does have a configuration that causes the sensor to be positioned at an angle relative to the horizontal plane. However, the sensor, which is distinct from the housing, does not have any disclosed configuration or design to cause it to be positioned in the claimed manner. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “a sensor device configured to mount on the bicycle .. the housing configured to mount the sensor on a plane parallel to a horizontal hub plane” on lines 3-5 introduces new matter.
1) First, the no feature of the sensor device itself is configured to mount on the bicycle. The sensor device is not itself disclosed to have any specific component that would cause the sensor device itself to have such a configuration. Instead, it is another component that holds the sensor device in place and mounts it to the bicycle. Should applicant disagree, applicant is respectfully requested to identify what specific feature of the sensor device itself causes it to be configured to the mount to the bicycle.
2) Furthermore, the housing itself is not configured to mount the sensor on a plane parallel to a horizontal hub plane, because it itself has no disclosed specific feature to cause the housing or sensor to be oriented in the claimed manner. The housing attaches to the hub via a cylindrical component 1603 in Figure 19 that does not cause any specific orientation of the housing or sensor. Instead, it is the manner in which a user selects the orientation as the housing is attached to the hub that causes any such orientation. While the housing may be configured “for,” and thus have a configuration that is intended to be attached in the claimed manner at the claimed angle, it is not configured “to” implement such a feature, as it has no specific feature that causes any particular orientation. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claim 17,
The phrase “a sensor device configured to mount on the bicycle .. the housing configured to mount the sensor at an angle relative to a horizontal hub plane” on lines 3-5 introduces new matter.
1) First, the no feature of the sensor device itself is configured to mount on the bicycle. The sensor device is not itself disclosed to have any specific component that would cause the sensor device itself to have such a configuration. Instead, it is another component that holds the sensor device in place and mounts it to the bicycle. Should applicant disagree, applicant is respectfully requested to identify what specific feature of the sensor device itself causes it to be configured to the mount to the bicycle.
2) Furthermore, the housing itself is not configured to mount the sensor at an angle relative to a horizontal hub plane, because it itself has no disclosed specific feature to cause the housing or sensor to be oriented in the claimed manner. The housing attaches to the hub via a cylindrical component 1603 in Figure 19 that does not cause any specific orientation of the housing or sensor. Instead, it is the manner in which a user selects the orientation as the housing is attached to the hub that causes any such orientation. While the housing may be configured “for,” and thus have a configuration that is intended to be attached in the claimed manner at the claimed angle, it is not configured “to” implement such a feature, as it has no specific feature that causes any particular orientation. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “the housing is configured to mount the entire sensor above the horizontal hub plane” on lines 1-2 introduces new matter.
Similar to the above noted rejections, applicant does not reasonably disclose that the housing has a configuration itself that mounts the entire sensor above the horizontal hub plane. Instead, it is another component that causes the housing to position the sensor in the claimed manner. Should applicant disagree, applicant is respectfully requested to identify what specific component of the housing not only holds the sensor but causes it to mount the entirety of the sensor above the plane. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim as originally filed.
As to Claims 2-7, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 18-20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of Claim 1 and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-13, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Suga et al. (Suga) (JP 2018013443 A) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Suga et al. (Suga) (JP 2018013443 A) in view of Krauss (US 2017/0120981).
PNG
media_image6.png
432
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
366
713
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 11,
Suga discloses A bicycle including a speed sensing system, comprising: a frame (10), (Figure 1); a sensing device configured to mount on the bicycle (Figures 3c,5), wherein the sensing device includes a sensor (42) and a housing (50 including the pocket sensor 42 is placed into), (see above figure), the housing configured to mount the sensor on a plane parallel to a horizontal hub plane (Figures 3c,5 / note the housing can be rotated to allow the sensor to be parallel as claimed); a plurality of sensed elements (note the magnets 31) configured to be sensed by the sensing device (Figures 3c,5); and a dropout on the frame of the bicycle (see above figure), the dropout having a curve surface for routing a cable of the sensor (see above figures / note the dropout has an outer curved surface, and this surface can be used for routing of the cable, such as by having the cable tied or otherwise attached to the dropout, wherein the housing of the sensing device includes at least a portion (50a,50d) configured to matingly engage into a hole of the dropout (Figure 3c), (Paragraph [0103] / note the portion 50d from the housing inserts into and thus matingly engages hole 14 of the dropout), the portion is sized and shaped to receive an axle of a bicycle wheel (Figure 3c),(Paragraph [0093]).
Suga is stated to disclose the dropout having a curve surface for routing a cable of the sensor, because such a feature only requires a dropout having a curve surface that can be used in some reasonable manner to route a sensor cable. As seen in the above figure, the dropout does have an outer curved surface that attaches to the tubing of the frame of the bicycle, and where this surface can be used for cable routing, such as by using a tie or other component to attach the sensor cable, at least in part, to the dropout.
That stated, Suga does not expressly disclose the dropout having a curve surface for routing a cable of the sensor.
Krauss discloses the dropout (10) having a curve surface (inner curved surface seen in the above figure) for routing a cable of the sensor (Figures 1,2 / note the inner surface of the dropout allows for the routing of the cable as it is curved and open enough to allow for the cable to be passed through the dropout and prevents the cable from going beyond the boundaries of the inner surface, which is seen in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Suga to include the dropout having a curve surface for routing a cable of the sensor as taught by Krauss in order to help ensure that the cable is routed in a direction that helps prevent it from interacting with the wheel which can cause damage to the cable or wheel.
As to Claim 12,
Suga discloses the sensing device additionally includes the cable, and the sensor is located within the housing (Figure 3c).
As to Claim 13
Suga discloses wherein the sensor includes a first end and a second end, the first end is a free end, and the second end attaches to the cable (Figure 5 / note the rightmost end of the sensor can be the first free end, and the leftmost end of the sensor is the second end that attaches to the cable).
As to Claim 16,
Suga discloses wherein the plurality of sensed elements are magnets (Figure 5).
As to Claim 18,
Suga discloses the axle of the bicycle wheel is a rear wheel axle, and the housing and the plurality of sensed elements are mounted around the rear wheel axle (Paragraph [0135] / note that Suga expressly states that the speed detection system can be attached to the rear wheel instead of the front wheel).
As to Claim 19,
Suga discloses the housing is configured to mount the entire sensor above the horizontal hub plane (Figures 3c,5 / note the housing is configured to mount the sensor at any angle, because it itself is designed to be to mount the sensor in place and can reasonably position the sensor is more than one orientation, and further, such a feature is a relative feature and the housing does mount the sensor above the horizontal hub plane when the Figure 5 is rotated 180 degrees).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suga et al. (Suga) (JP 2018013443 A) in view of Suyama (JP 2012-20690 A).
Note that the cited paragraphs for Suga and Suyama in this Office Action come from the provided English machine translation of these documents.
As to Claim 1,
PNG
media_image8.png
379
278
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
432
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Suga discloses A speed sensing system for a bicycle, comprising: a sensing device configured to mount on the bicycle (Figures 3c,5), wherein the sensing device includes a sensor (42) and a housing (50 including the pocket sensor 42 is placed into), (see above figure), the housing configured to mount the sensor at an angle relative to a horizontal hub plane (Figures 3c,5); the sensor having a first end and a second end, the second end of the sensor being connected to a cable, and the first end of the sensor configured to be positioned above the horizontal hub plane (Figures 3 and 5 / note the sensor (42) is substantially similar in design to that of applicant, and thus must reasonably be configured to be positioned as claimed given its similarity to applicant’s sensor, and second, that this phrase is a relative phrase, and that the first end would be above a hub plane if the bike or image were rotated 180 degrees), and a plurality of sensed elements (note magnets 31) configured to be sensed by the sensing device (Figure 5), (Paragraphs [0072],[0074]).
Suga does not disclose the housing includes a portion configured to engage into an axle opening of a frame of the bicycle sized, the portion sized and shaped to receive the axle of the bicycle wheel.
Suyama discloses the housing (40a) includes a portion (405) configured to engage into an axle opening of a frame of the bicycle sized the portion sized and shaped to receive the axle of the bicycle wheel (Figures 1-3) , the portion configured to receive the axle of the bicycle wheel (Figures 1-3), (Paragraphs [0018],[0019] / see note below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Suga to include the sensor device includes a portion configured to engage into an opening of a frame of the bicycle sized and shaped to receive an axle of the bicycle wheel, the portion sized and shaped to receive the axle of the bicycle wheel as taught by Suyama in order to advantageously help ensure that the sensor device remains in the desired relative position to the rotating shaft and helps to ensure that the detectable magnets remain securely attached in the prior position so as to minimize errors in detection.
(Note: Claim 1 is directed towards the sensor device itself and not the bicycle, as such, the portion configured to engage into an axle opening of the frame must only reasonably capable of engaging in this manner, but does not have to actually engage with such an opening. Similarly, the portion must be configured and thus able to receive the axle, but no axle is positively recited in the claim as it is not part of the sensor device. Insertion portion (405) is substantially similar to that of applicant, and it is designed to be inserted into a frame portion (300) of the hub, and where it is also configured to receive an axle (402) as seen in Figure 3. As such, this portion (405) is reasonably configured in the claimed manner as it is substantially similar to that of applicant, and is reasonably configured to be used in the same manner as applicant’s portion. The prior art combination therefore reasonably discloses the claim features).
As to Claim 2,
Suga discloses the angle is between 15 degrees and 85 degrees (Figures 2a,3b / note the angle is reasonably between these degrees, and note that in light of applicant’s disclosure, the housing has the structure necessary to allow the sensor to be mounted at an angle in the above range).
As to Claim 3,
Suga discloses the angle is between 45 and 85 degrees (Figures 2a,3b / note the angle is reasonably between these degrees both as disclosed and because an origin can be selected such that the prior art discloses the sensor at an angle within the above range, and note that in light of applicant’s disclosure, the housing has the structure necessary to allow the sensor to be mounted at an angle in the above range).
As to Claim 4,
Suga discloses wherein the angle is 75 degrees (Figures 2a,3b / note the angle is reasonably between these degrees because an origin can be selected such that the prior art discloses the sensor at an angle within the above range, and note that in light of applicant’s disclosure, the housing has the structure necessary to allow the sensor to be mounted at an angle in the above range).
As to Claim 5,
Suga discloses wherein the housing includes a sensor enclosure, which includes a sensor opening, and the sensor is located within the sensor enclosure of the housing (Paragraph [0063]), (Figures 3a,5 / note the sensor is inserted into an opening of the housing, which must therefore include the above features).
As to Claim 6,
Suga discloses wherein the first end of the sensor includes a marking (Figures 5,8 / note the marking can be the protrusion 42c or an of the darkened portions at the bottom right side of the sensor).
As to Claim 7,
Suga discloses wherein the marking aligns with at least one of the plurality of sensed elements when the speed sensing system is mounted on the bicycle (Figure 5 / note that Suga discloses this feature, but also discloses this feature when the speed sensing system is not mounted on a bicycle).
As to Claim 10,
Suga discloses the plurality of sensed elements are magnets (Figure 5 / note each element 31 is a magnet in light of the disclosure).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Suga et al. (Suga) (JP 2018013443 A) in view of Krauss (US 2017/0120981).
As to Claim 17,
PNG
media_image9.png
366
713
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Suga discloses A bicycle including a speed sensing system, comprising: a frame (10), (Figure 1); a sensing device configured to mount on the bicycle (Figures 3c,5), wherein the sensing device includes a sensor (42) and a housing (50 including the pocket sensor 42 is placed into), (see above figure), the housing configured to mount the sensor on at an angle relative to a horizontal hub plane (Figures 3c,5 / note the housing is configured to mount the sensor at the claimed angle); a plurality of sensed elements (note the magnets 31) configured to be sensed by the sensing device (Figures 3c,5); and a dropout on the frame of the bicycle (Figures 3c,5),(see above figures), the dropout including a curved surface (Figures 3c,5), (see above figures), the housing has an axle opening through which a rear wheel axle (18) of the bicycle passes (Figures 3a-c, 4a), (Paragraphs [0047],[0135]), wherein the housing comprises a sensor enclosure fully surrounding the sensor, the sensor enclosure includes a sensor opening for receiving the sensor (Figures 3c,5 / note the sensor is inserted into the sensor enclosure of the housing, and therefore does and is capable of receiving the sensor).
Suga does not disclose the curved surface of the dropout routing the cable extending out of the sensor opening of the housing.
Krauss discloses the curved surface of the dropout routing the cable extending out of the sensor opening of the housing (Figures 1,2 / note the inner surface of the dropout is a route or path for the cable as seen in the above figures and as seen in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Suga to include the curved surface of the dropout routing the cable extending out of the sensor opening of the housing as taught by Krauss in order to help ensure that the cable is routed in a direction that helps prevent it from interacting with the wheel which can cause damage to the cable or wheel.
(Note: the definition of the term “route” is “A road, course, or way for travel from one place to another” and definition of “routing” is “To send or forward by a specific route” per https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=route. As such, the prior art reasonably meets this requirement because at least part of the dropout includes an opening creating a path or route for the cable in a similar, which is also similar to that disclosed by applicant. As such, the prior art reasonably discloses the claim feature).
As to Claim 20,
PNG
media_image9.png
366
713
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Suga discloses the housing comprises a sensor enclosure which includes a sensor opening for receiving the sensor (Figures 3c,5 / note the sensor is inserted into the sensor enclosure of the housing, and therefore does and is capable of receiving the sensor).
Suga does not disclose the curved surface of the dropout routing the cable extending out of the sensor opening of the housing.
Krauss discloses the curved surface of the dropout routing the cable extending out of the sensor opening of the housing (Figures 1,2 / note the inner surface of the dropout is a route or path for the cable as seen in the above figures and as seen in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Suga to include the curved surface of the dropout routing the cable extending out of the sensor opening of the housing as taught by Krauss in order to help ensure that the cable is routed in a direction that helps prevent it from interacting with the wheel which can cause damage to the cable or wheel.
(Note: the definition of the term “route” is “A road, course, or way for travel from one place to another” and definition of “routing” is “To send or forward by a specific route” per https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=route. As such, the prior art reasonably meets this requirement because at least part of the dropout includes an opening creating a path or route for the cable in a similar, which is also similar to that disclosed by applicant. As such, the prior art reasonably discloses the claim feature).
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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights