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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 7-9 directed towards Suga et al. (Suga) (JP 2018013443 A) in view of Suyama (JP 2012-20690 A),
As to Claim 1,
Applicant argues that Suga does not disclose the sensor having a first end and a second end connected to a cable, the first end of the sensor configured to be position above the horizontal hub plane. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
PNG
media_image1.png
328
494
media_image1.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_image2.png
414
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
546
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
328
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 12-13 directed towards Suga et al. (Suga) (JP 2018013443 A) in view of Krauss (US 2017/0120981).
As to Claims 11 and 17,
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.
When applicant claims “the housing configured for mounting the sensor on a plane parallel to a horizontal hub plane,” applicant is not actually claiming that the housing actually mounts the sensor in this manner. Should applicant desire such a feature, applicant should claim that the housing is connected to the sensor such that the sensor is act the claimed orientation. Instead, what applicant is claiming is an intended use. The phrase “configured for” means that the housing is configured “for mounting the sensor on a plane parallel to a horizontal hub plane,” meaning it has a configuration that can be used for an intended purpose of use of mounting a sensor in a specific manner. As a parallel, claiming a car configured for driving on a road only requires that the car have a configuration that allows the car to be used to drive on a road. It does not require the road or any aspect of the road. Similarly, the prior art must therefore reasonably disclose a housing that has a configuration that would allow it be mount a sensor in the claimed manner. The claim does not require the sensor be mounted in any manner, and the prior art therefore does not have to disclose any particular sensor mounting, and no modification of the prior art or rationale is required as to why the sensor is or should be mounted in any particular manner. Instead, when claiming an intended use, the prior art must able be capable of allowing for the claimed feature. Here, the prior Office Action explained that the housing does have a configuration that would allow for the sensor mounting, because a mere rotation of the housing would provide for and therefore allow for the sensor to be mounted in the orientation of the claim using the configuration of the housing as disclosed by the prior art.
Applicant then notes that the Office Action is relying upon hindsight, but applicant, respectfully, does not explain why hindsight is being relied upon. Explaining why a prior art reference itself discloses a claim feature is not hindsight, because it is merely an explanation as to why that reference discloses the claim feature. For example, if the prior art were asserted under 35 U.S.C. 102, and applicant presented the above noted claim feature, the prior art would still be explained to disclose the same claim feature in the exact same manner. However, hindsight would not be applicable to a rejection under 102. Hindsight is instead solely directed towards a combination of references, where it is the specific features combined from a secondary reference into a primary reference that cannot be motivated by a hindsight reconstruction. However, the feature being argued is not being taught in from a secondary reference, and is instead found in the primary reference. As such, no hindsight can exist as the primary reference discloses the claim feature, regardless of what features are or are not found in any secondary reference.
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.
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 sensor having a first end and a second end connected to a cable, the first end of the sensor configured to be positioned above the horizontal hub plane” on lines 5-6 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 Claims 2-7 and 10,
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 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 Claim 1,
The phrase “the sensor having a first end and a second end connected to a cable, the first end of the sensor configured to be positioned above the horizontal hub plane” on lines 5-6 is indefinite.
Applicant claims that “the sensor having a first end and a second end connected to a cable,” but where it is unclear what is required to be “connected to a cable.” The above recitation can reasonably be interpreted in more than one manner, rendering the claim feature indefinite. A first reasonably interpretation is that both the first end “and” second end of the sensor are connected to a cable. This is because applicant is claiming “a first end and a second end connected to a cable,” which is reasonably claiming that elements A and B are connected to a cable. A second reasonable interpretation is that just the second end is connected to a cable. This phrase is therefore indefinite, because both interpretations are grammatically reasonable. As explained in MPEP 2173.02(I), “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” As such, this phrase stands rejected as being indefinite.
As to Claims 2-7 and 10,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of Claim 1 and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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_image4.png
432
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
366
713
media_image5.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 for mounting 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 for mounting 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 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_image6.png
379
278
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
432
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Suga discloses A speed sensing system for a bicycle, comprising: a sensing device configured for mounting 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 for mounting the sensor at an angle relative to a horizontal hub plane (Figures 3c,5);the sensor having a first end and a second end connected to a cable, 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_image7.png
366
713
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Suga discloses A bicycle including a speed sensing system, comprising: a frame (10), (Figure 1); a sensing device configured for mounting 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 for mounting 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 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).
As to Claim 20,
PNG
media_image7.png
366
713
media_image7.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
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