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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahana (US 2021/0031872) in view of Tanida (JP 2007-161219) and Shoge (US 2013/0054067).
In re claim 1, Shahana discloses a human-powered vehicle control device of a human-powered vehicle (10) comprising: an electronic controller (42) configured to control an electric component (18A) that is provided in the human-powered vehicle, in accordance with a total driving force including a human-power driving force (via pedals 22) applied to a drive train of the human-powered vehicle and an assistance force by a motor (12) providing a propelling force to the human-powered vehicle, the electric component being different from the motor, the electronic controller being configured to control the motor in accordance with the total driving force and a predetermined threshold, the electric component including a transmission (18), and the electronic controller being configured to control the transmission to change a transmission ratio (R) in an automatic transmission mode (see [0060], [0077], and [0134]) using information from the torque sensor (52).
Shahana does not disclose reducing the transmission ratio in response to a determination-that the total driving force is equal to or more than the predetermined threshold, the predetermined threshold being a predetermined torque or power.
Tanida, however, does disclose wherein the electronic controller (10) is further configured to control the motor (1) in accordance with the total driving force and a predetermined threshold (changed to a lower assist rate so as to not exceed limit, see [0016]) and reducing the transmission ratio upon determining the total driving force is equal to or more than the predetermined threshold (assist ratio/reduction ratio so as to not exceed limit).
Shoge, however, does disclose wherein the electronic controller (12) is further configured to control the motor (11) in accordance with the total driving force (from pedaling force sensor 43 and motor assistance force) and a predetermined threshold torque (see [0062]) to control gear shifting to reduce the torque effects on the hub (see [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Shahana such that it comprised the predetermined threshold values of Tanida to reduce the transmission ratio based upon the torque/power being produced to advantageously not exceed specified speeds/limits and the predetermined threshold torque value of Shoge to control the torque so as to advantageously avoid damaging the drive components.
In re claim 3, Tanida further discloses wherein the electronic controller is further configured to have a plurality of operation states whose maximum values of the assistance force by the motor are different from each other, and the predetermined threshold is different for each of the plurality of operation states (for example 150% or 200%, see [0009] and [0016]).
In re claim 5, Shahana further discloses wherein the electric component includes a transmission (18), and Tanida further discloses wherein the electronic controller is further configured to control the transmission such that a transmission ratio of the transmission reduces upon determining a peak value of the total driving force changes from increasing to decreasing is continuously equal to or more than the predetermined threshold for a predetermined first number of times (so as to not exceed limit).
In re claim 6, Shahana further discloses wherein the electric component includes a transmission (18), and Tanida further discloses wherein the electronic controller is further configured to periodically acquire information related to an acceleration in an advancing direction of the human-powered vehicle, and the electronic controller is further configured to control the transmission such that a transmission ratio of the transmission reduces upon determining the acceleration in the advancing direction of the human-powered vehicle does not continuously increase for a predetermined second number of times (so as to not exceed limit, see [0009] and [0016]).
In re claim 7, the combination of Shahana, Tanida, and Shoge, as discussed above, further discloses wherein the electronic controller is further configured to control the transmission such that the transmission ratio does not reduce in accordance with the total driving force upon determining a traveling velocity of the human-powered vehicle is outside of a predetermined range (when not at the limit, the transmission ratio is unchanged).
In re claim 8, Shahana further discloses wherein the human-powered vehicle includes a crank (14B) into which the human-power driving force is input, and the electronic controller is further configured to control the transmission (18) such that the transmission ratio does not reduce upon determining a rotational speed of the crank exceeds a predetermined rotational speed.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahana in view of Tanida.
In re claims 18-19, Shahana discloses a human-powered vehicle (10) control device of a human-powered vehicle comprising: an electronic controller (42) configured to control a transmission (18) in an automatic transmission mode (see [0060], [0077], and [0134]) based on: a total driving force including a human-power driving force applied to a drive train (24) of the human-powered vehicle and an assistance force by the motor (12) (driving force from human and motor provided to rear wheel via chain 30), but does not disclose in accordance with at least one of: a vehicle speed of the human-powered vehicle and a cadence of a crank mounted to the human-powered vehicle; wherein the electronic controller is configured to control the transmission based on information input from at least one selected from the group consisting of: a human-power driving force detector, a vehicle-speed sensor, a crank rotation sensor and an acceleration sensor.
Tanida, however, does teach wherein the driving force is based, at least in part, in accordance with a vehicle speed (from speed detecting means 3) of the human-powered vehicle (see [0013], [0016], and [0019]) (claim 18) so as to not exceed limit; wherein the electronic controller is configured to control the electric component based on information input from at least one selected from the group consisting of: a human-power driving force detector (4 – torque sensor – human power driving force detection means) and a vehicle-speed sensor (3) (claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Shahana such that it comprised the predetermined threshold values of Tanida to control the transmission ratio based upon the torque/power being produced to advantageously not exceed specified speeds/limits and avoid damaging the drive components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitation of “wherein the electronic controller is further configured to control the transmission such that the transmission ratio does not increase until a predetermined time interval has elapsed after controlling the transmission such that the transmission ratio reduces” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion.
Claims 10-12, 14, and 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the electric component includes at least one of a front suspension and a rear suspension” and “wherein the electric component includes an adjustable seat post, and the electronic controller is further configured to control the adjustable seat post such that a length of the adjustable seat post increases upon determining the total driving force is equal to or more than the predetermined threshold” are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion.
Claims 13, 16, and 17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the electronic controller is further configured to control the rear suspension such that an initial length of the rear suspension increases upon determining the total driving force is equal to or more than the predetermined threshold”, “the chain guide is provided to be rotatable around a predetermined rotational axis, and the electronic controller is configured to further control the chain guide such that a rotational resistance of the chain guide around the predetermined rotational axis reduces upon determining the total driving force is equal to or more than the predetermined threshold” are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the base reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the teachings or matters specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611