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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 14, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1 and 11, as amended (pages 5-6), new claims 21-24 (pages 6-7), and dependent claims 2-5, 10, and 12-24 (page 7) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10-11, 13-14 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watarai (US 20160318583 A1) in view of Peregrim (US 20050034907 A1) and Thompson (US-20160016634-A1). (note: underlined portions below correspond to the latest amendment, for Applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 1 Watarai teaches a method for controlling power supplied to an electric drive system of an electric bicycle (Abstract: Teaches a bicycle motor control system 10 that may be configured to control a drive motor 30.), comprising:
determining, by [a] controller (Controller 32, Fig. 2), a pedal assist power level for the electric drive system (Fig. 4: Step S1 and Para. [0053] teach a Controller 32 reading a user selection of an electronic assist mode between differing power levels)
determining a first current to be applied to the electric drive system based on the pedal assist power level (Fig. 4: Step S5 and Para. [0053] teach the controller (32) determining an output power to be applied to the drive motor 30 based on the determined assist mode. As is well known in the art, Ohm’s Law states that power is equal to voltage times current; therefore determining an output power based on the assist mode would inherently involve determining the output current.);
detecting a user selected boost assist at a first input (16) while the first current is being applied to the electric drive system (Figs. 2 & 3 and Para. [0039] teach the controller 32 receiving a user input at a particular input 16 which is used to set an assist ratio.); and
determining a second current to be applied to the electric drive system based at least in part on both the user selected boost assist and a boost trigger (Fig. 4: Step S7 and Para. [0053] teach the controller 32 outputting power based in part on the controller 32 determining the user’s selection of electronic assist mode in Step S1 and that the boost switch is activated at Step S3; where power is being directly correlated to current as discussed above for the first current.), the boost trigger (68) being received via a second input (62) (Figs. 2 & 3 and Para. [0050] teach the boost switch 68 being read at a particular input 62 to the controller 32.).
Watarai does not teach that the user selected boost assist is a variable amount that gradually increases, or that the boost trigger is biased to return to an off position.
Peregrim teaches, in another control system for an electric vehicle (10), a user selected speed control (Para. [0005]) that is a variable amount (Para. [0005] teaches the speed control being variable) which gradually increases from a low value to a high value (Para. [0007] teaches that the speed control has a continuously- i.e. gradually- increasing resistance track) based on the user modulating an amount of pressure applied to an input (Para. [0022] teaches that the speed control is provided with a lever for a user to actuate the speed control, and Para. [0028] teaches a spring, such that the user is understood to apply and modulate a pressure with the lever against the spring), and a boost trigger (the aforementioned Lever 34, Figs. 3a- c) that is biased to return to an off position when the user stops applying the pressure to the speed control (Para. [0031] teaches a spring centering the lever).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Watarai and Peregrim in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watarai’s method for controlling power supplied to an electric drive system such that the user selected boost assist is a variable amount that gradually increases, and that the boost trigger is biased to return to an off position as suggested by Peregrim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a smoothly variable speed control that returns to an off position when released that would beneficially provide a safer and more user-friendly method.
Watarai, as modified above, does not teach one or more characteristics of a user being used to determine a pedal assist power level.
Thompson teaches, in another method for controlling power supplied to an electric drive system of an electric bicycle (Process 300, Fig. 14, taught in Para. [0081] as controlling bicycle components including electric motor output), receiving, at a controller (Computing Device 282, Fig. 13, which uses Process 300 as taught in Para. [0081]), one or more characteristics of a user (Para. [0082] and Fig. 14 teach Block 310 of Process 300 which measures or updated user characteristics) and determining, by the controller (282), a power level for the electric drive system based at least in part on the one or more characteristics of the user (Paras. [0081]- [0084] and Fig. 14 teach determining a power contribution- Block 320- for a controlling a motor- Block 330- based on user characteristics- Block 310).
The process (300) of Thompson is configured such that the one or more characteristics of a user (310) include the user's weight (Para. [0082] teaches that the user characteristics may include physiological and biometric factors such as weight) (note: these teachings relate to claims 21 and 24, as discussed below).
The process (300) of Thompson is further configured such that the one or more characteristics of a user include the user's endurance level (Para. [0082] teaches that the user characteristics may include physiological and biometric factors such as fitness level- i.e. endurance level) (note: these teachings relate to claims 22 and 24, as discussed below).
The process (300) of Thompson is further configured such that receiving the one or more characteristics of a user at the controller (282) comprises receiving the one or more characteristics of a user wirelessly from an application in communication with the controller (Para. [0074]- [0076] teach the Computing Device 282and a User Device 274 which both include wireless capabilities and that the Computing Device 282transmits messages wirelessly; and Para. [0082] teaches the User Device 274 being used to provide user characteristics to the Computing Device 282 and Para. [0082] further teaches using software- i.e. an application- in the User Device 274 to enter, store, or determine the user characteristics that are communicated to the Computing Device 282) (note: these teachings relate to claims 23, as discussed below).
Thompson further teaches that the process (300) may advantageously provide a variety of pedaling cadences without having to individually tailor the gearing of a bicycle (Para. [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Watarai, Peregrim, and Thompson in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watarai’s method for controlling power supplied to an electric drive system, as modified above, such that one or more characteristics of a user are used to determine a pedal assist power level as suggested by Thompson. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a variety of pedaling cadences without having to change the gearing of a bicycle, as taught by Thompson and discussed above, that would beneficially provide a bicycle that is more easily operated by users with varying characteristics.
Regarding Claim 2 Watarai teaches the method comprising,
applying the first current to the electric drive system during a first period of time (occurring at Step S5); and
applying the second current to the electric drive system during a second period of time (occurring at Step S7) (Fig. 4 and Para. [0053] teach the first current being applied at Step S5 if certain conditions are met, the algorithm returning to Step S1 to begin again, and, if certain conditions are met this cycle or another subsequent cycle, the second current being applied at Step S7; therefore it can be said that Step S5 and Step S7 occur at a first and second time, respectively).
Regarding claim 3 Watarai teaches the method wherein the first input (16) is a pair of switches (44 & 42) disposed on a first end of a handlebar (11) of the electric bicycle (Figs. 1 & 3 teach the second operating device 16 being located on one end of the handlebar 11.), and
an input (62) comprising a lever (61) (Fig. 3 and Para. [0050] teach an embodiment in which the first operating device 62 comprises a lever 61.).
Watarai also teaches in Para. [0010], that levers advantageously allow the user to easily control (e.g. select a ratio) by using a finger.
Watarai does not teach that the first input (16) is a lever.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Watarai to comprise the first input being a lever because the substitution of the lever, an element well known in the art, for the pair of switches, another element well known in the art, yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4 Watarai teaches the method wherein the second input (62) is a push button (68) disposed on an end of the handlebar (11) (Figs. 1 & 3 and Para. [0050] teach the first operating device 62 being located on one end of the handlebar 11.).
Watarai does not teach that the second input (62) is on a different end of the handlebar (11) than the first input (16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the second input such that it was on a different end of the handlebar than the first input, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 5 Watarai teaches the method wherein the pedal assist power level is preprogrammed (Fig. 5A and Para. [0054] teach one or more embodiments with a fixed, predetermined assist level.).
Regarding Claim 10 Watarai teaches the method wherein the high value of the user selected boost assist is a ratio of the pedal assist power level (Fig. 5B and Para. [0059] teach one or more embodiments with a variable boost ratio where the high value is defined by an equation that considers the user selected assist level and therefore it can be said that the boost ratio is a ratio of the assist level.).
Regarding Claim 11 Watarai teaches a control system for controlling power supplied to an electric motor of an electric bicycle (Abstract teaches a bicycle motor control system 10 that may be configured to control a drive motor 30), comprising:
a first input (16) configured to receive a user selected boost assist for an electric drive system (Figs. 2 & 3 and Para. [0039] teach the controller 32 receiving a user input at a particular input 16 which is used to set an assist ratio.);
a second input (62) configured to receive a boost trigger (68) for the electric drive system (Figs. 2 & 3 and Para. [0050] teach the boost switch 68 being read at a particular input 62 to the controller 32.);
an electric motor (Fig. 1: Drive Motor 30); and
a controller (Fig. 1: Controller 32) configured to determine,
a first current to be applied to the electric motor (30) based on a pedal assist power level (Fig. 4: Step S5 and Para. [0053] teach an output power to applied to the drive motor 30 based on the determined assist mode; power being directly correlated to current, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above), and
a second current to be applied to the electric motor (30) based at least in part on both the user selected boost assist and the boost trigger (Fig. 4: Step S7 and Para. [0053] teach the controller 32 outputting power based in part on the controller 32 determining the user’s selection of electronic assist mode in Step S1 and that the boost switch is activated at Step S3; where power is being directly correlated to current as discussed above for the first current.).
Watarai does not teach that the user selected boost assist is a variable amount that gradually increases, or that the boost trigger is biased to return to an off position; but Peregrim does (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Peregrim and the motivation to combine them with the control system of Watarai, which is similar to the motivation to combine them with the method for controlling power supplied to an electric drive system of Watarai discussed there).
Watarai, as modified above, does not teach one or more characteristics of a user being used to determine a pedal assist power level, but Thompson does (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Thompson and motivation to combine them with the method for controlling power/ control system of Watarai).
Regarding Claim 13 Watarai teaches the system comprising a manual drive system comprising a crankset (20), a chain (22), and at least one gear (28) for transferring manual power mechanically from the crankset to at least one wheel (6) of the electric bicycle (Fig. 1 and Para. [0036] teach the crank portion 20 being equipped with a chain 22 and a front sprocket 28 that transmits rotational power to a wheel 6.).
Regarding Claim 14 Watarai teaches the system wherein the electric motor (30) is rotationally coupled to the crankset (20) (Para. [0036] teaches the drive unit 29 as both including the drive motor 30 and rotatably supporting the crank shaft 26; and it can therefore be said that the drive motor 30 is rotatably coupled to the crank set 20.).
Regarding Claim 16 Watarai teaches the system comprising pedals (Fig. 1: crank portion 20 depicts one of an implied pair of pedals; supported by the plural term “pedals” appearing in Paras. [0042] & [0066]) and a bottom bracket (29), the pedals being coupled to the crankset (20) for receiving user power, the bottom bracket (29) supporting the crankset (20) relative to the electric motor (30) (Fig. 1 and Para. [0036] teach the drive unit 29 fulfilling the function of a typical bottom bracket which, as is well known in the art, is to rotatably connect the crankshaft 26 to the frame 2 and they also teach the drive unit 29 including the drive motor 30 and so supporting it relative to the crankset 20.).
Regarding claim 17 Watarai teaches the system wherein the first (16) input is a pair of switches (44 & 42) (Figs. 1 & 3 and Para. [0047]), and
an input (62) comprising a lever (61) (Fig. 3 and Para. [0050] teach an embodiment in which the first operating device 62 comprises a lever 61.).
Watarai also teaches in Para. [0010], that levers advantageously allow the user to easily control (e.g. select a ratio) by using a finger.
Watarai does not teach that the first input is a lever.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system of Watarai to comprise the first input being a lever because the substitution of the lever, an element well known in the art, for the pair of switches, another element well known in the art, yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Watarai as modified above does not teach that the lever of the first input actuates a potentiometer.
Peregrim teaches a lever (34) actuating a potentiometer (52) (Figs. 1 & 2 and Para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system of Watarai as modified above to comprise the potentiometer taught by Peregrim in order to form a more user-friendly system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Watarai as modified above and Peregrim comes from knowledge well known in the art at the time of filing that controlling a vehicle speed with a variable device such as a potentiometer creates a system that is easier for an operator to control because it allows them to smoothly and intuitively select a speed setting. Therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that doing so would provide a more user-friendly system.
Regarding claim 18 Watarai teaches the system wherein the second input (62) is a push button (68) actuating a second operating device (Fig. 3 and Para. [0050]).
Watarai does not teach that the operating device is a potentiometer.
Peregrim teaches a potentiometer (52) that provides a signal to a motor controller (88) for the purpose of regulating current flow to a motor (14) (Fig. 2 and Para. [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system of Watarai as modified above to comprise the potentiometer taught by Peregrim in order to form a more user-friendly system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Watarai as modified above and Peregrim comes from knowledge well known in the art at the time of filing that controlling a vehicle speed with a variable device such as a potentiometer creates a system that is easier for an operator to control because it allows them to smoothly and intuitively select a speed setting. Therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that doing so would provide a more user-friendly system.
Regarding Claim 19 Watarai teaches the system wherein the pedal assist power level is preprogrammed (Fig. 5A and Para. [0054] teach one or more embodiments with a fixed, predetermined, assist level.).
Regarding claim 20 Watarai teaches the system wherein the first input (16) and the second input (62) are disposed on a handlebar (11) of the electric bicycle (Figs. 1 & 3 and Para. [0050] teach the first 62 and second operating devices 16 being located on one end of the handlebar 11.).
Watarai does not teach the two inputs (16 & 62) being on opposite ends of the handlebar (11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the first and second inputs such that they were on different ends of the handlebar, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claims 21-23, Watarai, as modified above by Peregrim and Thompson, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Peregrim and Thompson and motivation to combine them with the method for controlling power of Watarai).
Regarding Claim 24, Watarai, as modified above by Peregrim and Thompson, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 above for the teachings of Peregrim and Thompson and motivation to combine them with the method for controlling power/ control system of Watarai, noting that the limitations of claim 24 are taught by either one of, or both of, the teachings related to claims 21 and 22).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watarai, Peregrim, and Thompson in view of TAKAMOTO (US 20150073656 A1).
Regarding claim 12 Watarai teaches the system wherein the electric bicycle is for outdoor use (Para. [0066]).
Watarai does not teach that the electric bicycle is a mountain bike.
TAKAMOTO teaches, in another control system (12) for an electric bicycle (10), an electric bicycle (10) that is a mountain bike (Fig. 1 and Para. [0049]).
The prior art, at the time of filing, contained a base product (the electric mountain bike of TAKAMOTO), upon which the claimed control system can been seen as an improvement. The prior art, at the time of filing, also contained a comparable product (the electric bicycle for outdoor use of Watarai) which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention (as discussed in the 102 rejection of claim 11 above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used the control system of Watarai on the mountain bike taught by TAKAMOTO to achieve the same function and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15 Watarai teaches the system comprising a derailleur (Para. [0038]).
Watarai does not teach a gear shifter controlling the derailleur.
TAKAMOTO teaches a gear shifter (SW1) and a derailleur (RD), the gear shifter (SW1) controlling the derailleur (RD) (Figs. 1-3 and Paras. [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system of Watarai to comprise the gear shifter taught by TAKAMOTO in order to form a more effective system.
Motivation to combine said elements of Watarai and TAKAMOTO comes from knowledge well known in the art that gear shifters are effective ways of controlling derailleurs, to the extent that the presence of a derailleur implies the presence of a gear shifter. Therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that doing so would provide a more effective system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee (US-6446745-B1) teaches elements of the claimed invention drawn to an electric bicycle that determines an ideal amount of power output based on a user’s weight or other characteristics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (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 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611