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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/11/2026 has been entered.
Responses to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments filed 9/11/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 12 and 13 are amended. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's amendments filed 9/11/2026 with respect to the rejection of 1, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first Paragraph have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first Paragraph has been withdrawn.
Applicant's argument and amendments filed 9/11/2026 with respect to
the rejection of claims 1-15 directed to a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. (See the detailed response presented below).
On pages 6-9 of Applicant’s response, Applicant alleges that the claim feature of "providing substitute speed signals in place of the speed signals at the incremental encoder" does not recite a judicial exception and thus is an additional element that qualifies for analysis under Prong Two. … in the absence of any analysis particularized to the wording of "providing substitute speed signals in place of the speed signals at the incremental encoder" with respect to the mathematical concept or mental process judicial exceptions. … the specification establishes that the limitation "providing substitute speed signals in place of the speed signals of the incremental encoder," improves the technology of ascertaining a state of operating dynamics of a bicycle. … since the specification establishes that the signal substitution feature contributes to the above-noted technological benefits (the Patent Office does not deny this), it follows that this feature cannot be a mere extra-solution activity. Section 2106.0S(g) of the MPEP sets forth the standard for determining whether a claim element represents mere extra-solution activity, … the claim limitation in question does not recite any judicial exception and represents a technological improvement in the field of ascertaining operating dynamics of a bicycle. Consequently, withdrawal of the Section 101 rejection is requested.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation of “determining that a reed sensor of an incremental encoder has generated no reed pulses during a time period” is indicative of determining if the pulses are absence or not from the reed sensor, which is inferred by organizing human activity to look at the data decide no pluses generated during the time period, and also indicative of an insignificant extra-solution activity to be performed by a generic computer function to determine if the pulse generated or not (exists or absence) during a time period when the generic sensor outputs a signal (i.e., pulse), where a sensor to output pulses is a high level of generality to be performed by a generic computer component such as a sensor. The limitation of “the substitute speed signals include substitute speed pulses that have a non-zero value” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to generate pulses by a generic computer function such as a sensor, and signals of pulse type to be generated by a sensor are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, as at least paragraphs 0067-0070 of HIGASHI reference (US 20210197924 A1) teach outputting pulse signals of a speed sensor. Note that Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components/structures and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for example, how and or with what to measure existence or absence of pulses. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Further, claim 1 does not present a technical solution to a technical problem by providing an improvement to the functioning of computer, or to any other technology or technical field related to, for example, ascertaining a state of operating dynamics of a bicycle, measuring an absence of pulses, and providing substitute speed signals to estimate the state of operating dynamics. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but fully considered but not persuasive.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the applied prior art does not disclose "based on the current riding state of the bicycle being ascertained as a dead stop of the bicycle by determining that a reed sensor of an incremental encoder has generated no reed pulses during a time period, providing substitute speed signals in place of the speed signals at the incremental encoder, to estimate the state of operating dynamics for the estimation method." Page 15 of the Office Action admits that Hahn fails to disclose this feature, but argues that it is disclosed in 3 :6-43, as well as claims 3 and 4. This portion of Kimura discloses "Tn is the elapsed time (period) between successive signal pulses 29." Since this elapsed time is a variable used to determine the velocity Vn in equation (1) of Kimura, Kimura does not disclose the use of this elapsed time as the basis for "providing substitute speed signals in place of the speed signals at the incremental encoder, to estimate the state of operating dynamics for the estimation method." None of the other applied references overcomes this deficiency in Kimura.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At least Fig. 2 and Col. 3 lines 6-43, especially lines 35-43 in Kimura teaches a sensor (Fig. 2, 6) to generate no pulses and “determining that a reed sensor of an incremental encoder has generated no reed pulses during a time period, providing substitute speed signals”, where in case the elapsed time passes without a pulse signal 29 being generated, then it is assumed that bicycle stopped (“If a time twice the value of T.sub.N passes without a pulse signal 29 being generated, then it is assumed that the bicycle stopped, and zero is substituted for the virtual velocity VR”).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the substitute speed signals (substitute speed pulses) are indicative of a dead stop of bicycle operating states, where a non-zero value of the substitute speed pulses is used or set to be indicative of a dead stop of a bicycle. In view of this interpretation, Column 3, Lines 24-43 in Kimura teaches a dead stop which can be both the state of operating dynamics and the current riding state, and the state of operating dynamics can also be a rider engagement state when, for example a rider is not present. Kimura further teaches a zero value of a substitute speed signal. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), a specific value (i.e., non-zero value pulse) of the substitute speed signals in the claimed invention may be simple substitution, equivalent element of a specific value (i.e., zero value) of the substitute speed signals as taught in Kimura, to thereby obtain predictable results. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), a specific value (i.e., non-zero value pulse) of the substitute speed signals in the claimed invention may be “Obvious to try” to simply choose a specific value (i.e., zero value or non-zero value) of the substitute speed signals in order to indicate a dead stop of a bicycle operating state as taught in Kimura, to thereby obtain predictable results to indicate a dead stop of a bicycle operating state. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments regarding the limitation “wherein the substitute speed signals include substitute speed pulses that have a non-zero value” are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step2A Prong one: Yes
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A method for ascertaining a state of operating dynamics of a bicycle, the method comprising the following steps:
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
providing signals regarding an acceleration in at least one spatial direction and regarding a rate of rotation about at least one spatial direction, using an inertial measuring device;
providing speed signals of an incremental encoder;
ascertaining the state of operating dynamics on the basis of an estimation method, in light of the provided signals;
ascertaining a current riding state of the bicycle,
Abstract idea,
math or mental process
“providing signals ~” and “providing speed signals ~” are insignificant pre-solution activity to collect routine data.
“signals regarding an acceleration in at least one spatial direction and regarding a rate of rotation about at least one spatial direction” are routine data sensed by a generic computer component (i.e., sensor).
“an inertial measuring device” and “an incremental encoder” are high level of generalities recited to merely collect routine data used to perform abstract idea.
“estimation method” is math or mental concept.
“ascertaining the state ~ …. ascertaining a current riding state …” is a math or mental process inferred from the routine data. (Para 0043-0060)
wherein;
based on the current riding state of the bicycle being ascertained as a dead stop of the bicycle by determining that a reed sensor of an incremental encoder has generated no reed pulses during a time period, providing substitute speed signals in place of the speed signals at the incremental encoder, to estimate the state of operating dynamics for the estimation method, wherein the substitute speed signals include substitute speed pulses that have a non-zero value.
Abstract idea,
math or mental process
“providing substitute speed signals ~ to estimate the state of …” is a math or mental process calculated or inferred from the previous math or mental processes.
“by determining …” is a mental process to look at the data and decide no pulse generated.
“the substitute speed signals include substitute speed pulses that have a non-zero value …” is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-13 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, the limitations of “ascertaining the state of operating dynamics on the basis of an estimation method, in light of the provided signals; ascertaining a current riding state of the bicycle” and “based on the current riding state of the bicycle being ascertained as a dead stop of the bicycle by determining that a reed sensor of an incremental encoder has generated no reed pulses during a time period, providing substitute speed signals in place at the speed signals of the incremental encoder, to estimate the state of operating dynamics for the estimation method” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring the state of operating dynamics from the obtained routine data (i.e., signals regarding the acceleration, and speed signals of the incremental encoder), which are performed using mathematical algorithm (i.e., Kalman filter) (see paragraphs 0043-0066 of the publication No. US 20220340224 A1 of the instant application). The limitation of “determining that a reed sensor of an incremental encoder has generated no reed pulses during a time period” in the context of this claim may encompass manually calculating or inferring either existence or absence of pulse (no reed pulsed generated) by organizing human activity to look at the data decide no pluses generated during the time period. The limitation of “the estimation method” is indicative of a mathematical algorithm or concept as disclosed in paragraphs 0043-0066 of the publication of the instant application.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a generic computer component of the device including the inertial measuring device, the incremental encoder and the state determination device to perform the processes using the device to perform “ascertaining the state of operating dynamics on the basis of an estimation method, in light of the provided signals; ascertaining a current riding state of the bicycle” and “based on the current riding state of the bicycle being ascertained as a dead stop of the bicycle by determining that a reed sensor of an incremental encoder has generated no reed pulses during a time period, providing substitute speed signals in place at the speed signals of the incremental encoder, to estimate the state of operating dynamics for the estimation method”. The additional elements of the “inertial measuring device” and the “incremental encoder” are high level of generalities recited to merely collect routine data (i.e., sensor data) used to perform abstract idea, without descriptions of its specific structure/features to perform the claimed features related to ascertain/determine/estimate the operating dynamics’ state and/or the current riding state of the bicycle. The limitations of “providing signals regarding an acceleration in at least one spatial direction and regarding a rate of rotation about at least one spatial direction, using an inertial measuring device; providing speed signals of an incremental encoder” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to collect routine data (i.e., signals regarding the acceleration, and speed signals of the incremental encoder) used to perform abstract idea.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation of “determining that a reed sensor of an incremental encoder has generated no reed pulses during a time period” is indicative of determining if the pulses are absence or not from the reed sensor, which is inferred by organizing human activity to look at the data decide no pluses generated during the time period, and also indicative of an insignificant extra-solution activity to be performed by a generic computer function to determine if the pulse generated or not (exists or absence) during a time period when the generic sensor outputs a signal (i.e., pulse), where a sensor to output pulses is a high level of generality to be performed by a generic computer component such as a sensor. The limitation of “the substitute speed signals include substitute speed pulses that have a non-zero value” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to generate pulses by a generic computer function such as a sensor, and signals of pulse type to be generated by a sensor. There is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “the substitute speed signals include substitute speed pulses that have a non-zero value” is an insignificant extra-solution activity to generate pulses by a generic computer function such as a sensor, and signals of pulse type to be generated by a sensor are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, as at least paragraphs 0067-0070 of HIGASHI reference (US 20210197924 A1) teach outputting pulse signals of a speed sensor. The limitations of “providing signals regarding an acceleration in at least one spatial direction and regarding a rate of rotation about at least one spatial direction, using an inertial measuring device; providing speed signals of an incremental encoder” are insignificant extra-solution activities necessary to collect routine data (i.e., signals regarding the acceleration, and speed signals of the incremental encoder) used to perform abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the functions and/or structures related to the “inertial measuring device” and the “incremental encoder” to measure/provide sensor data/signals are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, as the Xu reference (US 20070005212 A1) teaches. See MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using a generic computer component (i.e., device) to perform the processes of “providing signals regarding an acceleration in at least one spatial direction and regarding a rate of rotation about at least one spatial direction, using an inertial measuring device; providing speed signals of an incremental encoder”, “ascertaining the state of operating dynamics on the basis of an estimation method, in light of the provided signals; ascertaining a current riding state of the bicycle” and “based on the current riding state of the bicycle being ascertained as a dead stop of the bicycle by determining that a reed sensor of an incremental encoder has generated no reed pulses during a time period, providing substitute speed signals in place at the speed signals of the incremental encoder, to estimate the state of operating dynamics for the estimation method, wherein the substitute speed signals include substitute speed pulses that have a non-zero value” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-11, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea. For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 1, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, each is a device type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, they are each rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional element of the “state determination device” in claim 12 is a high level of generality recited to perform a generic computer function of a generic computer component by which the mathematical calculations are performed.
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.
1. Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-13 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAHN et al. (US 2020/0262511, hereinafter referred to as “HAHN”) in view of Kimura et al. (US 6,073,061, hereinafter referred to as “Kimura”).
Regarding Claim 1, HAHN teaches a method for ascertaining a state of operating dynamics of a bicycle, the method comprising the following steps:
providing signals regarding an acceleration in at least one spatial direction and regarding a rate of rotation about at least one spatial direction, using an inertial measuring device (Paragraph [0172] / note accelerometers provide acceleration signals and gyroscopes provide rates of rotation, and the combination of these two devices can be considered the inertial measuring device);
providing speed signals of an incremental encoder (Paragraphs [0116], [0172] note the magnet is reasonably an incremental encoder because applicant expressly discloses in claim 8 that the incremental encoder can be a rim magnet on a bicycle wheel, and the prior art is merely being interpreted in the same manner);
ascertaining the state of operating dynamics on the basis of an estimation method, in light of the provided signals (Paragraphs [0173]-[0175] / note the state of operating dynamics can be the rider engagement state, which is found from an estimated (calculated) deacceleration which is based on the sensor data (provided signals), or even that the bike is at a dead stop because no rider is present);
ascertaining a current riding state of the bicycle (Paragraph [0176] / the ascertained riding state can be not moving because a rider is not present, should be allowed to be moved because a rider is present, or one of the “other engagement statuses).
HAHN fails to explicitly disclose based on the current riding state of the bicycle being ascertained as a dead stop of the bicycle by determining that a reed sensor of an incremental encoder has generated no reed pulses during a time period, providing substitute speed signals in place of the speed signals at the incremental encoder, to estimate the state of operating dynamics for the estimation method, wherein the substitute speed signals include substitute speed pulses that have a non-zero value. However, Kimura teaches based on the current riding state of the bicycle being ascertained as a dead stop of the bicycle by determining that a reed sensor (Fig. 2, sensor 6; Col. 2 lines 63-65) of an incremental encoder has generated no reed pulses during a time period (Column 3, Lines 6-43 / claims 3-4 note sensing signals during elapsed time to determine substitute speed at a dead stop.; At least Col. 3 lines 35-43 teaches in case the elapsed time passes without a pulse signal 29 being generated, then it is assumed that bicycle stopped, “If a time twice the value of T.sub.N passes without a pulse signal 29 being generated, then it is assumed that the bicycle stopped, and zero is substituted for the virtual velocity VR”), providing substitute speed signals in place of the speed signals at the incremental encoder, to estimate the state of operating dynamics for the estimation method, wherein the substitute speed signals include substitute speed pulses that have a non-zero value (Column 3, Lines 24-43 / especially note lines 40-43 / claims 3-4 note a dead stop can be both the state of operating dynamics and the current riding state, and the state of operating dynamics can also be a rider engagement state when, for example a rider is not present, where the substitute speed value having zero value).
HAHN and Kimura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of an electric bicycle system and a bicycle operating method. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the substitute speed signals (substitute speed pulses) are indicative of a dead stop of bicycle operating states, where a non-zero value of the substitute speed pulses is used or set to be indicative of a dead stop of a bicycle. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), a specific value (i.e., non-zero value pulse) of the substitute speed signals in the claimed invention may be simple substitution, equivalent element of a specific value (i.e., zero value) of the substitute speed signals as taught in Kimura, to thereby obtain predictable results. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), a specific value (i.e., non-zero value pulse) of the substitute speed signals in the claimed invention may be “Obvious to try” to simply choose a specific value (i.e., zero value or non-zero value) of the substitute speed signals in order to indicate a dead stop of a bicycle operating state as taught in Kimura, to thereby obtain predictable results.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify HAHN to include based on the current riding state of the bicycle being ascertained as a dead stop of the bicycle, providing substitute speed signals in place of the speed signals of the incremental encoder, where the substitute speed signals are set to have a specific value (e.g., zero value or non-zero value) as per a user’s preference, to thereby estimate the state of operating dynamics for the estimation as taught by Kimura in order to advantageously provide a method of shifting a bicycle transmission wherein shifting is performed quickly at an optimum time, thereby providing a smooth transition from one gear to another and/or during deceleration, when the drive system of the shift mechanism is easier to operate (Column 1, Lines 37-42), and alleviate stress on the transmission, with the virtual velocity set to allow for a smooth transmission from one gear to another (Column 1, Lines 55-59).
Regarding Claim 2, HAHN teaches wherein the state of operating dynamics is ascertained using at least one of the variables: displacement, and/or yaw rate, and/or roll angle, and/or pitch angle, and a first derivative of the at least one of the variables with respect to time (Paragraphs [0173]-[0175] / note the state of operating dynamics based on the orientation of the bicycle based on the averaged portion of the received orientation data (e.g., for a predetermined time period such as 0.5 s, 1.0 s, 2.0 s), acceleration data from one or more accelerometers and/or gyroscopes of the bicycle).
Regarding Claim 3, HAHN teaches wherein a second derivative of the at least one of the variables with respect to time is additionally ascertained for estimating the state of operating dynamics (Paragraphs [0173]-[0175] and [0185] / note averaging the orientation data for a predetermined time period as well as derivative of the sensor data, “the processor may calculate an acceleration of the bicycle from a derivative of the speed sensor data”).
Regarding Claim 4, HAHN fails to explicitly disclose, but Kimura teaches wherein to estimate the state of operating dynamics, a possible change in the at least one of the variables, including their second derivative with respect to time, is taken into account (Column 3, Lines 5-65 / especially note lines 5-25 / note a rider engagement state to be determined based on variables including a time period).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HAHN to provide variables including a time period used for estimating the rider engagement state as taught by Kimura.
Regarding Claim 6, regarding wherein the estimation method includes use of a Kalman filter, paragraph 0166 in HAHN teaches a filter used for calculating the orientation of the bicycle. Column 3, Lines 5-65 in Kimura teaches estimation and calculation for determining the rider engagement state to shift a bicycle transmission at an optimum time. HAHN and Kimura fail to explicitly disclose a Kalman filter. However, Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that a Kalman filter used for mathematically calculating or estimating processes is merely indicative or well known in the art at the effective filing date, where Kalman filters are used for fusing sensor signals taught by Xu et al. (US 20070005212 A1) (see para 0035, “Kalman filters provide a way to fuse IMU signals and absolute sensor signals”), as the Kalman filter itself is not critical to be distinctly result-effective features but may be selected by routine experimentation and/or a user’s interest/preference.
Regarding Claim 7, wherein the estimation method includes use of a nonlinear Kalman filter, paragraph 0166 in HAHN teaches a filter used for calculating the orientation of the bicycle. Column 3, Lines 5-65 in Kimura teaches estimation and calculation for determining the rider engagement state to shift a bicycle transmission at an optimum time. HAHN and Kimura fail to explicitly disclose a Kalman filter. However, Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that a nonlinear Kalman filter used for mathematically calculating or estimating processes is merely indicative or well known in the art at the effective filing date, as taught by Gustafsson (US 20040199300 A1) (see para 0148, “means that the relations are non linear and the extended Kalman filter must be used”), as the nonlinear Kalman filter itself is not critical to be distinctly result-effective features but may be selected by routine experimentation and/or a user’s interest/preference.
Regarding Claim 9, HAHN fails to explicitly disclose, but Kimura teaches wherein in the estimation method, the state of operating dynamics is estimated using a model, and in the case of changed, measured values, the estimated operating dynamics state is adjusted in light of the signals (Column 3, Lines 5-65/ note a rider engagement state estimated using the mathematical algorithm, which is indicative of mathematical equations.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HAHN to the mathematical algorithm (i.e., estimation model) used for estimating the rider engagement state as taught by Kimura.
Regarding Claim 10, HAHN teaches wherein the state of operating dynamics is ascertained using at least one sensor-specific parameter of a sensor, including an offset of the sensor and/or position of the sensor on the vehicle (Paragraphs [0173]-[0175] / note the state of operating dynamics can be the rider engagement state, which is found from an estimated (calculated) deacceleration which is based on the sensor data (provided signals); paragraphs [0028]-[0029], “receiving crank angular position data from an angular position sensor of the bicycle”).
Regarding Claim 11, HAHN teaches wherein a lateral and/or vertical speed of a rear wheel of the bicycle is neglected in the ascertaining of the current riding state (Paragraphs [0173]-[0175], 0089-[0091] / note sensor data of various sensor used for determining the state of operating dynamics (the rider engagement state)).
Regarding Claim 12, it is a device type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional limitation of a state determination device (Fig. 3, control system 300) is taught by HAHN.
Regarding Claim 13, it is a bicycle claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The additional limitations of a bicycle (Fig. 1) and a state determination device (Fig. 3, control system 300) are taught by HAHN.
2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAHN in view of Kimura and further in view of BRAGHIROLI et al. (US 20100180676 A1, hereinafter referred to as “BRAGHIROLI”).
HAHN in view of Kimura fails to explicitly disclose, but BRAGHIROLI teaches wherein the incremental encoder on a wheel of the bicycle (Para 0070, “The incremental encoder 19 is mechanically connected with a contact roller 20 which is in close contact to the tread surface 17 of the tire 13 of the wheel 12 under test. In particular, the incremental encoder 19 (the contact roller 20 thereof) touches the tread surface 17 of the tire 13, and the incremental encoder is rotated in close contact to the vehicle wheel 12 under test when the wheel 12 is rotated.”).
BRAGHIROLI is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of an incremental encoder included in a wheel diagnosis system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HAHN in view of Kimura to incorporate the teachings of BRAGHIROLI by providing an incremental encoder including a contact, taught by BRAGHIROLI.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HIGASHI et al. (US 20210197924 A1) teaches the time when the pulse signal is acquired from the vehicle speed sensor 43, and calculates the motor rotation speed based on the output signal of the motor rotation sensor 42 … output signal (pulse signal) of the vehicle speed sensor 43 (Para 0067-0070).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 on 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.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
