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 .
Claims 1-14, 16, and 17 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 31 is 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.
In claim 31, the preamble of the claim recites a “method for controlling an electric motor of a bicycle”, however, no controlling steps are recited. The claim only recites data collection and some manipulation of data. It appears that applicant has inadvertently omitted the step of “generating a motor torque…” but that is unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 15, 18-19, 22, 24, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dackermann (EP3599153) in view of JP2018176888 to Tsuchizawa (JP’6888).
Regarding claim 15, Dackermann et al. teaches a method for controlling an electric motor 104 as a drive motor of a bicycle 100, the method comprising the following method steps: sensor-based detecting of pushing of the bicycle (pushing of bicycle determined by speed detected by speed sensors 113, 115; page 3 of translation, first full para of detailed description); acquiring an input of a user for activating a push-assistance operating mode (operate switch 108); and generating a motor torque for driving the bicycle in the push-assistance operating mode as a function of the detected pushing and the acquired input of the user (Dackermann, page 2 of translation, lines 2-12).
Dackerman lacks the step of displaying information for enabling the acquisition of the input as a function of the detected pushing for activating the push-assistance operating mode (it teaches displaying information for enabling the acquisition of the input but it is not clear that the display is responsive to detected pushing), or prior to generating the motor torque, displaying information for enabling the sensor-based detection of pushing as a function of the acquired input of the user for activating the push-assistance operating mode.
JP’6888 teaches a method of controlling an electric motor as a drive motor of a bicycle, having a user input at 58B that switches the control unit 72 to select a walking mode and a display device displays the currently selected mode, including the push/walking mode (see JP ‘888 translation, page 5, last 5 lines). When the control unit 72 switches from the assist mode to the push and walk mode, the control unit 72 is in a standby mode until additional input is received to activate the drive motor (page 6, lines 1-7). Therefore, JP’888 teaches: prior to generating the motor torque, displaying information for enabling the sensor-based detection of pushing as a function of the acquired input of the user for activating the push-assistance operating mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dackerman to include, prior to generating the motor torque, displaying information for enabling the sensor-based detection of pushing as a function of the acquired input of the user for activating the push-assistance operating mode, in view of JP’6888, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inform the user that the walk mode is available before positive drive control is in effect.
Regarding claim 24, Dackermann teaches: acquiring a camera image of at least a portion of an environment of the bicycle (see Dackermann translation, page 3, last three lines, page 4, lines 28-30); and detecting the pushing as a function of the acquired camera image (page 4, lines 25-30).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Dackermann teaches an electric bicycle 100 and a control device 107 configured to control an electric motor 104 as a drive motor of a bicycle, the control device configured to: sensor-based detect pushing of the bicycle (pushing of bicycle determined by speed detected by speed sensors 113, 115; page 3 of translation, first full para of detailed description); acquire an input of a user for activating a push-assistance operating mode (operate switch 108); and generate a motor torque for driving the bicycle in the push-assistance operating mode as a function of the detected pushing and the acquired input of the user (Dackermann, page 2 of translation, lines 2-12). The combination, as described above with respect to claim 15, further teaches a controller that, prior to generating the motor torque, displays information for enabling the sensor-based detection of pushing as a function of the acquired input of the user for activating the push-assistance operating mode.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Dackermann teaches acquiring a speed of the bicycle (step 420 in Figure 4; page 4, lines 18-23) and lateral acceleration (steering acceleration; page 4, lines 35-36); and detecting the pushing as a function of the acquired speed and acceleration. It is not clear if the speed of the bicycle is acquired prior to acquiring the input of the user. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to detect speed and acceleration both before as well as after acquiring input of the user from the switch, in order to continuously monitor for conditions and have that information available when required.
Regarding claim 22, Dackermann teaches the method further comprising: detecting a change in direction of the acquired acceleration in the direction of the transverse axis within a predefined time span (steering acceleration with a directional and time component), and detecting the pushing additionally as a function of the detected change in direction of the acquired acceleration in the direction of the transverse axis (pushing is detected as a function of steering acceleration).
JP ‘6888 teaches acquiring a pedaling variable of the user (rotation of the crank 32 detected by a crank rotation sensor 78); and detecting the pushing as a function of the acquired pedaling variable of the user (determination is made that if pedal torque is present, then the vehicle is not being pushed), and in the case of an acquired pedaling variable, no pushing is detected (push-walking mode is stopped when force is detected at the pedal; see page 6, lines 20-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dackerman to include the control steps of acquiring a pedaling variable of the user and detecting the pushing as a function of the acquired pedaling variable of the user, and in the case of an acquired pedaling variable, not pushing is detected
Regarding claim 27, Dackermann is silent regarding the display of the information taking place by adapting an illumination of a key for the input of the user for activating the push-assistance operating mode. However, Dackermann does teach providing a switch 108 on a touchpad. Touchpads, conventionally, indicate the availability of a button by illumination of an icon on the screen. It would have been an obvious design selection to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to signal the availability of a push-walking mode button, as taught by Dackermann, by illumination of a key on the touchscreen, in order to provide a readily visible and identifiable push-walking button to the user on the Dackermann touchscreen.
Claim(s) 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dackerman and JP2018176888 (JP’6888 to Tsuchizawa) as applied to claims 15, 18-19, 22, 24, and 27-29 above, and further in view of JP7165888 (JP’5888).
Regarding claims 26 and 31, the combination lacks a teaching that a pedaling variable of the user indicates no pushing is detected. JP’6888 does teach stopping the motor in walk-assist mode when pedaling is detected.
JP’5888 teaches acquiring a pedaling variable of the user, in particular a cadence and/or a driver torque (crank rotation sensor 31 and pedal force sensor 33 which inherently also determines torque at the pedal, page 3, liens 21-24); and detecting the pushing as a function of the acquired pedaling variable of the user (determination is made that if pedal torque is present, then the vehicle is not being pushed), and in the case of an acquired pedaling variable, no pushing is detected (push-walking mode is not executed when force is applied to the pedals, see page 3 of translation, lines 30-51, page 4, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination to include a pedal cadence and/or force sensor that determines if the vehicle is being pushed, in view of JP’888, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to incorporate the motor stopping safety feature into the motor control strategy of the Dackerman vehicle.
Claim(s) 15, 23, 25, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgaertner (PGPub 2018/0086417) in view of JP2018176888 (to Tsuchizawa) JP’6888.
Regarding claims 15, 28, and 29, Baumgaertner teaches an electric bicycle 100, control device 120, and method for controlling an electric motor 110 as a drive motor of a bicycle 100, the method comprising the following method steps: sensor-based detecting of pushing of the bicycle (sensors 130, 140, 145, detect parameters associated with pushing and used to determine level of assistance); acquiring an input of a user for activating a push-assistance operating mode (operate switch); and generating a motor torque for driving the bicycle in the push-assistance operating mode as a function of the detected pushing and the acquired input of the user (Baumgaertner, para [0022]).
Baumgaertner lacks the step of displaying information for enabling the acquisition of the input as a function of the detected pushing for activating the push-assistance operating mode (it teaches displaying information for enabling the acquisition of the input but it is not clear that the display is responsive to detected pushing), or prior to generating the motor torque, displaying information for enabling the sensor-based detection of pushing as a function of the acquired input of the user for activating the push-assistance operating mode.
JP’6888 teaches a method of controlling an electric motor as a drive motor of a bicycle, having a user input at 58B that switches the control unit 72 to select a walking mode and a display device displays the currently selected mode, including the push/walking mode (see JP ‘888 translation, page 5, last 5 lines). When the control unit 72 switches from the assist mode to the push and walk mode, the control unit 72 is in a standby mode until additional input is received to activate the drive motor (page 6, lines 1-7). Therefore, JP’6888 teaches: prior to generating the motor torque, displaying information for enabling the sensor-based detection of pushing as a function of the acquired input of the user for activating the push-assistance operating mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Baumgaertner to include, prior to generating the motor torque, displaying information for enabling the sensor-based detection of pushing as a function of the acquired input of the user for activating the push-assistance operating mode, in view of JP’6888, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inform the user that the walk mode is available before positive drive control is in effect.
Regarding claim 23, Baumgaertner teaches acquiring a rotation of a rotor of the electric motor (para [0020], lines 5-9; first sensor 130 can be a torque sensor that detects motor rotation); and detecting the pushing as a function of the acquired rotor rotation (para [0020], lines 9-13; pushing is determined based on motor rotation).
Regarding claim 25, Baumgaertner teaches acquiring a force of the user in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the bicycle on a handlebar of the bicycle (force sensor on the handlebars detects manual pushing by the cyclist; para [0020], last 4 line); and detecting the pushing as a function of the acquired force of the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 21 are allowed.
Claim 30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15, 18, 19, 22-29, and 31 have been considered but are moot because JP2018176888 is now relied upon for the subject matter that is the subject of applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP3546332 and JP2020069985 teach push-walk controls and displays that inform the user of the selected assist mode.
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 Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/