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 . 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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 8-10 are pending and have been examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 8-10 rejected under 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8
Applicant’s claim states “wherein the state value of the connection wire group includes....whether or not the vehicle controller, the torque sensor, the motor unit the battery unit, and each of node states of the connection wire group are normally connected...” (emphasis added). 0033 of Applicant’s specification states “The state value of the connection wire group 14 further includes a connection node state of the vehicle controller 11, the torque sensor 12, the motor unit 13 and the battery unit 15 that are connected to the connection wire group 14. That is, whether or not the vehicle controller 11, the torque sensor 12, the motor unit 13 and the battery unit 15 are normally connected can also be detected by the vehicle detection unit 2.” Based on 0033 of the specification, it does not appear that a node state of the connection wire group is something that can be “normally connected.” Instead, the node state appears to simply describe the state or status of a connection to the wire connection group by the vehicle controller, the torque sensor, the motor unit the battery unit. There appears to be no support in the specification for the concept of each of node states of the connection wire group being “normally connected”.
The amendment to the claims is thus deemed as new matter for lacking support in the original disclosure. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to recite different subject matter, or amend the claims to clarify unintended interpretation of the claims. Claims dependent on the above claims do not remedy their deficiencies, so they are rejected for similar reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 USC 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 8-10 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8
Applicant’s claim states “wherein the state value of the connection wire group includes....whether or not the vehicle controller, the torque sensor, the motor unit the battery unit, and each of node states of the connection wire group are normally connected...” (emphasis added). It is not clear what is meant by the whether or not each of node states of the connection wire group are normally connected. As discussed regarding claim 8 under 35 USC 112a above, the node states of the connection wire group, based on 0033 of Applicant’s specification, appear to suggest the state or status of a connection to the wire connection group by the vehicle controller, the torque sensor, the motor unit the battery unit, and whether or not that connection is “normal”. It is not clear what is meant by a node state being connected.
In the instance(s) above, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claims, thus rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite. Correction is required. Claims dependent on the above claims do not remedy their deficiencies, so they are rejected for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 USC 112a and 112b, but would be allowable if the rejections were overcome. The aforementioned claim(s) is/are indicated as allowable due to the presence of the following subject matter: providing a vehicle detection signal to the electric bicycle by the vehicle detection unit; providing, according to the vehicle detection signal, a plurality of state values of the vehicle controller, the torque sensor, the motor unit, the battery unit, and the connection wire group to the vehicle detection unit by the vehicle controller of the electric bicycle to the server; and providing, according to the plurality of state values of the vehicle controller, the torque sensor, the motor unit, the battery unit, and the connection wire group, a vehicle detection report by the server; wherein the state value of the connection wire group includes a connection node state of the vehicle controller, the torque sensor, the motor unit and the battery unit that are connected to the connection wire group and the status of the connection wire group, and whether or not the vehicle controller, the torque sensor, the motor unit, the battery unit, and each of node states of the connection wire group are normally connected and detected by the vehicle detection unit. The closest prior art of record is US20140209400 and US20160318477, which generally disclose the electrical component systems for an electric bicycle and general detection of the state of connections of components in the bicycle. While relevant to the claims, the prior art does not provide sufficient disclosure, teaching or suggestion to adequately provide a basis for rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 or 103 because a rejection based on the found prior art would only being made based on impermissible hindsight and the prior art found does not sufficiently teach nor suggest the limitations as claimed, hence the allowability of the claims. Examiner notes that amendment to the claims resulting in a change of scope may result in requirement of an updated search.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Examiner Krishnan Ramesh, whose telephone number is (571)272-6407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Abby Flynn, can be reached at (571)272-9855. 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.
/KRISHNAN RAMESH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663