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 (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.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendment filed 02/11/2026.
Claims 1-10 are previously presented
Claims 11-12 are new.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, as determined by the Subject Matter Eligibility Test detailed below.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1 and 10 are directed to a method (process), and a system (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those shown in bold below.
A method for adjusting a motor torque of a motor of an electric bicycle having a motor cut-off speed, comprising the following steps:
detecting a speed signal, which describes a speed of the bicycle;
selecting a filter parameter for a filter unit based on dynamics of the speed signal, wherein the filter parameter is selected by applying different filtering strengths depending on the speed of the bicycle and the dynamics of the speed signal;
filtering the speed signal by the filter unit by applying the selected filter parameter; and
ascertaining a motor torque based on the filtered speed signal.
These limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as mathematical processes, in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recites abstract ideas. More specifically, at this level of breadth, other than the recitation of a “filter unit” nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites abstract limitations analogous to those identified above with respect to claim 1 and therefore recites abstract ideas per the same analysis.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements including those underlined below.
A method for adjusting a motor torque of a motor of an electric bicycle having a motor cut-off speed, comprising the following steps:
detecting a speed signal, which describes a speed of the bicycle;
selecting a filter parameter for a filter unit based on dynamics of the speed signal, wherein the filter parameter is selected by applying different filtering strengths depending on the speed of the bicycle and the dynamics of the speed signal;
filtering the speed signal by the filter unit by applying the selected filter parameter; and
ascertaining a motor torque based on the filtered speed signal.
The functions of the filter unit are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The recitation of a motor of an electric bicycle having a motor cut-off speed in the preamble amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). It is noted that claim 1 does not recite a control step that adjusts the motor torque applied to the electric bicycle.
The detecting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data for use in the selecting, filtering, and ascertaining steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 10 further recites “[a] device for adjusting a motor torque of a motor of bicycle, or an electric bicycle” in the preamble, which, similar to claim 1, also amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). It is noted that claim 10 also does not recite a control step that adjusts the motor torque applied to the electric bicycle.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the functions of the filter unit amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the recitation of the motor of the electric bicycle in the preamble (which does not constitute an active control step as currently recited) amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the detecting step amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). For example, the specification merely establishes that speed can be attained by a sensor, such as a reed sensor, which calculates the speed signal from pulses. In addition, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection of data is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Furthermore, Kitamura discusses that “bicycle speed, the bicycle acceleration, the bicycle deceleration and the bicycle inclination are obtained using conventional sensors (not shown) that are operatively connected by wires and/or wirelessly to the computer unit 30 and/or the shift communication unit 80” ([0054], lines 20-25).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 4-9, and 12 act to narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e., further characterizing the speed signal, the filter parameter, the torque ascertainment). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 acts to further characterize the filter unit as a “low-pass” filter. Limiting application of the abstract idea to a filter type is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Alternatively, if the low pass filter characterizes the software solution to achieve the filtering function, this limitation would amount to an abstract idea (e.g., using a graphical representation or algorithm to process signals relative to a cutoff frequency).
Examiner notes that claim 11 is not rejected under 35 USC § 101, because claim 11 positively recites a control action of adjusting the motor of the electric bicycle to provide the ascertained torque. This limitation provides a practical application of the judicial exception(s) recited in claim 1. Examiner suggests amending independent claims 1 and 10 to incorporate the content of claim 11. Such an amendment would overcome the subject matter eligibility rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180319457 A1 SANTUCCI; Mario Donato et al. (hereinafter Santucci), in view of US 20190308512 A1 HASUMI; Mitsuharu (hereinafter Hasumi), and further in view of US 6167340 A Cui; Xainzhong John et al. (hereinafter Cui).
Regarding claim 1, Santucci discloses: A method for adjusting a motor torque of a motor of an electric bicycle (see Santucci at least [0077], lines 1-2 calculating torque sent to motor)
detecting a speed signal, which describes a speed of the bicycle (see Santucci at least [0037], line 14 measuring the speed);
filtering the speed signal by the filter unit by applying the selected filter parameter (see Santucci at least [0095], line 4 – [0096], line 2 a proper first order low-pass filter); and
ascertaining a motor torque based on the filtered speed signal (see Santucci at least [0098], line 1 effective assistance value).
Santucci does not teach: an electric bicycle having a motor cut-off speed; and selecting a filter parameter for a filter unit based on dynamics of the speed signal, wherein the filter parameter is selected by applying different filtering strengths depending on the speed of the bicycle and the dynamics of the speed signal.
However, Hasumi teaches: an electric bicycle having a motor cut-off speed (see Hasumi at least [0171] When the vehicle speed is 24 km per hour or higher, the assist ratio is 1:0, namely, the assist output is zero).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric bicycle assistance torque determination method disclosed by Santucci to include the assistance cut-off limit of Hasumi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because various vehicle regulations prohibit motor assistance above a specific speed, as suggested by Hasumi (see Hasumi at least [0238] there is a regulation by which when the vehicle speed of the electric assist bicycle 1 is 10 km per hour or higher, the upper limit of the assist ratio should be gradually decreased, and when the vehicle speed is 24 km per hour or higher, the assist power should be zero).
Santucci and Hasumi do not teach: selecting a filter parameter for a filter unit based on dynamics of the speed signal, wherein the filter parameter is selected by applying different filtering strengths depending on the speed of the bicycle and the dynamics of the speed signal.
However, Cui teaches: selecting a filter parameter for a filter unit based on dynamics of the speed signal, wherein the filter parameter is selected by applying different filtering strengths depending on the speed of the bicycle and the dynamics of the speed signal (see Cui at least [col. 5, lines 28-32] the acceleration status of the vehicle and the operation mode of the speed control system 10 can be determined. Based on this information, the desired filter coefficients, i.e., Filter I or Filter II, are determined at block 56 and [col. 5, lines 58-61] The mode of operation may be any one of the following modes: set vehicle speed, accelerate vehicle speed, decelerate vehicle speed, resume vehicle speed, or cancel the speed control).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric bicycle assistance torque determination method disclosed by Santucci and Hasumi to include the speed signal-dependent speed signal filtering of Cui. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because consideration of speed signal characteristics allows a vehicle’s speed control to respond more appropriately to the current system circumstances, as suggested by Cui (see Cui at least [col. 3, line 66 – col, 4, line 3] To enhance the performance of the speed control system 10, it is thus desirable to provide a speed filter to address both requirements of the speed control system 10 and the speedometer when a set speed is selected while the actual vehicle speed is changing rapidly).
Regarding claim 2, Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui teach: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the dynamics of the speed signal are described by an acceleration of the bicycle (see Cui at least [col. 1, lines 48-50] An acceleration status of the vehicle is determined based on the speed signal wherein the acceleration status is either quick or slow).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric bicycle assistance torque determination method disclosed by Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui to include the acceleration-dependent speed signal filtering of Cui. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because consideration of speed signal characteristics allows a vehicle’s speed control to respond more appropriately to the current vehicle acceleration, as suggested by Cui (see Cui at least [col. 3, line 66 – col, 4, line 3] To enhance the performance of the speed control system 10, it is thus desirable to provide a speed filter to address both requirements of the speed control system 10 and the speedometer when a set speed is selected while the actual vehicle speed is changing rapidly).
Regarding claim 3, Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui disclose: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the filter unit includes a low-pass filter (see Santucci at least [0096], lines 1-2 low-pass filter).
Regarding claim 5, Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui disclose: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein, above a predefined first dynamics limit value, the filter parameter is set to a minimum value, at which, for the filter unit, a minimal filtering or no filtering of the speed signal occurs, such that no motor torque is provided when the actual speed of the vehicle is above a permissible maximum value for a motor assistance (see Hasumi at least [0171] When the vehicle speed is 24 km per hour or higher, the assist ratio is 1:0, namely, the assist output is zero).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric bicycle assistance torque determination method disclosed by Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui to include the assistance cut-off limit of Hasumi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because various vehicle regulations prohibit motor assistance above a specific speed, as suggested by Hasumi (see Hasumi at least [0238] there is a regulation by which when the vehicle speed of the electric assist bicycle 1 is 10 km per hour or higher, the upper limit of the assist ratio should be gradually decreased, and when the vehicle speed is 24 km per hour or higher, the assist power should be zero).
Regarding claim 8, Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui disclose: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein in the ascertainment of the motor torque based on the filtered speed signal, the motor torque is ascertained based on an assistance characteristic curve (see Santucci at least [0029] pedal assistance factor).
Regarding claim 9, Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui disclose: The method as recited in claim 8, wherein the assistance characteristic curve defines an assistance factor over a speed (see Santucci at least Fig. 12 speed [km/h]).
Regarding claim 11, Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui disclose: The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: adjusting the motor to provide the ascertained torque to the electric bicycle (see Santucci at least [0043] During the operation, the electronic control unit 50 controls the DC/AC converter 52 so that it provides supply currents to the electrical machine 60, which allow the electrical machine 60 to deliver a torque corresponding to a required assistance level).
Regarding claim 12, Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui disclose: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the speed signal is detected using a speed sensor mounted on the bicycle (see Santucci at least [0037] the onboard electronic system of the bicycle 1 includes a pedaling sensor 55, for example being provided with at least one magnet and at least one Hall sensor, connected to the electronic control unit 50. The pedaling sensor is operatively connected to the electronic control unit 50 and allows measuring the speed and/or the frequency of the pedaling and providing those measurements to the electronic control unit 50).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santucci, in view of Hasumi, further in view of Cui, and further in view of US 20160339987 A1 WALTHERT; MARTIN et al. (hereinafter Walthert).
Regarding claim 4, Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui disclose: The method as recited in claim 1.
Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui do not teach: wherein the filter parameter is selected in such a way that the speed signal is filtered to a lesser degree in a case of a first dynamics than in a case of a second dynamics, the first dynamics being greater than the second dynamics.
However, Walthert teaches: wherein the filter parameter is selected in such a way that the speed signal is filtered to a lesser degree in a case of a first dynamics than in a case of a second dynamics, the first dynamics being greater than the second dynamics (see Walthert at least [0029], lines 1-7 less filtering in the case of speed signals or acceleration signals which are relatively high).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric bicycle assistance torque determination method disclosed by Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui to include the increased dampening of lower acceleration signals and decreased dampening of higher acceleration signals of Walthert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such an acceleration-dependent dampening scheme allows the vehicle system to be more responsive at the times when responsiveness is most important, as suggested by Walthert (see Walthert at least [0030] An optimum result is achieved by means of this combination. In the case of strong signals, little filtering (or none at all) is carried out, with the result that the speed signal is (almost) used directly to adjust the damping. This is advantageous, since in the case of such real-time damping (in the case of “real” shocks), any delay can be disadvantageous).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santucci, in view of Hasumi, further in view of Cui, and further in view of US 5182460 A Hussman; Micha (hereinafter Hussman).
Regarding claim 6, Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui disclose: The method as recited in claim 5, wherein the filter parameter is selected as a function of an acceleration of the bicycle.
Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui do not teach: wherein the filter parameter is selected as a function of an acceleration of the bicycle in such a way that a degree of filtering of the speed signal rises over time when the acceleration is below a second dynamics limit value; and a degree of filtering of the speed signal falls over time when the acceleration is above the second dynamics limit value in order to provide a uniform assistance of the rider at the cut-off limit.
However, Hussman teaches: wherein the filter parameter is selected as a function of an acceleration of the bicycle in such a way that a degree of filtering of the speed signal rises over time when the acceleration is below a second dynamics limit value (see Hussman at least [col. 3, line 65 – col. 4, line 1] the time constant of the first filter F1 is… increased to longer time periods with decreasing positive or negative acceleration); and
a degree of filtering of the speed signal falls over time when the acceleration is above the second dynamics limit value in order to provide a uniform assistance of the rider at the cut-off limit (see Hussman at least [col. 3, lines 65 – 68] the time constant of the first filter F1 is decreased to shorter time periods with increasing positive or negative acceleration of the motor vehicle).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric bicycle assistance torque determination method disclosed by Santucci, Hasumi, and Cui to include the acceleration-dependent filter parameter adjustment of Hussman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because filtering signals based on the intensity of acceleration signals allows the vehicle system to respond quickly to abrupt stimuli such as high accelerations, as suggested by Hussman (see Hussman at least [col. 9, lines 44-49] upon large positive or negative accelerations of the motor vehicle, shorter filter time constants are made effective which assure that the great inclination changes which arise during large acceleration periods of the motor-vehicle body during regulation of the illumination range are as quickly as possible respected and "balanced out").
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santucci, in view of Hasumi, further in view of Cui, further in view of Hussman, and further in view of US 20210171154 A1 Baumgaertner; Daniel et al. (hereinafter Baumgaertner).
Regarding claim 7, Santucci, Hasumi, Cui, and Hussman disclose: The method as recited in claim 6.
Santucci, Hasumi, Cui, and Hussman do not teach: wherein the first dynamics limit value corresponds to a higher acceleration than the second dynamics limit value.
However, Baumgaertner teaches: wherein the first dynamics limit value corresponds to a higher acceleration than the second dynamics limit value (see Baumgaertner at least [0024] drops below a first longitudinal acceleration threshold value and/or exceeds a second longitudinal acceleration threshold value).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric bicycle assistance torque determination method disclosed by Santucci, Hasumi, Cui, and Hussman to include the multiple acceleration threshold values of Baumgaertner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because multiple thresholds allow motor torque controls to be more specifically constrained to meet the needs of the user, as suggested by Baumgaertner (see Baumgaertner at least [0024] a generation or an adaptation of the motor torque only taking place during acceleration phases desired by the user).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santucci, in view of Cui.
Regarding claim 10, Santucci discloses: A device for adjusting a motor torque of a motor of bicycle, or an electric bicycle, (see Santucci at least [0037], line 2 onboard electronic system) the device configured to:
detect a speed signal, which describes a speed of the bicycle (see Santucci at least [0037], line 14 measuring the speed);
filter the speed signal by the filter unit by applying the selected filter parameter (see Santucci at least [0095], line 4 – [0096], line 2 a proper first order low-pass filter);
and ascertain a motor torque based on the filtered speed signal (see Santucci at least [0098], line 1 effective assistance value).
Santucci does not teach: select a filter parameter for a filter unit based on a dynamics of the speed signal; wherein the dynamics of the speed signal are defined by a gradient of the speed signal over time, and the filter parameter is adapted in response to a change in the dynamics such that a filter characteristic of the filter unit is modified to reduce an influence of a speed signal fluctuation on the motor torque ascertainment.
However, Cui teaches: select a filter parameter for a filter unit based on a dynamics of the speed signal (see Cui at least [col. 5, lines 28-32] the acceleration status of the vehicle and the operation mode of the speed control system 10 can be determined. Based on this information, the desired filter coefficients, i.e., Filter I or Filter II, are determined at block 56);
wherein the dynamics of the speed signal are defined by a gradient of the speed signal over time (see Cui at least [col. 5, lines 63-65] The speed signal is examined to determine whether vehicle speed is changing slowly or quickly), and the filter parameter is adapted in response to a change in the dynamics such that a filter characteristic of the filter unit is modified to reduce an influence of a speed signal fluctuation on the motor torque ascertainment (see Cui at least [col. 3, lines 28-31] if a driver sets a desired vehicle speed when the vehicle speed is changing rapidly, the driver may perceive that the system set a speed slightly different than the speed desired and [col. 3, lines 60-63] there is even a more negligible perceived difference between the driver selected set speed for speed control operation and the reading on the speedometer).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric bicycle assistance torque determination device disclosed by Santucci to include the speed signal-dependent speed signal filtering of Cui. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because consideration of speed signal characteristics allows a vehicle’s speed control to respond more appropriately to the current system circumstances, as suggested by Cui (see Cui at least [col. 3, line 66 – col, 4, line 3] To enhance the performance of the speed control system 10, it is thus desirable to provide a speed filter to address both requirements of the speed control system 10 and the speedometer when a set speed is selected while the actual vehicle speed is changing rapidly).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 1-10, the applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues, “The present claims are rooted in a specific technical solution to a technical problem in the field of electric bicycles… In addition, the present invention improves ride comfort and regulatory compliance in a tangible way by dynamically adjusting the filter in response to real-world variations in bicycle speed, thereby integrating software logic with hardware in a practical application.” (from remarks page 5).
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Only claim 11 provides eligible subject matter by making use of the ascertained motor torque assistance value. By actually adjusting the output of the electric bicycle’s motor, the invention is influencing the rider’s experience as Applicant suggests. However, simply determining the amount of torque does not provide benefit to the rider of the electric bicycle if the torque value does not change the movement or output of the bicycle. As described above, the limitations of the independent claims alone (and dependent claims 2-10 and 12) ultimately sum to insignificant extra-solution activity relating to a judicial exception(s) without practical application or a solution to a problem. As such, the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 1-10 and 12 is sustained. However, Examiner recommends amending the independent claims to incorporate the limitations of claim 11, which would overcome the subject matter eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Regarding the arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 1-10, the applicant's arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
(B) Applicant argues, “The claims recite the feature of selecting a filter parameter for a filter unit based on dynamics of the speed signal, wherein the filter parameter is selected by applying different filtering strengths depending on the speed of the bicycle and the dynamics of the speed signal… Furthermore, Santucci does not filter the speed signal for torque control at all, and Hasumi merely provides a speed-based assistance cut-off without any speed-signal filtering or dynamic filter adaptation.”
As to point (B), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention, as written, does not preclude selecting between two filtering options for the speed signal filtering. For example, the “filter parameter” as claimed can correspond to the “filter coefficients, i.e., Filter I or Filter II” of Cui. While Applicant argues that Cui does not teach the limitation of the claimed invention because Cui allegedly does not disclose selecting or modifying a filter parameter of a single filter, Examiner notes that the claimed invention, as written, does not limit to a single filter. Instead, the claimed invention recites a “filter unit”, which, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be considered to be something that is or is related to a filter or the act of filtering. As such, the first speed filter logic and/or the second speed filter logic disclosed by Cui can be considered to be a filter unit which selects a filter parameter (i.e., filter coefficient) based on sensed system data. The selection of the filter coefficient by Cui occurs in response to an acceleration status which is determined from the speed signal itself (see Cui at least [col. 1]), and as such the speed signal and the “quick or slow” dynamics of the speed signal are both necessary precursors to the determination of the filtering. While Examiner understands that each cited reference does not contain every element of the claimed invention as written, the references, when viewed in combination with one another render the claimed invention obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230116010 A1 NO; Eun Jung et al. discloses filtering of bicycle parameters related to error in speed and torque
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 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 ELLE ROSE KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1742. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 ET M-F.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ELLE ROSE KNUDSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/9/26