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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over patent application publication number US 2019/0256167 A1 to Tsuchizawa et al. (hereinafter referred to as Tsuchizawa), further in view of patent application publication number US 20200393839 A1 to Hasegawa et al. (hereinafter referred to as Hasegawa)
Regarding claim 1, Tsuchizawa discloses a control system (control device 60) for a human-powered vehicle (capable of being used with a human-powered vehicle 10), having at least a seat and a cargo bed separate from the seat (neither the human-powered vehicle, the seat nor the cargo bed are being positively claimed; see detailed discussion in the Response to Arguments, below; also see MPEP 2111.02 – II – Effect of Preamble … Intended Use), the control system comprising:
[Claim 1] a pressure detector (sensor 68D; Paragraph [0074]) configured to be provided to a cargo bed (saddle 29A is inherently configured to accommodate any cargo placed onto it including human cargo) of the human-powered vehicle;
an electrical component (motor 34 and suspension device 50); and
an electronic controller (electronic controller 62) configured to control the electrical component in accordance with a position of a cargo disposed on the cargo bed, the position of the cargo being detected by the pressure detector (the electronic controller 62 determines the posture of the rider”, seated or unseated; Paragraph [0074], thus 62 is inherently configured to detect position/presence of similar cargo placed on the saddle or cargo carried by the rider).
However, Tsuchizawa does not disclose the pressure sensor is used to determine whether a position of the cargo disposed on a surface of the cargo bed is a first position or a second position, the first position being a first region of the surface and the second position being a second region of the surface that is different from the first region.
Hasegawa discloses a vehicle and storage medium comprising a position sensor (72) for detecting if the position of a cargo (500), carried on the vehicle (Paragraph [0083]) is a first position on the vehicle or a second position on the vehicle, that is different from the first position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Tsuchizawa to include a position sensor that detects the position of cargo carried by a vehicle, to enable the vehicle to remain balanced during transport.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Tsuchizawa, modified by Hasegawa, discloses the control system according to claim 1. Tsuchizawa further discloses:
[Claim 2] wherein the electrical component (motor 34 and suspension device 50) includes a drive unit (motor 34) including a motor that applies a propulsive force to the human-powered vehicle (human-powered vehicle 10); and
[Claim 9] wherein the electrical component (motor 34 and suspension device 50) includes at least one of a drive unit (motor 34), an electric suspension (suspension device 50), an electric seatpost, an electric rear derailleur, an electric front derailleur, an electric clutch, an electronic terminal, a display, a vibration generator, a light generator, and a sound generator.
Regarding claims 11 – 14, Tsuchizawa modified by Hasegawa disclose the control device according to claim 1. Neither Tsuchizawa nor Hasegawa disclose:
[Claim 11] wherein the first position is located at an end of the cargo bed;
[Claim 12] wherein the cargo bed includes a fence, and the first position is adjacent to the fence;
[Claim 13.] wherein the second position is located at a central portion of the cargo bed; and
[Claim 14] wherein the cargo bed includes at least one fence, the first position is adjacent to a low fence portion, and the second position is located at a high fence portion that is higher than the low fence portion.
Keeping in mind that the claims do not positively recite a cargo bed, Hasegawa discloses a vehicle and storage medium comprising a position sensor (72) capable detecting the position of a cargo (500) carried on the vehicle (Paragraph [0083]). The position sensor of Hasegawa, by its nature and intent, is capable of detecting the position of cargo whether on the cargo bed, on a fence surrounding a cargo bed or a center of the cargo bed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Tsuchizawa to include a position sensor that detects the position of cargo carried anywhere on the vehicle, to advantageously detect a tipping condition or a potential loss of cargo.
Claims 3, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchizawa in view of Hasegawa, and further in view of patent application publication number US 2021/0171154 A1 to Baumgaertner et al. (hereinafter referred to as Baumgaertner).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 8, Tsuchizawa, modified by Hasegawa, discloses the control system of claims 1 and 2. Tsuchizawa does not disclose:
[Claim 3] the electronic controller is configured to set a maximum output value of the motor to a first output value upon determining the cargo is disposed at a first position;
[Claim 4] the electronic controller is configured to set the maximum output value of the motor to a second output value greater than the first output value upon determining the cargo is disposed at a second position different from the first position; and
[Claim 8] the pressure detector is further configured to detect a weight of the cargo disposed on the cargo bed.
Baumgaertner discloses a method of controlling an electric bicycle, comprising:
[Claim 3] an electronic controller (control unit 130) configured to set a maximum output value of the motor to a first output value upon determining the cargo is disposed at a first position (generating an assistance force, step 290, based on the lack of the presence of cargo in transport container 120, as in step 230, Fig. 2; Paragraph [0025]);
[Claim 4] the electronic controller (control unit 130) is configured to set the maximum output value of the motor to a second output value greater than the first output value upon determining the cargo is disposed at a second position different from the first position (generating an assistance force, step 290, based on the presence of cargo in transport container 120, as in step 230, Fig. 2; Paragraph [0025]); and
[Claim 8] a pressure detector (weight sensor 141) further configured to detect a weight of the cargo disposed on a cargo bed (transport container 120, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Tsuchizawa’s vehicle, to further have the configuration taught by Baumgaertner, above, to use the weight and presence of cargo in determining the pedal assistance force.
Regarding claims 5 – 7, Tsuchizawa, modified by Hasegawa, discloses a control system according to claim 1. Tsuchizawa discloses wherein:
[Claim 5] the electrical component (motor 34 and suspension device 50) includes a notification device (suspension device 50) that notifies a state of the rider (the state of the suspension unit indicates whether the rider is seated or unseated; Paragraphs [0088] – [0089], S16, Fig. 5);
[Claim 6] the electronic controller (electronic controller 62) is configured to cause the notification device (suspension device 50) to perform a first notification operation upon determining the rider is disposed at a first position (1st suspension unit to unlocked state, when rider is in an unseated state,S16, Fig. 5; Paragraphs [0088] – [0089]);
[Claim 7] the electronic controller (electronic controller 62) is configured to cause the notification device (suspension device 50) to perform a second notification operation different from the first notification operation upon determining the rider is disposed at a second position (1st suspension unit to unlocked state and 2nd suspension to locked state when rider is in seated state, S15, Fig. 5; Paragraphs [0088] – [0089]).
Tsuchizawa does not teach the notification device notifies a state of the cargo, is configured to perform a first notification operation upon determining the cargo is disposed in a first position nor to perform a second notification operation different from the first notification operation upon determining the cargo is disposed at a second position. However, Baumgaertner discloses a human-powered vehicle (100) that includes a cargo holder (transport container 120) having a sensor (weight sensor 141). It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Tsuchizawa’s bicycle such that the notification device (suspension device 50) does the first notification operation upon determining the cargo, separately from the rider, is at a first position such as not present in the cargo holder, and does a second notification operation upon determining the cargo, separately from the rider, is at a second position, such as present in the cargo holder, to properly tune the suspension for a more comfortable ride.
Claims 10 and 15 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchizawa, in view of Baumgaertner, and further in view of Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 10, Tsuchizawa discloses a control device (control device 60) for a human-powered vehicle (capable of being used with human-powered vehicle 10) having at least a seat and a cargo bed separate from the seat (however, the vehicle, seat and cargo bed are not being positively claimed), the control device comprising;
an electronic controller (electronic controller 62) configured to control an electrical component (motor 34 and suspension device 50) of the human-powered vehicle in accordance with a position of a cargo disposed on a surface of the cargo bed (the electronic controller 62 determines the posture of the rider”, seated or unseated; Paragraph [0074], thus 62 is inherently configured to detect position/presence of similar cargo placed on the saddle or cargo carried by the rider or human cargo).
Tsuchizawa does not disclose an electronic controller configured to control an electrical component of the human-powered vehicle in accordance with a position of a cargo disposed on a cargo bed, the position of the cargo being detected by a pressure detector configured to be provided to the cargo bed of the human-powered vehicle and used to determine whether the position of the cargo disposed on the surface of the cargo bed is a first position or a second position, the first position being a first region of the surface and the second position being a second region of the surface that is different from the first region.
Baumgaertner discloses an electronic controller (control unit 130) configured to control an electrical component (output pinion 113) of a human-powered vehicle (electric bicycle 100) according with a position of cargo disposed on a surface of a cargo bed (transport container 120, Fig. 1), the position of the cargo being detected by a pressure detector (weight sensor 141) configured to be provided to the cargo bed (the weight sensor 141 can detect the presence of cargo or the lack thereof, in the transport container 120; Paragraph [0023]) of the human-powered vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Tsuchizawa to have a cargo bed with a sensor, such that Tsuchizawa’s controller controls the electrical components in accordance to the position of the cargo, to enable Tsuchizawa’s vehicle to carry additional cargo, separate from the seat.
Furthermore, although this claim does not positively claim a cargo bed, a first position and a second position, Tsuchizawa is also not capable of determining a first position and a different second position of cargo on a cargo bed, because Tsuchizawa discloses a pressure sensor not a position sensor.
Hasegawa discloses a vehicle and storage medium comprising a position sensor (72) for detecting the position of a cargo (500) carried on the vehicle (Paragraph [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Tsuchizawa to include a position sensor that detects the position of cargo carried by a vehicle, to enable the vehicle to remain balanced during transport.
Regarding claims 15 – 18, Tsuchizawa modified by Baumgaertner and Hasegawa, disclose the control device according to claim 10. Neither Tsuchizawa nor Baumgaertner disclose:
[Claim 15] wherein the first position is located at an end of the cargo bed;
[Claim 16] wherein the cargo bed includes a fence, and the first position is adjacent to the fence;
[Claim 17] wherein the second position is located at a central portion of the cargo bed; and
[Claim 18] wherein the cargo bed includes at least one fence, the first position is adjacent to a low fence portion, and the second position is located at a high fence portion that is higher than the low fence portion.
Keeping in mind that the claims do not positively recite a cargo bed, Hasegawa discloses a vehicle and storage medium comprising a position sensor (72) capable detecting the position of a cargo (500) carried on the vehicle (Paragraph [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Tsuchizawa to include a position sensor that detects the position of cargo carried anywhere on the vehicle, to detect a tipping condition or a potential loss of cargo.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amended the claims 1 and 10 and submitted new claims 11 – 14 and 15 – 18 in the amendment filed January 6, 2026. These amendments have been fully considered. The Examiner would like to note that applicant does not positively claim a human-powered vehicle, a seat nor a cargo bed. Those limitations are not considered to be within the metes and bounds of the claims. Applicants have only claimed “a control system”, “an electrical component” and an “electrical system” capable of determining the position of cargo on a cargo bed among two different position on the cargo bed. Also, since applicant has not positively claimed the cargo bed, the fence is also not positively claimed. If applicants intend to claim the human-powered vehicle and its components, then applicants must amend the claims to positively recite those components. The Examiner believes, between Tsuchizawa, Baumgaertner and Hasegawa, a human-powered vehicle, comprising a cargo bed and a control system capable of determining the position of cargo on a cargo bed is taught.
Conclusion
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 Felicia L Brittman-Alabi whose telephone number is (313)446-6512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6.
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.
/Felicia L. Brittman-Alabi/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611