DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Shahana et al. US 20200062345 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Shahana et al. discloses [a control device 50 for a human-powered vehicle 10,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0058) wherein [the human- powered vehicle includes a pair of pedals 30,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0059) [a pair of crank arms 28 connected to the pedals,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0059) [a crank axle 26 connected to the crank arms,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0059) [a first rotational body 14 connected to the crank axle,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0059) [a wheel 16, 38 including a tire,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0061) [a second rotational body 18 connected to the wheel,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0059) [a linking body 20 engaged with the first rotational body and the second rotational body and configured to transmit driving force between the first rotational body and the second rotational body,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0059) [a derailleur 22 configured to operate the linking body to change a transmission ratio of a rotational speed of the wheel to a rotational speed of the crank axle,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0063) [a motor 52 configured to drive the linking body,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0064) [a handlebar 24C, and a saddle,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0061) [the control device comprising: an electronic controller 56 configured to output a signal to control the motor,] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0064) [the electronic controller being further configured to output a signal to change the transmission ratio by operating the linking body with the derailleur while driving the linking body with the motor in a case where a first condition related to pedaling is satisfied;] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0077) and [the first condition includes a condition related to at least one of a state of an angular acceleration of the crank axle, a rotational state of the first rotational body, a state of the tire, a rotational state of the second rotational body, an operational state of the linking body, a rotational speed of a pulley of the derailleur, a rotational state of the motor, an electric energy supplied to the motor, a state of the handlebar, a state of the saddle, and positional information of the human-powered vehicle.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0077; Shahana et al. discloses that the controller 56 can generate a signal to change the transmission ratio in accordance with at least one of the riding state and environment of the human powered vehicle.)
Regarding claim 13, Shahana et al., discloses [wherein a condition includes a condition related to the operational state of the linking body; and the condition related to the operational state of the linking body is satisfied in a case where a moving speed of the linking body is less than or equal to a predetermined moving speed.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0067; Shahana et al. discloses a crank rotation sensor 64 that detects the rotational speed of the crank 12. As described, the crank rotation sensor is coupled to a component that rotates integrally with the crankshaft 26, which lies along the power transmission path from the crankshaft to the first rotational body. Since the linking body is mechanically engaged with the crankshaft, the rotational speed of the crank directly corresponds to the movement of the linking body. Therefore, by detecting the crank speed, the controller indirectly determines the operational state of the linking body. Additionally, the limitation regarding the movement speed of the linking body being less than or equal to a predetermined value does not require the reference to disclose a specific predetermined value. The claim only requires that the condition be satisfied “in a case”, which permits a broad interpretation of the situation.)
Regarding claim 14, Shahana et al. discloses [wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine that the condition related to the operational state of the linking body is satisfied based on a signal received from a sixth detector 64 that detects the operational state of the linking body.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0067)
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 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahana et al. in view of Tsuchizawa et al. JP 2020172264 A.
Regarding claim 2, Shahana et al. does not disclose wherein the first condition includes a condition related to the angular acceleration of the crank axle, and is satisfied in a case where the angular acceleration of the crank axle is less than or equal to a predetermined angular acceleration.
Tsuchizawa et al. teaches [wherein the condition includes a condition related to the angular acceleration of the crank axle, and is satisfied in a case where the angular acceleration of the crank axle is less than or equal to a predetermined angular acceleration.] (Page 5, lines 40-47)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the angular acceleration-based condition of Tsuchizawa et al. with the control device of Shahana et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for more precise and responsive shifting based on rider input dynamics, thus improving gear shift timing and ride smoothness during periods of low or changing pedal acceleration.
Regarding claim 3, Shahana et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine that the condition related to the angular acceleration of the crank axle is satisfied based on a signal received from a first detector 56 that detects the angular acceleration of the crank axle.] (Page 4, lines 35-47; Shahana et al. discloses a crank rotation sensor 56 that outputs a signal corresponding to the rotational speed and rotation angle of the crank 28. The sensor is connected to a control unit 72, which receives a signal. In particular, the sensor includes either a magnetic sensor or an acceleration sensor provided on the crank arm or crankshaft. The acceleration sensor outputs a signal that includes a tilt angle, which the control unit uses to calculate the rotation angle of the crank. Thus, naturally measuring linear or angular acceleration, and its output signal may reflect acceleration along one or more axes.)
Regarding claim 9, Shahana et al. does not disclose wherein the first condition includes a condition related to the rotational state of the first rotational body; and the condition related to the rotational state of the first rotational body is satisfied in at least one of a case where a rotational speed of the first rotational body is less than or equal to a first rotational speed and an angular acceleration of the first rotational body is less than or equal to a first angular acceleration.
Tsuchizawa et al. teaches [wherein the condition includes a condition related to the rotational state of the first rotational body; and the condition related to the rotational state of the first rotational body is satisfied in at least one of a case where a rotational speed of the first rotational body is less than or equal to a first rotational speed and an angular acceleration of the first rotational body is less than or equal to a first angular acceleration.] (Page 5, lines 40-47; Tsuchizawa discloses that the control unit 72 monitors and responds to the rotational state of the crank 28, including its rotational speed VA and angular acceleration DA, to control braking force. The breaking force is adjusted according to the rotational speed and angular acceleration. Thus, teaching that the rotational speed and angular acceleration of the crank is being monitored and compared to a threshold. Additionally, as the first rotational body (crank gear) rotates directly with the crank 28, the rotational speed and angular acceleration of the crank would be directly proportional to those of the first rotational body.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the rotational state-based condition of Tsuchizawa et al. with the control device of Shahana et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for gear shifting to occur based on real-time rotational characteristics of the drivetrain, thus improving shift timing and reducing drivetrain wear during transitions in rider effort.
Regarding claim 10, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine that the condition related to the rotational state of the first rotational body is satisfied based on a signal received from a fourth detector 56 that detects the rotational state of the first rotational body.] (Page 4, lines 35-47; Shahana et al. discloses a crank rotation sensor 56 that outputs a signal corresponding to the rotational speed and rotation angle of the crank 28. The sensor is connected to a control unit 72, which receives a signal. In particular, the sensor includes either a magnetic sensor or an acceleration sensor provided on the crank arm or crankshaft. The acceleration sensor outputs a signal that includes a tilt angle, which the control unit uses to calculate the rotation angle of the crank. Thus, naturally measuring linear or angular acceleration, and its output signal may reflect acceleration along one or more axes. Additionally, referring back to the clarification in claim 9, as the first rotational body (crank gear) rotates directly with the crank 28, the rotational speed and angular acceleration of the crank would be directly proportional to those of the first rotational body.)
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahana et al. in view of Miyamae JP 2022161319 A.
Regarding claim 4, Shahana et al. does not disclose wherein the first condition includes a condition related to the rotational state of the motor; and the condition related to the rotational state of the motor includes a condition related to a rotational speed of the motor, and is satisfied in a case where the rotational speed of the motor is less than or equal to a predetermined motor rotational speed.
Miyamae teaches [wherein the condition includes a condition related to the rotational state of the motor; and the condition related to the rotational state of the motor includes a condition related to a rotational speed of the motor, and is satisfied in a case where the rotational speed of the motor is less than or equal to a predetermined motor rotational speed.] (Page 7, lines 7-16; Miyamae discloses a condition determination unit 71g that determines whether a condition has been met based on the rotational speed of the motor 54, as calculated by a motor rotation speed calculation unit 71d. Specifically, the condition is satisfied when the ratio between the rotational speed of the motor and the rotational speed of the crankshaft is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold. The motor control unit adjusts the motor speed by controlling the electric power supplied to the motor 54, confirming that the controller acts based on the evaluated motor speed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the motor rotation speed-based condition of Miyamae with the control device of Shahana et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for optimized gear shifting when the motor is under low rotational load, thus improving drivetrain efficiency and reducing wear during low-speed motor operation.
Regarding claim 6, Shahana et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine that the condition related to the rotational state of the motor is satisfied based on a signal received from a second detector 60 that detects the rotational state of the motor.] (Fig. 4; Page 4, lines 36-45)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahana et al. in view of Eda et al. US 20220097799 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Shahana et al. does not disclose wherein the first condition includes a condition related to the rotational state of the motor; and the condition related to the rotational state of the motor includes a condition related to a rotational amount of the motor, and is satisfied in a case where the rotational amount of the motor is less than or equal to a predetermined motor rotational amount.
Eda et al. teaches [wherein the first condition includes a condition related to the rotational state of the motor; and the condition related to the rotational state of the motor includes a condition related to a rotational amount of the motor, in a case where the rotational amount of the motor is less than or equal to a predetermined motor rotational amount.] (Paragraph 0070; Eda et al. discloses a motor monitoring unit that acquires values relating to the drive of the motor, including electric current, voltage, number of rotations, and rotation speed. The processor or motor drive circuit uses the acquired number of rotations to determine whether to execute a process or operation, indicating a condition based on the rotational amount of the motor. Additionally, it is noted that stating “in a case…” merely describes an example scenario on which the condition maybe satisfied. The claimed condition is not limited to only that case. Therefore, the reference does not need to disclose this specific example, so long as it teaches the broader concept of a condition based on the motor’s rotational amount.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the motor rotational amount-based condition of Eda et al. with the control device of Shahana et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for control decisions to be based on motor usage and performance, thus improving responsiveness and system protection under specific ridging or load conditions and enhancing system reliability and user experience.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahana et al. in view of Hahn et al. US 20200262516 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Shahana et al. does not disclose wherein the first condition includes a condition related to the electric energy supplied to the motor and is satisfied in a case where a current value of the electric energy is less than or equal to a predetermined current value.
Hahn et al. teaches [wherein the condition includes a condition related to the electric energy supplied to the motor and is satisfied in a case where a current value of the electric energy is less than or equal to a predetermined current value.] (Paragraph 0133; Hahn et al. discloses that when using the assist motor to facilitate shifting, a threshold for the amount of current consumed by the assist motor may be defined. Hahn explains that this current is proportional to the torque the assist motor applies to the drivetrain. By monitoring the current supplied to the motor, the system determines whether to shut down or control the assist motor based on whether the current exceeds or falls below a predetermined value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the current-based motor control condition of Hahn et al. with the control device of Shahana et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for gear shifting decisions to be based on real-time motor conditions, thus improving shift performance and protecting the motor under low-power operation.
Regarding claim 8, Shahana et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine that the condition related to the electric energy supplied to the motor is satisfied based on a signal received from a third detector 308 that detects the electric energy supplied to the motor.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0090)
Claims 11-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahana et al. in view of Hahn et al. US 20200262511 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Shahana et al. does not discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition related to the rotational state of the second rotational body; and the condition related to the rotational state of the second rotational body is satisfied in at least one of a case where a rotational speed of the second rotational body is less than or equal to a second rotational speed and an angular acceleration of the second rotational body is less than or equal to a second angular acceleration.
Hahn et al. ‘511 teaches [wherein the first condition includes a condition related to the rotational state of the second rotational body; and the condition related to the rotational state of the second rotational body is satisfied in at least one of a case where a rotational speed of the second rotational body is less than or equal to a second rotational speed and an angular acceleration of the second rotational body is less than or equal to a second angular acceleration.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0090; Hahn et al. discloses that the wheel speed sensor 306 detects the rotational state of the rear wheel 114, which corresponds to the second rotational body. The sensor may be implemented using a spoke magnet and Hall effect sensor or using a gyroscope and accelerometer, which are capable of detecting rotational speed and angular acceleration. Although Hahn does not explicitly recite a specific rotational speed and angular acceleration threshold, such a threshold is not required, as the claim only requires that the condition be satisfied “in at least one of a case” where the rotational speed or angular acceleration is less than or equal to a second threshold. Thus, the reference satisfies this limitation by allowing detection of rotational parameters that could be compared to a threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the second rotational body speed-based condition of Hahn et al. ‘511 with the control device of Shahana et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the control device to make gear-shifting or motor control decisions based on the rotational state of the second rotational body, thus improving the bicycles responsiveness and comfortability.
Regarding claim 12, Shahana et al., as modified above, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine that the condition related to the rotational state of the second rotational body is satisfied based on a signal received from a fifth detector 306 that detects the rotational state of the second rotational body.] (Fig. 3 of Hahn et al. ‘511; Paragraph 0090 of Hahn et al. ‘511)
Regarding claim 15, Shahana et al. further teaches [wherein the derailleur includes a pulley around which the linking body is wound.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0063; As shown in Fig. 1; Shahana et al. illustrates wherein the derailleur RD includes a pulley around which the linking body 20 is wound.)
Shahana et al. does not disclose wherein the first condition includes a condition related to the operational state of the derailleur; and the condition related to the operational state of the derailleur is satisfied in a case where a rotational speed of the pulley is less than or equal to a predetermined pulley rotational speed.
Hahn et al. ‘511 teaches [wherein the first condition includes a condition related to the operational state of the derailleur; and the condition related to the operational state of the derailleur is satisfied in a case where a rotational speed of the pulley is less than or equal to a predetermined pulley rotational speed.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0090; Hahn discloses that the pedal speed sensor 304 detects the rotational speed of the crankarms 130. The rotational state of the crank arms, as detected by the pedal speed sensor 304, is directly correlated to the rotational and operational state of the derailleur pulleys, since the chain transmits pedaling force from the crank arms to the rear cassette through the derailleur. Therefore, the data reflecting the rotation of the pedal corresponds to the operation of the derailleur. Although Hahn does not explicitly recite a specific predetermined pulley rotational speed, such a threshold is not required, as the claim only requires that the condition be satisfied “in a case” where a rotational speed of the pulley is less than or equal to a predetermined pulley rotational speed. Thus, the reference satisfies this limitation by allowing detection of rotational parameters that could be compared to a threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the pulley operational state-based condition of Hahn et al. ‘511 with the control device of Shahana et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for gear shifting or control decisions to be made based on sensed rotational behavior of the derailleur components, thus enhancing drivetrain responsiveness and functionality based on rider input conditions.
Regarding claim 16, Shahana et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine that the condition related to the operational state of the derailleur is satisfied based on a signal received from a seventh detector 304 that detects the rotational speed of the pulley.] (Fig. 3 of Hahn et al.; Paragraph 0090 of Hahn et al.)
Regarding claim 17, Shahana et al. does not disclose wherein the first condition includes a condition related to the operational state of the derailleur; the derailleur includes a base provided on a frame of the human-powered vehicle and an operation portion that is attached to the base and movable relative to the base; and the condition related to the operational state of the derailleur is satisfied in a case where an operational state of the operation portion is a predetermined operational state.
Hahn et al. ‘511 teaches [wherein the first condition includes a condition related to the operational state of the derailleur;] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0090; Hahn et al. discloses that the pedal speed sensor 304 detects the rotational speed of the crank arms 130. The rotational state of the crank arms is directly correlated to the operational state of the derailleur, as the chain transmits pedaling force from the crankarms to the rear cassette through the derailleur. ) [the derailleur includes a base provided on a frame of the human-powered vehicle and an operation portion that is attached to the base and movable relative to the base;] (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0081) and [the condition related to the operational state of the derailleur is satisfied in a case where an operational state of the operation portion is a predetermined operational state.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0090; Although Hahn does not explicitly disclose a specific predetermined operational state, such a threshold in not required to be met, as the claim merely requires that the condition is satisfied “in a case” where the operational state is the predetermined one.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the derailer operational state-based condition of Hahn et al. ‘511 with the control device of Shahana et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for monitoring and decision-making based on the derailleur’s operational state, thus facilitating more precise control of shifting operations using existing sensor infrastructure.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahana et al. in view of Suzuki et al. DE 102019202800 A1.
Regarding independent claim 26, Shahana et al. discloses [a control device 50 for a human-powered vehicle 10,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0058) wherein [the human- powered vehicle includes a crank axle 26,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0058) [a first rotational body 14 connected to the crank axle,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0059) [a wheel 16,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0059) [a second rotational body 18 connected to the wheel,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0059) [a linking body 20 engaged with the first rotational body and the second rotational body and configured to transmit driving force between the first rotational body and the second rotational body,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0059) [a derailleur 22 configured to operate the linking body to change a transmission ratio of a rotational speed of the wheel to a rotational speed of the crank axle,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0063) and [a motor configured to drive the linking body,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0064) [the control device comprising: an electronic controller 56 configured to output a signal to control the motor,] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0064) [the electronic controller being further configured to output a signal to change the transmission ratio by operating the linking body with the derailleur while driving the linking body with the motor in a case where a first condition related to pedaling is satisfied.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0077).
Shahana et al. does not disclose wherein the human-powered vehicle further includes at least one of a suspension and an adjustable seat post; and the first condition includes a condition related to at least one of a state of the suspension and a state of the adjustable seat post.
Suzuki et al. teaches [wherein the human-powered vehicle further includes at least one of a suspension 30C and an adjustable seat post 30E;] (Fig. 1; Page 5, lines 40-44) and [the condition includes a condition related to at least one of a state of the suspension and a state of the adjustable seat post.] (Page 6, lines 16-34)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the suspension and seat post based condition of Suzuki et al. with the control device of Shahana et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for adjusting permissibility of gear shifts based on terrain response or rider posture, thus enhancing shift smoothness and overall ride quality under various riding conditions.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahana et al. in view of Schieffelin US 20170106866 A1.
Regarding independent claim 27, Shahana et al. discloses wherein [the human- powered vehicle 10 includes drive train elements including a crank axle 26, a first rotational body 14 connected to the crank axle 26, a wheel 16, a second rotational body 18 connected to the wheel, and a linking body 20 engaged with the first rotational body and the second rotational body and configured to transmit driving force between the first rotational body and the second rotational body,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0059) and [the human-powered vehicle further includes a derailleur 22 configured to operate the linking body to change a transmission ratio of a rotational speed of the wheel to a rotational speed of the crank axle,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0063) and [a motor 52 configured to drive the linking body,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0064) [the control device comprising: an electronic controller configured to output a signal to control the motor, the electronic controller being further configured to output a signal to change the transmission ratio by operating the linking body with the derailleur while driving the linking body with the motor in a case where a first condition related to pedaling is satisfied.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0077)
Shahana et al. does not disclose wherein the first condition includes a condition related to a driving force transmission state between two adjacent ones of the drive train elements in a transmission path of the driving force.
Schieffelin teaches [wherein the first condition includes a condition related to a driving force transmission state between two adjacent ones of the drive train elements in a transmission path of the driving force.] (Fig. 9A; Paragraph 0182; Schieffelin discloses that when the user pedals, torque is applied to the pedal crank 916, thus causing the chain 914 to rotate in the clockwise direction. The reference further explains that the force is directed along the chain 914 to transmit the combined driving force toward the driven chain wheel group 902. Thus, the pedal crank 916 and the chain 914 constitute adjacent drivetrain elements in the transmission path of the human driving force, and the torque applied to the pedal crank and resulting force transmitted along the chain correspond to a driving force transmission state between the adjacent drivetrain elements. Accordingly, Schieffelin teaches a condition related to the driving force transmission state between adjacent drivetrain elements in a transmission path of the human driving force.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the driving force transmission state between adjacent drivetrain elements in the transmission path of the human driving force of Schieffelin with the control device of Shahana et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the transmission ratio to be controlled based on the manner in which driving force is being transmitted through the drivetrain, thus allowing the transmission to be properly controlled in accordance with the actual driving condition of the human-powered vehicle, thereby improving switching control and drivetrain responsiveness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 18 contains the limitation wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine that the condition related to the operational state of the derailleur is satisfied based on a signal received from an eighth detector that detects the operational state of the operation portion. The closest prior art, Hahn et al. US 20200262511 A1, discloses wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine that the condition related to the operational state of the derailleur, but does not disclose the operational state of the derailleur being satisfied based on a signal received from an eighth detector that detects the operational state of the operation portion.
Claims 24-25 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 24 contains the limitation of a control device for a human-powered vehicle, wherein the human- powered vehicle includes a pair of crank arm that receives a human driving force, a crank axle connected to the crank arms, a first rotational body connected to the crank axle, a wheel, a second rotational body connected to the wheel, a linking body engaged with the first rotational body and the second rotational body and configured to transmit driving force between the first rotational body and the second rotational body, a derailleur configured to operate the linking body to change a transmission ratio of a rotational speed of the wheel to a rotational speed of the crank axle, and a motor configured to drive the linking body, the control device comprising: an electronic controller configured to output a signal to control the motor, the electronic controller being further configured to output a signal to change the transmission ratio by operating the linking body with the derailleur while driving the linking body with the motor in a case where a first condition related to pedaling is satisfied; the electronic controller being further configured to determine that the first condition is satisfied based on a signal received from a predetermined detector that is at least one of a plurality of detectors; and the electronic controller being further configured to switch the predetermined detector in accordance with a second condition. The closest prior art, Shahana et al. US 20200062345 A1, discloses a control device for a human-powered vehicle, wherein the human- powered vehicle includes a pair of crank arm that receives a human driving force, a crank axle connected to the crank arms, a first rotational body connected to the crank axle, a wheel, a second rotational body connected to the wheel, a linking body engaged with the first rotational body and the second rotational body and configured to transmit driving force between the first rotational body and the second rotational body, a derailleur configured to operate the linking body to change a transmission ratio of a rotational speed of the wheel to a rotational speed of the crank axle, and a motor configured to drive the linking body, the control device comprising: an electronic controller configured to output a signal to control the motor, the electronic controller being further configured to output a signal to change the transmission ratio by operating the linking body with the derailleur while driving the linking body with the motor in a case where a first condition related to pedaling is satisfied but does not disclose the electronic controller being further configured to switch the predetermined detector in accordance with a second condition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11-12 on Remarks, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 27 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schieffelin US 20170106866 A1.
However, Applicant's arguments filed Page 10-11 and 13-17 on Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 recites a first condition including a condition related to a rotational speed of a pulley of the derailleur and that Shahana does not disclose this limitation. Applicant further argues that the other conditions previously recited in claim 1 do not indicate the rotational speed of the derailleur pulley and therefore do not anticipate the amended claim. The argument is not persuasive. Although the applicant has amended claim 1 to add a condition related to a rotational speed of the pulley of the derailleur, the claim continues to recite that the first condition includes a condition related to at least one of the set of conditions, including the rotational speed of the pulley and the other listed conditions related to pedaling. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the amended claim does not require the first condition to be based exclusively on the rotational speed of the pulley. The claim continues to encompass a first condition based on one or more of the other recited conditions.
Accordingly, the amendment, as presented, does not clearly remove the limitations previously relied upon in the rejection. The Examiner notes that, during the interview, it was indicated that amending claim 1 to recite the pulley rotational-speed condition as the condition of the first condition would overcome the current rejection. However, the claim as amended retains the alternative conditions. Therefore, the rejection is maintained based on the current claim language.
Applicant further argues that Shana, alone or in combination with Tsuchizawa, Miyamae, Eda, Hahn, and Terashima, does not disclose or suggest the amended condition in claim 1. In particular, Applicant argues that the cited secondary references do not disclose using their respective disclosed parameters as a condition for changing a transmission ratio, and therefore do not cure the alleged deficiency of Shahana. Applicant further argues that there is no apparent reason or expectation of success for modifying Shahana with the secondary references. The arguments are not persuasive. As discussed above, claim 1 as presently amended continues to recite that the first condition includes a condition related to at least one of the listed conditions, including a rotational speed of a pulley of the derailleur. Thus, the claim does not require that the first condition be exclusively based on the rotational speed of the pulley. The rejection is therefore evaluated based on the claim language as presently recited.
Regarding claim 26, Applicant argues that neither Shahana not Suzuki teaches changing a transmission ratio based on a state of the suspension or adjustable seat post. Applicant further argues that Suzuki merely discloses adjusting the suspension and seat post and changing a gear ratio in response to a user request, and therefore provides no reason to modify Shahana to use the suspension or seat post state as a transmission-control condition. Applicant characterizes the proposed combination as an aggregation based on impermissible hindsight. The argument is not persuasive Shahana establishes the underlying framework in which a controller generates a shift request and changes the transmission ratio based on a detected operating condition of the human-powered vehicle. Suzuki teaches additional adjustable vehicle components, including suspensions and an adjustable seat post, whose states or positions are electronically controlled. Thus, Suzuki demonstrates that the states of these vehicle components are detectable and controllable operating parameters of the bicycle. The proposed modified does not require Suzuki itself to expressly disclose changing the transmission ratio based on the suspension or seat post state. Rather, the rejection relies on the combined teachings of the references. In view of Shahana’s teaching of changing a transmission ratio based on detected operating conditions of the bicycle, and Suzuki’s teaching of electronically adjustable suspension and seat post components, it would have been obvious to use the state of one of those adjustable components as an additional operating condition for Shahana’s transmission control system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights