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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 29, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 claim rejections (pages 6-10) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, therefore the related rejections have been maintained:
Regarding the applicant’s argument (pages 7-8) that FOSSATO does not suggest that the rotation amount of the crank is a variable to be optimized and therefore it would not be obvious to modify FOSSATO such that the rotation amount was as claimed, the examiner disagrees. The examiner does not at this time dispute the applicant’s argument that FOSSATO does not recognize the rotation amount as a results effective variable, but asserts that it would easily be recognized as one by a person having ordinary skill in the art. The examiner further points to the teachings of FOSSATO related to generating a wake event as soon as the bicycle is used by using a vibration sensor and on the other hand detecting a rotation of the crankarm to filter out false positives, as discussed below, which would suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art that there is a “sweet spot” where the balance between responsiveness and resistance to false positives is optimized; see the 103 rejection of claim 1 below. It is further noted that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation, and in giving examples for a rotational amount, i.e. 35 degrees as mentioned in Para. [0062], makes no distinction as to why that specific amount is chosen over others in the proposed range, or even what is unique about the proposed ranges of 0-50 or 10-40 degrees.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “detector” introduced in claim 10; detector being considered a “nonce” term, followed by the functional language “configured to detect the rotation amount”, and not being modified by any structural limitations, in effect the limitation being similar to “means for detecting a rotation amount”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Particularly, the limitation “detector” is being interpreted to mean: “a hardware device or instrument designed to detect the presence or absence of a particular event, object, substance, or a change in its environment, and to emit a signal in response” or its equivalents based on Para. [0036] of the applicant’s instant written description.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOSSATO (US-20190344857-A1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, (having similar limitations, differing as noted below) FOSSATO teaches an electronic device for a human-powered vehicle (Abstract teaches an electronic system, Para. [0002] teaches that the field of invention is bicycles, bicycles being human-powered vehicles), the electronic device comprising:
an electronic controller (Processor 106, Fig. 6) configured to selectively operate in an operational state (the overall process of Fig. 9) that includes a first operational state (Standby Mode 404, Fig. 9) and a second operational state (Running Mode, 402, Fig. 9), the second operational state (402) consuming more electric power than the first operational state (Para. [0232] teaches that in Running Mode 402 an energy consumption is at a maximum, while Para. [0233] teaches that in Standby Mode 404 an energy consumption is at a minimum),
the electronic controller (106) being further configured to switch the operational state between the first operational state (404) and the second operational state (402) in accordance with a rotational amount of a rotational body (Crankarm 10, Fig. 1) included in a transmission path of a human driving force (Crankarm 10 being a component of a rotary motion transmission system for a cyclist- i.e. a human driving force- as Para. [0004] teaches of cranksets in general) in the human-powered vehicle (Paras. [0236]- [0237] teach that the operational state is changed from Standby Mode 404 to Running Mode 402 based on a pedaling cadence detected by a Wake Unit 1000; Wake Unit 1000 being configured to detect rotational movement of Crankarm 10 as taught in Para. [0211]), and
the electronic controller (106) being further configured to switch the operational state from the first operational state (404) to the second operational state (402) in a case where the operational state is the first operational state (404) and the rotational amount becomes a first rotational amount or greater (Para. [0226] and Fig. 8 teach using the detection of a full rotation of the crankarm while in Standby Mode 224 in determining a wake signal which changes the mode to Running Mode 202, Standby Mode 224 and Running Mode 202 relating to Standby Mode 404 and Running Mode 402 as discussed in Para. [0231]), the first rotational amount being greater than [0 degrees {claim 1}/ 10 degrees {claim 6}] (Para. [0226] teaches a full rotation of the crankarm- i.e. 360 degrees- as the rotational amount for determining a wake signal, 360 degrees being larger than both 0 degrees of claim 1 and 10 degrees of claim 6).
FOSSATO further teaches that using a vibration sensor has the advantage of generating a wake event as soon as the bicycle is used but that false positive wake signals can advantageously be overcome by detecting a full rotation of the crankarm in addition to a vibration signal (Para. [0246]).
FOSSATO does not teach that the rotational amount is less than or equal to [50 degrees {claim 1}/ 40 degrees {claim 6}].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the specific rotational amount is directly correlated to both a resistance to false positive wake signals and a responsiveness of the electronic device, which are desirable characteristics of the electronic device as taught by FOSSATO and discussed above (the rotational amount being the “result effective variable”, per MPEP 2143 and 2144.05-II-B). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to modify the electronic device of FOSSATO such that that the rotational amount is less than or equal to [50 degrees {claim 1}/ 40 degrees {claim 6}], since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is further noted that FOSSATO teaches that there is an advantage to both waking quickly and to resisting false positives, as discussed above, and, because it is understood that an increase in the specific rotational amount would result in fewer false positives but reduce the responsiveness of the device, and vice versa, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the specific rotational amount in order to find a “sweet spot” where the balance between responsiveness and resistance to false positives is optimized.
Regarding claim 3, FOSSATO further teaches that the electronic controller (106) is configured to switch the operational state from the first operational state (404) to the second operational state (402) in a case where the operational state is the first operational state (404) after having been switched from the second operational state (402) to the first operational state (404) and the rotational amount then becomes greater than or equal to the first rotational amount (Figs. 8 & 9 depicting cycles in which the mode is switched from Running Modes 202 & 402 to Standby Modes 224 & 404 and back, a change in mode from Standby Mode 404 to Running Mode 402 after having been switched from Running Mode 402 to Standby Mode 404; see also the 102 rejection of claim 2 above for discussion of switching based on exceeding a first rotational amount).
Regarding claim 4, FOSSATO further teaches that the rotational body (10) includes a crank (Crankarm 10 being a crank), and
the first rotational amount includes at least one of the rotational amount of a case in which the crank (10) is rotated in a first rotational direction that corresponds to a forward direction of the human-powered vehicle and the rotational amount of a case in which the crank is rotated in a second rotational direction that is opposite to the first rotational direction (the full rotation taught in Para. [0226] being necessarily in a forward or rearward direction, at least one of the alternate limitations is taught).
Regarding claim 7, FOSSATO further teaches that the predetermined condition further includes at least one of a first condition that the rotational amount in a first period is less than a second rotational amount (Block 210 of Fig. 8 teaches determining if a rotation has been made, Block 212 determining if the rotation was made in a certain time period, see also Para. [00211]; teaching at least one of the alternate limitations), and a third condition (Anti-Sleep 416) that a predetermined first signal is not input to the electronic controller in a third period (Fig. 9 and Para. [0239] teach an Anti-Sleep 416 signal provided by Wake Unit 1000, the absence of which is required to change from Running Mode 402 to Standby Mode 404).
Regarding claim 8, FOSSATO further teaches that the predetermined condition includes the third condition (Anti-Sleep 416; see the 102 rejection of claim 7 above).
FOSSATO does not teach the first signal being transmitted wirelessly by a wireless communication device.
FOSSATO teaches a wireless communication device (Para. [0067] teaches a radio for communicating with an external component).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of FOSSATO in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify FOSSATO’s electronic device such that the first signal is transmitted wirelessly by a wireless communication device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a wireless connection to a device mounted external to the crankarm that would beneficially eliminate the need for a rotary communication joint between the crankarm and a frame.
Regarding claim 9, FOSSATO further teaches that:
the human-powered vehicle further includes a battery (Battery Power Unit 102, Fig. 6); and
the electronic controller (106) is configured to be supplied with electric power from the battery in the first operational state (Para. [0185] teaches that Electronic Components 104 are powered by the Battery Power Unit 102; Processor 106 comprising one of the Electronic Components 104 as taught in Fig. 6; Para. [0233] teaches that the Processor 106 consumes power while in Standby Mode 404).
Regarding claim 10, FOSSATO further teaches a detector (Wake Unit 1000, Fig. 1, considered a detector in that is taught in Paras. [0034]- [0041] as comprising one or more sensors, a sensor being an equivalent of a hardware device that emits a signal in response to a detected event; see the corresponding 112f discussion above) configured to detect the rotational amount (Para. [0040] teaches the Wake Unite 10000 comprising a rotation sensor).
Regarding claim 11, FOSSATO further teaches that the detector (1000) includes an acceleration sensor (Para. [0043] teaches the Wake Unite 10000 comprising an acceleration sensor).
Regarding claim 12, FOSSATO further teaches that the acceleration sensor is configured to detect acceleration of at least three axes (Para. [0225] teaches using a triaxial accelerometer).
Regarding claim 13, FOSSATO further teaches that the detector (1000) is configured to transmit a second signal (Wake Signal 226, Fig. 8) related to the rotational amount calculated from a detection result of the acceleration sensor to the electronic controller (Paras. [0223]- [0226] teaches Wake Signal 226 being transmitted to Processor 106 by the Wake Unit 1000 based on a detected acceleration and/ or crankarm rotation).
Regarding claim 14, FOSSATO further teaches that the detector (1000) is configured to transmit the second signal (226) to the electronic controller (106) in a case where the rotational amount becomes a predetermined third rotational amount (Para. [0226] teaches a rotational amount being a complete rotation of the crankarm).
Regarding claim 15, FOSSATO further teaches:
a human force sensor (Stress/Strain Detector 108, Fig. 6) configured to output a signal corresponding to the human driving force (Para. [0195] teaches Stress/Strain Detector 108 providing a force output based on a cyclist pedaling force), and is configured to be provided on at least one of a crank arm (10) of the human-powered vehicle and a pedal of the human-powered vehicle (Para. [0189] teaches Strain Gauges 110 being mounted to the crankarm; Strain Gauges 110 being comprised in Stress/ Strain Detector 108 as taught in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, FOSSATO further teaches that the electronic controller (106) is connected to the human force sensor (Fig. 6 teaches a connection between Processor 106 and Stress/ Strain Detector 108), and is configured to output information related to the human driving force in accordance with a third signal received from the human force sensor (Para. [0202] teaches Processor 106 outputting a pedaling power measurement based on a torque measurement; the Stress/ Strain Detector 108 providing a torque measurement to the Processor 106 as taught in Para. [0195]).
Regarding claim 18, FOSSATO further teaches that the electronic controller (106) is configured to output information related to rotational speed of the rotational body (10) in accordance with the rotational amount (Para. [0201] teaches the Processor 106 determining a rotational speed and Para. [0202] teaches the Processor 106 outputting a power measurement based at least in part on said determined rotational speed/ cadence measurement).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOSSATO in view of YOKOYA (JP-2004142633-A).
Regarding claim 17, FOSSATO does not teach a motor for providing propulsion force that is controlled by the electronic controller.
YOKOYA teaches, in another electronic device for a human-powered vehicle (Control Circuit 15 for a bicycle, Abstract), an electronic controller (15) is configured to control a motor (Motor 9, Abstract) that applies a propulsion force to the human-powered vehicle (the Abstract teaches the Control Circuit 15 controlling electric power applied to Motor 9, Para. [0009] teaching that Motor 9 drives Wheel 3 of the bicycle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of FOSSATO and YOKOYA in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify FOSSATO’s electronic device to include a motor for providing propulsion force that is controlled by the electronic controller as suggested by YOKOYA. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a source of propulsion to the vehicle separate from the user that would beneficially reduce a user’s fatigue while operating the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611