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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendment filled 09/26/2025.
In the amendment, Applicant amended claims 8, 22, 24-25 and 27-29.
Claims 1-29 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has fully considered Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 09/26/2025, with respect to the rejection of the claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and they are not persuasive. As recites in [¶0153], “...The control device CD21 is configured to automatically enter the pairing mode in a case where the wireless receiver WR1 wirelessly receives the pairing demand signal from at least one of the operating devices 314 and 316." As stated above, wireless receiver WR1 receives at least one (can be more than one depending on the situation) pairing demand signal. One can use "pairing mode signal" in place of "pairing trigger signal". Therefore, the applicant's argument that wireless receiver WR1 does not receive a second wireless signal as recited in Claim 1 (Page 11, 2nd paragraph) is not persuasive.
Examiner has fully considered Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-15, filed 09/26/2025, with respect to the rejection of the amended claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and they are persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of the amended claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1).
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 1-6, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by KOMATSU et al. (US 20160185421 A1), hereinafter, Komatsu.
Regarding Claim 1, Komatsu discloses, a bicycle component comprises:
a communicator configured to wirelessly receive a pairing trigger signal generated in response to a user trigger input of a trigger input device ("...the bicycle operating system according to the third aspect is configured so that the transmission controller includes a pairing mode switch configured to bring the control device into a pairing mode in response to a mode switching operation from the user. In the pairing mode, the control device identifies the operating device based on the pairing demand signal received by the wireless receiver." [¶0008]), and to wirelessly receive a first pairing demand signal generated in response to a first user input of a first input device (“…The wireless receiver is configured to wirelessly receive the pairing demand signal from the wireless transmitter. The control device is configured to identify the operating device based on the pairing demand signal received by the wireless receiver to establish the wireless communication with the operating device” [¶0007]; and
a controller configured to cause the bicycle component to enter a pairing mode in response to the pairing trigger signal being received by the communicator, the controller being configured to establish wireless communication between the bicycle component ("The control device CD21 is configured to automatically enter the pairing mode in a case where the wireless receiver WR1 wirelessly receives the pairing demand signal from the operating device. In the illustrated embodiment, the control device CD21 is configured to determine whether the wireless receiver WR1 receives the pairing mode signal. The control device CD21 is configured to automatically enter the pairing mode in a case where the wireless receiver WR1 wirelessly receives the pairing demand signal from at least one of the operating devices 314 and 316." [¶0153], wireless receiver WR1 receives at least one (can be more than one depending on the situation) pairing demand signal. One can use "pairing mode signal" in place of "pairing trigger signal", see also, "Furthermore, the signal controller SC1 configured to generate the pairing demand signal in response to the input operation of the operating switch SW31. The signal controller SC1 is configured to generate the shift signal in response to the input operation of the operating switch SW31..."[0150]) and a first remote component that sent the first pairing demand signal in a state where the bicycle component is in the pairing mode ("In the pairing mode, the control device CD21 identifies the operating device 314 and/or 316 based on the pairing demand signal received by the wireless receiver WR1. The signal controller SC1 is configured to generate the pairing demand signal indicative of the additional identifying information to identify the transmission controller TC21. The control device CD21 is configured to determine whether the additional identifying information indicates the transmission controller TC21 in the pairing mode..." [0154], see also, "... The signal controller is configured to generate the shift signal in response to the first input operation of the operating switch. The signal controller is configured to generate the pairing demand signal in response to the second input operation of the operating switch." [¶0012]).
Regarding Claim 2, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 1.
Komatsu also discloses, wherein the first remote component includes at least one of the trigger input device and the first input device ("As seen in FIGS. 2 and 3, the operating device 14 includes an operating switch SW11, a signal controller SC1, and a wireless transmitter WT1. The signal controller SC1 is configured to generate a pairing demand signal in response to an input operation of the operating switch SW11..."[¶0047]). Here the first remote component is the operating device 14, with the wireless transmitter WT1.
Regarding Claim 3, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 1.
Komatsu also teaches, wherein the first input device includes the trigger input device ("...The operating switch SW11 is configured to receive the input operation from the user. The wireless transmitter WT1 is configured to wirelessly transmit the pairing demand signal to a bicycle component to establish a wireless communication with the bicycle component." [¶0047]).
Regarding Claim 4, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 3.
Komatsu also discloses, wherein the first user input includes an input to a first interface of the first input device ("The operating device 14 includes a shift operating switch. In the illustrated embodiment, the operating device 14 includes a shift operating switch US1 and a shift operating switch DS1. The shift operating switches US1 and DS1 are electrically connected to the signal controller SC1..." [¶0063]), and
the user trigger input includes an input to the first interface ("The signal controller SC1 is configured to generate the pairing demand signal indicative of the identifying information in response to the input operation of the operating switch SW11..." [¶0075]).
Regarding Claim 5, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 1.
Komatsu also teaches, wherein the bicycle component is configured to enter a wireless signal listening mode in response to a trigger, and the controller is configured to cause the bicycle component to exit the wireless signal listening mode and to enter the pairing mode in response to the pairing trigger signal being received by the communicator ("In the pairing mode of the transmission controller TC1, the control device CD1 identifies the operating device 14 based on the pairing demand signal received by the wireless receiver WR1. In the pairing mode of the transmission controller TC1, the control device CD1 controls the wireless receiver WR1 to scan wireless signals on specific channels. The signal controller SC1 controls the wireless transmitter WT1 to repeatedly transmit a wireless signal indicating the identifying information of the operating device 14 when the operating switch SW11 is operated by the user." [¶0085], see also, [¶0126] and [¶0153]).). Here “scanning for wireless signals” means that the bicycle component is in listening mode and once the bicycle component is in “pairing mode” that means it has exited the listening mode.
Regarding Claim 6, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 5.
Komatsu also discloses, wherein the trigger includes at least one of providing electrical power to the bicycle component, connecting a power source to the bicycle component, connecting an electrical cable connected to an additional bicycle component, and operating an additional control device configured to control the additional bicycle component ("As seen in FIGS. 2 and 3, the operating device 14 includes a power supply device BT11 configured to supply electrical power to at least one of the operating switch SW11, the signal controller SC1, the wireless transmitter WT1, and the indicator IND11..." [¶0099]).
Regarding Claim 18, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 1.
Komatsu further discloses, further comprising a first storage device configured to store a first device identification included in the first pairing demand signal that is received by the communicator ("As seen in FIG. 2, the signal controller SC1 is configured to store identifying information relating to the operating device 14..." [¶0074], see also, "The signal controller SC1 is configured to generate the pairing demand signal indicative of the identifying information in response to the input operation of the operating switch SW11..."[¶0075], see also "...a program stored in the memory Ml 1 is read into the processor PR11, and thereby functions of the signal controller SC1 are performed."[¶0049]). Here operating device 14 is the first device and memory Ml 1 is the first storage device.
Regarding Claim 23, Komatsu discloses a bicycle control system comprising: the bicycle component (a signal controller SC1) according to claim 1.
; and Komatsu also discloses, the first remote component ("The wireless transmitter WT1 is configured to wirelessly transmit the shift signal (e.g., the upshift signal) to the wireless receiver WR1 of the transmission controller TC1. The wireless transmitter WT1 is configured to wirelessly transmit the shift signal (e.g., the upshift signal) to the wireless receiver WR2 of the transmission controller TC2." [¶0141]).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Lin et al. (US 20220371688 A1, hereinafter, Lin).
Regarding Claim 7, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 5.
Komatsu does not explicitly disclose, wherein the controller is configured to prohibit the bicycle component from entering the wireless signal listening mode in a state where wireless communication between the bicycle component and the first remote component is established.
Lin in analogous art teaches, wherein the controller is configured to prohibit the bicycle component from entering the wireless signal listening mode in a state where wireless communication between the bicycle component and the first remote component is established ("In act 512, the user may manually end the pairing session (e.g., by operating the pairing input element 306c on the network coordinator device 306). Alternatively, the network coordinator device may automatically end the pairing session after a set time period has elapsed." [¶0089]), see also "... In act 508, the pairing signal allows the network coordinator device to recognize the given device and permit the given device to join the wireless network. If a proprietary network protocol is employed for the wireless network, only devices configured to communicate according to the proprietary network protocol may be recognized by the network coordinator device and paired." [¶0086].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Komatsu with the idea of prohibiting the bicycle component from entering the wireless signal listening mode when a wireless communication link is already established with a remote component as disclosed by Lin. The rationale for prohibiting the bicycle component from listening for new connections when a wireless communication link is already established is a crucial security measure in Bluetooth-controlled bicycles, protecting the system from various attacks.
Regarding Claim 8, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 5.
Komatsu does not explicitly disclose, wherein the controller is configured to cause the bicycle component to exit the wireless signal listening mode after a first predetermined time has elapsed from entering the wireless signal listening mode.
Lin, in analogous art discloses, wherein the controller is configured to cause the bicycle component to exit the wireless signal listening mode after a first predetermined time has elapsed from entering the wireless signal listening mode ("In act 940, the rear derailleur continues scanning for pairing signals from other devices. In act 942, the user may manually end the pairing session (e.g., by operating the pairing input element on the rear derailleur). Alternatively, the rear derailleur may automatically end the pairing session after a set time period has elapsed." [¶0144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Komatsu with the idea of having an intelligent power management system as disclosed by Lin. The rationale for using this intelligent power management is to extend battery life by reducing power consumption and improve performance by having a brief listening interval.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Costa; Rui Miguel Correia e (US 20200404745 A1, hereinafter, Costa).
Regarding Claim 9, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 5.
Komatsu does not explicitly disclose, wherein the controller is configured to control the communicator such that the communicator operates intermittently in a state where the bicycle component is in the wireless signal listening mode.
Costa in analogous art discloses, wherein the controller is configured to control the communicator such that the communicator operates intermittently in a state where the bicycle component is in the wireless signal listening mode ("Another example process is standard Wi-Fi connection establishment with a public Wi-Fi hotspot. For example, the WCM-L module of the MN may periodically scan for Wi-Fi networks. The moment a Wi-Fi network is detected, the WCM-L module probes the WAM-L module to check if any of the detected SSIDs is known." [¶0196]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Komatsu with the idea of communicator to operate intermittently during listening mode as disclosed by Costa. The rationale for controlling the communicator's intermittent listening mode, is to have bicycle controller optimizes the power consumption, and extend the battery life.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Thornton; Douglas A. (US 20140349267 A1, hereinafter, Thornton).
Regarding Claim 10, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 5.
Komatsu doesn’t explicitly discloses, further comprising a signal amplifier coupled to the communicator, and the controller being configured to control the signal amplifier such that the signal amplifier operates in a first power consumption state in a state where the bicycle component is in the wireless signal listening mode, the controller being configured to control the signal amplifier such that the signal amplifier operates in a second power consumption state in a state where the bicycle component is in the pairing mode, the first power consumption state having a lower power consumption than the second power consumption state.
Thornton, in analogous art discloses, further comprising a signal amplifier coupled to the communicator, and the controller being configured to control the signal amplifier such that the signal amplifier operates in a first power consumption state in a state where the bicycle component is in the wireless signal listening mode ("...When successful pairing occurs the device can idle with the radio on and wait for commands. A command may include details to execute an experiment (the stop and start triggers) by moving to the Waiting 206 state, or the return to the Deep Sleep 202 mode via an `off` indication...." [¶0056]), the controller being configured to control the signal amplifier such that the signal amplifier operates in a second power consumption state in a state where the bicycle component is in the pairing mode ("...The Bluetooth or other radio protocol employed can activate and attempt to pair with a known network or if no known network is found, can enter a pairing mode where a new network can be formed. The device can stay in pairing mode for a predefined period of time and if no pairing is achieved, can return back to Deep Sleep 202...." [¶0056]), the first power consumption state having a lower power consumption than the second power consumption state ("... During the Radio On 204 state the sensors may be powered down to conserve batteries. The processor can use interrupt driven communications with the radio, allowing the processor to be powered down while waiting for communications." [¶0056]). Here the “Radio On” is similar to “listening mode” and during this state less power is consumed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Komatsu with the idea of managing power consumption by adjusting the signal amplifier's power state based on the mode of operation as disclosed by Thornton. The rationale for doing so is to have a power management strategy that is efficient, especially for battery-powered devices like bicycle components, as it conserves energy when full signal strength isn't needed. The controller plays a crucial role in managing these power states and optimizing battery life.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Saito et al. (US 20110237191 A1, hereinafter, Saito).
Regarding Claim 11, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 5.
Komatsu does not explicitly disclose, further comprising a notification device being configured to be controlled by the controller.
Saito in analogous art discloses, further comprising a notification device being configured to be controlled by the controller ("The above controller may be configured to cause the short range wireless communication device to notify the another short range wireless communication apparatus of a connection request of the short rang wireless communication link, establish the short rang wireless communication link to the another short range wireless communication apparatus and then notify the another short range wireless communication apparatus of the connection request of the second communication protocol..." [¶0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Komatsu with the idea of controlling the notification device by the controller as disclosed by Saito. The rationale for having the notification device, controlled by the wireless controller, is to enhances the user experience and security by providing real-time updates and alerts about the bicycle's status.
Regarding Claim 12, Combination of Komatsu and Saito teach the bicycle component according to claim 11.
Komatsu also teaches, wherein the notification device includes a light emitting device ("As seen in FIG. 2, the operating device 14 includes an indicator IND11 configured to display a status of the operating device 14. The indicator IND11 is configured to display whether the operating device 14 is in the pairing mode or is not in the pairing mode. Possible examples of the indicator IND11 include a light emitting diode (LED) configured to emit light in accordance with the state of the operating device 14 and the pairing mode of the operating device 14..." [¶0095]).
Regarding Claim 13, Combination of Komatsu and Saito teach the bicycle component according to claim 11.
Komatsu also teaches, wherein the notification device is configured to produce a notification after at least one of informing information is generated by the first remote component and the first user input has finished ("As seen in FIG. 2, the operating device 14 includes an indicator IND11 configured to display a status of the operating device 14. The indicator IND11 is configured to display whether the operating device 14 is in the pairing mode or is not in the pairing mode..." [¶0095]).
Regarding Claim 14, Combination of Komatsu and Saito teach the bicycle component according to claim 11.
Komatsu also teaches, wherein the controller is configured to activate the notification device to produce a first notification in response to entrance of the bicycle component to the pairing mode ("…the bicycle operating system according to the twenty-first aspect is configured so that the indicator is configured to display whether the operating device is in a pairing mode or is not in the pairing mode." [¶0026]).
Regarding Claim 15, Combination of Komatsu and Saito teach the bicycle component according to claim 11.
Komatsu also discloses, wherein the controller is configured to activate the notification device to produce a second notification in a state where the bicycle component has been successfully paired ("As seen in FIGS. 2 and 5, the transmission controller TC1 includes a pairing mode switch SW21 configured to bring the control device CD1 into a pairing mode in response to a mode switching operation from the user..." [¶0082], see also, "...the control device CD1 establishes the wireless communication with the operating device 14. In the illustrated embodiment, the pairing mode is finished in the transmission controller TC1 when the pairing mode switch SW21 is operated in the pairing mode." [¶0088], see also, "Possible examples of the indicator IND21 include a LED configured to emit light in accordance with the state of the transmission controller TC1 and the pairing mode of the transmission controller TC1." [¶0097]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of McLaughlin et al. (US 20150222517 A1, hereinafter, McLaughlin).
Regarding Claim 16, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 1.
Komatsu does not explicitly teach, the bicycle component according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to cause the bicycle component to exit the pairing mode in response to a third user input of a third input device, and the third input device is provided on at least one of the bicycle component and the first remote component.
However, McLaughlin in analogous art teaches, wherein the controller is configured to cause the bicycle component to exit the pairing mode in response to a third user input of a third input device ("At block 2212, the pair setup process can be completed, and (assuming no error has occurred) the user can be informed (e.g., by the controller) that the pairing with the accessory has been established. Thereafter, at block 2214, the accessory can exit the pairing mode. In some embodiments, exiting the pairing mode can include a user action to remove the accessory from pairing mode. Such user action can be a reversal of user action taken at block 2202 to put the accessory into pairing mode, such as removing a physical key, flipping a pairing switch to its disabled position, etc..." [¶0406], and
the third input device is provided on at least one of the bicycle component and the first remote component ("At block 2202, door lock accessory 2004 (or any other accessory) can enter pairing mode. In some embodiments, the user can put the accessory into pairing mode. In some embodiments, each accessory manufacturer can define a specific user action to put its accessories into pairing mode..."[¶0400]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Komatsu with the idea of causing the bicycle component to exit the pairing mode in response to a third user input as disclosed by McLaughlin. The rationale for having the controller's configuration to exit pairing mode in response to a third user input provides a specific and controlled way for the user to manage the wireless connection on their bicycle components.
Claims 17, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Garnica, Jaime (US 20230109945 A1, hereinafter, Garnica).
Regarding Claim 17, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 1.
Komatsu doesn’t explicitly disclose, wherein the communicator is configured to wirelessly receive a second pairing demand signal generated in response to a second user input of a second input device, and the controller is configured to establish wireless communication between the bicycle component and a second remote component that sent the second pairing demand signal in a state where the bicycle component is in the pairing mode.
Garnica, in analogous art discloses, wherein the communicator is configured to wirelessly receive a second pairing demand signal generated in response to a second user input of a second input device (fig. 4, see also, "In act 418, the second electronic bicycle component receives, via the communication interface of the second electronic bicycle component, the one or more second messages generated and broadcast by the first electronic bicycle component in act 416..." [¶0109]), and
the controller is configured to establish wireless communication between the bicycle component and a second remote component that sent the second pairing demand signal in a state where the bicycle component is in the pairing mode (fig. 4, see also, "In act 424, the processor of the second electronic bicycle component establishes a second wireless network that includes at least the first electronic bicycle component and the second electronic bicycle component." [¶0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to the idea of Komatsu with the idea that controller is configured to establish wireless communication between the bicycle component and a second remote component that sent the second pairing demand signal as disclosed by Garnica. The rationale for having the controller acts as the intermediary, is to facilitating communication between the various components, including those initiating pairing demands, and to enable seamless wireless control and data exchange.
Regarding Claim 19, Combination of Komatsu and Garnica disclose, the bicycle component according to claim 17,
Komatsu also discloses, further comprising a first storage device configured to store at least one of device identifications including a first device identification and a second device identification ("...More specifically, the signal controller SC1 is configured to store the identifying information relating to the operating device 14 in the memory M11... " [¶0074]), the first device identification being included in the first pairing demand signal that is received by the communicator ("The signal controller SC1 is configured to generate the pairing demand signal indicative of the identifying information in response to the input operation of the operating switch SW11. The wireless transmitter WT1 is configured to superimpose the pairing demand signal on carrier wave using the predetermined wireless communication protocol to transmit the pairing demand signal as wireless signals." [¶0075]), the second device identification being included in the second pairing demand signal that is received by the communicator ("Similarly, the signal controller SC2 is configured to generate the pairing demand signal indicative of the identifying information in response to the input operation of the operating switch SW12. The wireless transmitter WT2 is configured to superimpose the pairing demand signal on carrier wave using the predetermined wireless communication protocol to transmit the pairing demand signal as wireless signals." [¶0076]), the controller being configured to control the bicycle component in accordance with a control signal including one of the device identifications stored in the first storage device ("... the signal controller SC1 is configured to store the identifying information relating to the operating device 14 in the memory M11..."[¶0074]).
Regarding Claim 22, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 1.
Komatsu doesn’t explicitly disclose, wherein the controller is configured to cause the bicycle component to exit the pairing mode after a second predetermined time has elapsed.
However, Garnica in analogous art discloses, wherein the controller is configured to cause the bicycle component to exit the pairing mode after a second predetermined time has elapsed ("...If the electronic controller device does not receive the response from the derailleur, for example, within the second predetermined time period, the electronic controller device exits the pairing session or repeats the acts described above..." [¶0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Komatsu with the idea that the bicycle component exits the pairing mode after a second predetermined time as elapsed as disclosed by Garnica. The rationale for doing so would have been to make sure that the system exits the pairing mode after a predetermined time if no pairing connection is established thereby extend the battery life.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Kato et al. (US 20170012455 A1, hereinafter, Kato).
Regarding Claim 20, Komatsu discloses the bicycle component according to claim 18.
Komatsu does not explicitly disclose, wherein the controller is configured to clear the device identification stored in the first storage device in response to a reset operation of a reset interface.
Kato, in analogous art discloses, wherein the controller is configured to clear the device identification stored in the first storage device in response to a reset operation of a reset interface ("...The resect switch 70 is configured to receive a reset operation from the user. When the resect switch 70 receives the reset operation, the pairing information in the memory is deleted. Therefore, after receiving the reset operation, the pairing process restarts (see, FIGS. 7, 17, and 22)." [¶0145]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Komatsu with the idea of clearing the device identification stored in the first storage device in response to a reset operation as disclosed by Kato. The rationale for doing so would have been to clear the stored device identification, so that the controller can no longer connect to previously paired devices automatically and to restores the controller to its original settings.
.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu and Kato in view of Kim et al. (US 20160212699 A1, hereinafter, Kim).
Regarding Claim 21, combination of Komatsu and Kato disclose the bicycle component according to claim 20.
Combination of Komatsu and Kato don’t explicitly disclose, further comprising the reset interface operatively coupled to the controller, the controller being configured to disable the reset operation upon a command from an external device.
Kim, in analogous art discloses, further comprising the reset interface operatively coupled to the controller, the controller being configured to disable the reset operation upon a command from an external device ("According to an exemplary embodiment, wherein the controller may disable the output of the digital part in response to the first control command and then control a reset operation of the power supply unit and an initialization operation of the digital part according to the reset operation of the power supply unit..."[¶0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the idea of Komatsu and Kato with the idea of controller being configured to disable the reset operation upon a command from an external device as disclosed by Kim. The rationale for doing so would have been to enhance the bicycle's security by preventing unauthorized users from easily resetting the system and provides the user with control over who can reset the device.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 24, the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious the limitations “a second shifting signal including a second device identification and a second paring trigger signal generated from a second communication device” and “a controller being configured to control the bicycle component in response to the first pairing trigger signal and the controller being configured to control the bicycle component in response to the second pairing trigger signal” in combination with all other claim limitations. Therefore, claim 24 is allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 25-29 depend from the above independent claim and are therefore similarly allowable over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 24-29 allowed.
Conclusion
References cited but not used: Chuang et al. US-20190246437-A1 can be used for independent claims 1 in addition to the one used.
References cited but not used: Miller at al. (US-20140371953-A1, can be used for independent claims 1 in addition to the one used.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MUHAMMAD AINUL HUDA whose telephone number is (703)756-1594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 6:30 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, HASSAN PHILLIPS can be reached on (571)272-3940. 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.
/MUHAMMAD AINUL HUDA/Examiner, Art Unit 4126
/HASSAN A PHILLIPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights