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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 29, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections (pages 13-14) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related rejections been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of PASQUA and PASQUA in view of JU, see the related rejections below.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 49 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by PASQUA (US-20180237104-A1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 1, PASQUA teaches a bicycle component (Derailleur10, Fig. 2) comprising:
a base member (Support Body 12, Fig. 3);
a movable member (Moveable Body 16, Fig. 2);
a link member (Linkage 20, Fig. 2) that movably couples the movable member (16) to the base member (12, Fig. 2 and Para. [0101]);
an actuator (Motor 34, Fig. 2) operatively coupled to the link member (20) to move the link member (Para. [0105]);
a battery holder (Compartment 46, Fig. 4) attached to the link member (20), the battery holder (739) including a battery holding portion (the Compartment 46) configured to detachably hold a battery (Battery Power Supply Unit 40, Fig. 4; Para. [0127] and [0134]-[0136]); and
a flexible element (Cable 58, Fig. 2) electrically connecting the battery holding portion (46) to the actuator (34, Para. [0124]).
Regarding Claim 2, PASQUA further teaches that the actuator (34) is provided on the base member (Motor 34 being disposed on Support Body 12, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, PASQUA further teaches that the link member (20) includes a first link (Rod 22, Fig. 2) and a second link (Rod 24, Fig. 2), and
the battery holding portion (46) is located at least partially between the first link (22) and the second link (24) (Compartment 46 being disposed at least partially between Rods 22 and 24, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claims 4 and 49, (having similar limitations as discussed below; see also the related claim objection above),PASQUA further teaches that the link member (20) {includes a first link (22) that [claim 4 only]} is pivotally connected to the base member (12) by a first link pin (Output Shaft 32, Fig. 4) and pivotally connected to the movable member (16) by a second link pin (Pin 30, Fig. 2), and
the battery holding portion (46) is {located [4]/ disposed [49]} between the first link pin (32) and the second link pin (30) (as illustrated in Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 7, PASQUA further teaches that the flexible element (58) includes at least one of a first electrical cable (Cable 58being described and illustrated as an electrical cable in Para. [0124] and Fig. 2) and a flexible circuit board.
Regarding Claim 48, PASQUA further teaches that the battery (40) is slidably attached to the battery holder (46) in a direction parallel to a link pin axis (left-right, Fig. 6, being parallel to at least Pin 30) of the link member (Fig. 6 and Para. [0143] teach that Battery Power Supply Unit 40 exits Compartment 46 in the direction of Arrow B which is parallel to at least Pin 30).
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 6 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PASQUA (US-20180237104-A1) in view of JU (CN-105936327-A).
Regarding Claim 6, PASQUA does not teach that the actuator is configured to be connected to an additional electrical cable in a state where the actuator is disconnected from the flexible element.
JU further teaches, in another bicycle component (Front Derailleur 340, Paras. [0147]- [0148] and Figs. 18 & 19), an actuator (Electric Actuation Unit 354, Figs. 18 & 19) configured to be connected to an additional electrical cable (Power Cable PLC2, Figs. 18 & 19) in a state where the actuator (354) is disconnected from the flexible element (Power Cable PLC1 being capable of being disconnected from Electric Actuation Unit 354 as illustrated in Fig. 19 and Power Cable PLC2 being capable of being connected to Electric Actuation Unit 354 as illustrated in Fig. 18, a possible state where Power Cable PLC2 is connected while Power Cable PLC1 is disconnected is understood to be taught).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of PASQUA and JU in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify PASQUA’s bicycle component such that the actuator is configured to be connected to an additional electrical cable in a state where the actuator is disconnected from the flexible element as suggested by JU. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing multiple electrical connections that would beneficially make a more user-friendly device.
Regarding Claim 47, PASQUA does not teach that the battery holder is detachably attached to the link member because they are integral.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the integral battery holder and link member of PASQUA’s bicycle component separate, since it has been held that making integral parts of an invention separate involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 and MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
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, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
