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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-46 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 23, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “a link member movably coupling to the movable member” is grammatically incorrect and should be “a link member movably [coupled] to the movable member”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “wherein the actuator is provided to the base member” is not understood grammatically; For the purpose of examination it will be interpreted as “wherein the actuator is provided [on] the base member”. 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.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JU (CN-105936327-A).
Regarding Claim 1, JU teaches a bicycle component (Front Derailleur 740, Paras. [0152]- [0158] and Fig. 26, an embodiment sharing many features which are described in more detail for Front Derailleur 40, Paras. [0108]- [0125] and Figs. 1- 13) comprising:
a base member (Base Member 758, Para. [0153] and Fig. 26);
a movable member (Moveable Member 752, Para. [0153] and Fig. 26);
a link member (Link 57, Para. [0117] and Fig. 8, understood to have an analogous, though unlabeled, equivalent in the embodiment of Fig. 26) movably {coupled} to the movable member (752) to the base member (Para. [0117] and Fig. 8 teach a Base Member 58 supporting a Chain Guide 52 via Link 57; this moveable coupling being understood to function similarly in the embodiment of Fig. 26);
an actuator (Electric Actuation Unit 754, Para. [0153] and Fig. 26) operatively coupled to the link member (57) to move the link member (Para. [0125] teaches Link 57 being moved by an Electric Actuating Unit 54; this operative coupling being understood to function similarly in the embodiment of Fig. 26); and
a battery holder (Power Supply Bracket 739, Para. [0152] and Fig. 26) detachably attached to the link member (57), the battery holder (739) including a battery holding portion (Power Supply Unit 738, Para. [0152] and Fig. 26) configured to hold a battery (Para. [0109] teaches a Power Supply Unit 38 as comprising a battery, such that Power Supply Unit 738 is also understood to comprise a battery) and a flexible element (Power Cable PLC1, Para. [0156] and Fig. 26) electrically connecting the battery holding portion (738) to the actuator (Para. [0156] teaches Power Supply Unit 738 supplying electric power to Electric Actuation Unit 754 via Power Cable PLC1).
Regarding Claim 2, JU further teaches that the actuator (754) is provided {on} the base member (Para. [0152] and Fig. 26 teach Electric Actuation Unit 754 being mounted on Base Member 758).
Regarding Claim 7, JU further teaches that the flexible element (PLC1) includes at least one of a first electrical cable (Power Cable PCL1 being described and illustrated as an electrical cable in Para. [0156] and Fig. 26) and a flexible circuit board.
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JU.
Regarding Claim 3, JU further teaches that the link member (57) includes a first link (Link 57 comprising First Link “L1”, Fig. 8 Annotated) and a second link (“L2”, Fig. 8 Annotated), and
PNG
media_image1.png
823
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
JU does not teach that the battery holding portion is located at least partially between the first link and the second link.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the bicycle component of JU such that the battery holding portion is located at least partially between the first link and the second link, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 4, JU further teaches that the link member (Link 57) includes a first link (L1) that is pivotally connected to the base member (Base Member 758) by a first link pin (“LP1”, Fig. 8 Annotated) and pivotally connected to the movable member (Moveable Member 752) by a second link pin (“LP2”, Fig. 8 Annotated), and
JU does not teach that the battery holding portion is located between the first link pin and the second link pin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the bicycle component of JU such that the battery holding portion is located between the first link pin and the second link pin, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 5, JU further teaches that the battery holding portion (738) is configured to detachably hold [a wireless communication unit] (Para. [0154] teaches that Power Supply Unit 738 detachable supports a Wireless Communication Unit 756 via a First Housing 760).
JU does not teach that battery holding portion is configured to detachably hold the battery.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of JU in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify JU’s bicycle component such that battery holding portion is configured to detachably hold the battery as suggested by the detachable mounting of the wireless communication unit. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a removable battery that would beneficially make a more user-friendly device.
Regarding Claim 6, JU further teaches, in a related embodiment of a 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).
JU does not teach, in the originally presented embodiment (740), 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.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of JU in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify JU’s originally presented embodiment (740) of a 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’s related embodiment. 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.
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