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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 30, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on the date: August 06, 2025.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of Claims Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldwater US2012/0200401 (previously cited), in view of Lee et al. US10549801 (called Lee hereinafter and previously cited) and further in view of Bauer et al. US2002/0078748.
Regarding independent claim 1, Goldwater teaches a sensor system (Fig. 1; apparatus 100) for a bicycle (Fig. 1; bicycle 200). comprising:
a magnetic field sensor (Fig. 1; magnetic sensors 121), and an acceleration sensor unit having at least one acceleration sensor (Fig. 1; acceleration sensor 120); and
an evaluation unit (Fig. 5; microprocessor 170) configured to acquire signals from the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit;
wherein the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit are configured for attachment to a wheel of the bicycle (Fig. 1; para [0033]; apparatus 100 attached to wheel 201), the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit being fixed relative to each other (Fig. 1; magnetic sensors 121 and acceleration sensor 120 are fixed relative to each other) and being situated at a predefined distance with respect to an axis of rotation (Fig. 1); and
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the signals of the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit to ascertain: (i) a rotational speed (Fig. 1; para [0033]), and/or (ii) orientation, of the magnetic field sensor and/or acceleration sensor unit with respect to the axis of rotation (Fig. 1; para [0033]; sensors 121 and 120 used to determine speed, direction of rotation and angle of the ground with respect to the apparatus 100).
Goldwater fails to teach wherein the evaluation unit is configured to carry out a first velocity ascertainment based on signals of the magnetic field sensor, and a second velocity ascertainment based on signals of the acceleration sensor unit.
Lee teaches wherein the evaluation unit is configured to carry out a first velocity ascertainment based on signals of the magnetic field sensor (Column 8 lines 22-36 and claim 6; rotational velocity or driving velocity), and a second velocity ascertainment based on signals of the acceleration sensor unit (Column 7 lines 49-58; velocity increase/decrease ratio of linear movement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Goldwater with the magnetic sensor and acceleration sensor measuring velocities as described by Lee for the purpose of measuring a distance between a user and a locking device to determine if a possible theft of a bicycle has occurred (Column 1 lines 17-23 and Fig. 17).
Goldwater and Lee fail to teach wherein the evaluation unit is configured to fuse the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit to ascertain a rotational speed of the wheel.
Bauer teaches wherein the evaluation unit is configured to fuse the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit to ascertain a rotational speed of the wheel (para [0023]; acceleration sensor and magnetic field data are combined to have a broadband value proportional to the rotational speed of Ferraris disk F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Goldwater and Lee with the combining of magnetic sensor and acceleration sensor data as described by Bauer for the purpose of determine a broadband value that is proportional to a rotational speed of a Ferraris disk (para [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Goldwater, Lee and Bauer teach the sensor system as recited in claim 1, Goldwater further teaches wherein the magnetic field sensor is configured for at least biaxial ascertaining of magnetic fields and/or the acceleration sensor unit is configured for at least biaxial ascertaining of accelerations (para [0033]; 2-axis acceleration sensor 120).
Regarding independent claim 10, Goldwater teaches a bicycle (Fig. 1; bicycle 200), comprising:
at least one wheel rotatable about an axis of rotation (Fig. 1; wheel 201 with an axis of rotation); and
a sensor system (Fig. 1; apparatus 100), including:
a magnetic field sensor (Fig. 1; magnetic sensors 121), and an acceleration sensor unit having at least one acceleration sensor (Fig. 1; acceleration sensor 120); and
an evaluation unit (Fig. 5; microprocessor 170) configured to acquire signals from the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit;
wherein the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit are configured for attachment to a wheel of the bicycle (Fig. 1; para [0033]; apparatus 100 attached to wheel 201), the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit being fixed relative to each other (Fig. 1; magnetic sensors 121 and acceleration sensor 120 are fixed relative to each other) and being situated at a predefined distance with respect to an axis of rotation (Fig. 1); and
wherein the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the signals of the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit to ascertain: (i) a rotational speed (Fig. 1; para [0033]), and/or (ii) orientation, of the magnetic field sensor and/or acceleration sensor unit with respect to the axis of rotation (Fig. 1; para [0033]; sensors 121 and 120 used to determine speed, direction of rotation and angle of the ground with respect to the apparatus 100);
wherein each of the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit is attached to the same wheel of the bicycle (Fig. 1), and the axis of rotation corresponding to the axis of rotation of the same wheel (Fig. 1).
Goldwater fails to teach wherein the evaluation unit is configured to carry out a first velocity ascertainment based on signals of the magnetic field sensor, and a second velocity ascertainment based on signals of the acceleration sensor unit.
Lee teaches wherein the evaluation unit is configured to carry out a first velocity ascertainment based on signals of the magnetic field sensor (Column 8 lines 22-36 and claim 6; rotational velocity or driving velocity), and a second velocity ascertainment based on signals of the acceleration sensor unit (Column 7 lines 49-58; velocity increase/decrease ratio of linear movement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Goldwater with the magnetic sensor and acceleration sensor measuring velocities as described by Lee for the purpose of measuring a distance between a user and a locking device to determine if a possible theft of a bicycle has occurred (Column 1 lines 17-23 and Fig. 17).
Goldwater and Lee fail to teach wherein the evaluation unit is configured to fuse the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit to ascertain a rotational speed of the wheel.
Bauer teaches wherein the evaluation unit is configured to fuse the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit to ascertain a rotational speed of the wheel (para [0023]; acceleration sensor and magnetic field data are combined to have a broadband value proportional to the rotational speed of Ferraris disk F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Goldwater and Lee with the combining of magnetic sensor and acceleration sensor data as described by Bauer for the purpose of determine a broadband value that is proportional to a rotational speed of a Ferraris disk (para [0023]).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldwater, in view of Lee, in view of Bauer and further in view of De-Thomasis et al. US2020/0096362 (called De-Thomasis hereinafter and previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Goldwater, Lee and Bauer teach the sensor system as recited in claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the acceleration sensor unit has a first acceleration sensor and a second acceleration sensor that are stationary relative to each other and are situated in different angular positions with respect to the axis of rotation.
De-Thomasis teaches wherein the acceleration sensor unit has a first acceleration sensor (Fig. 2; para [0016]; first accelerometer 204) and a second acceleration sensor (Fig. 2; para [0016]; second accelerometer 206) that are stationary relative to each other and are situated in different angular positions with respect to the axis of rotation (Fig. 2; the sensors 204 and 206 are at different positions of the wheel 202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Goldwater, Lee and Bauer with the two accelerometers on a wheel as described by De-Thomasis for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the centripetal accelerations and angular speed of the wheel the sensors are attached to (para [0016]).
Regarding claim 3, Goldwater, Lee, Bauer and De-Thomasis teach the sensor system as recited in claim 2, De-Thomasis further teaches wherein the first acceleration sensor and the second acceleration sensor are configured mirror-symmetrically with respect to the axis of rotation (Fig. 2; sensors 204 and 206 are mirrored with each other on the wheel 202).
Regarding claim 4, Goldwater, Lee and Bauer teach the sensor system as recited in claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: an additional acceleration sensor situated in stationary fashion with respect to the axis of rotation, the evaluation unit being configured to ascertain a centrifugal acceleration from the signals of the acceleration sensor unit based on signals of the additional acceleration sensor.
De-Thomasis teaches an additional acceleration sensor (Fig. 2; second accelerometer 206) situated in stationary fashion with respect to the axis of rotation (Fig. 2; the second accelerometer is stationary with the axis of rotation when viewed from the axis of rotation), the evaluation unit being configured to ascertain a centrifugal acceleration from the signals of the acceleration sensor unit based on signals of the additional acceleration sensor (para [0016]; the accelerometers measure their respective centripetal accelerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Goldwater, Lee and Bauer with the two accelerometers on a wheel as described by De-Thomasis for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the centripetal accelerations and angular speed of the wheel the sensors are attached to (para [0016]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldwater, in view of Lee, in view of Bauer and further in view of Nasiri et al. US2009/0007661 (called Nasiri hereinafter and previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Goldwater, Lee and Bauer teach the sensor system as recited in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the evaluation unit has a fusion unit, including a Kalman filter, configured to fuse the signals of the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit to ascertain, from the fused signals: (i) the rotational speed, and/or (ii) the orientation, of the magnetic field sensor and/or acceleration sensor unit with respect to the axis of rotation.
Nasiri teaches wherein the evaluation unit has a fusion unit (para [0052]; computation unit), including a Kalman filter (para [0052]; Kalman filter used to fuse gyroscope, accelerometer and magnetic sensor data), configured to fuse the signals of the magnetic field sensor and the acceleration sensor unit to ascertain, from the fused signals: (i) the rotational speed (para [0052]; angular velocity is determined), and/or (ii) the orientation (para [0052]; orientation is determined), of the magnetic field sensor and/or acceleration sensor unit with respect to the axis of rotation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Goldwater, Lee and Bauer with the fusion of sensing data as described by Nasiri for the purpose of reducing gyroscope drift and also provide a 3 degree-of-freedom orientation sensor with a more accurate estimate of the direction of gravity (para [0052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Claims 6 is 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:
Regarding claim 6, this claim was indicated as allowable subject matter in the previous Office Action mailed on October 01, 2025.
Regarding independent claims 7 and 9, these claims were indicated as allowable subject matter in the previous Office Action mailed on October 01, 2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ausserlechner discloses “a magnetic field sensor” (see US2012/0194175)
Gut discloses “Method for determining an orientation of a movable device” (see US2021/0041264)
Fennel et al. discloses “Device for combined detection of axle acceleration and wheel rotational speed and method for determining pressure” (see US2005/0072223)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858