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 .
Remarks
A new rejection is made based on the applicant’s IDS.
In regard to claim 1, 19, and 20, BAUMGAERTNER et al, discloses “...1. An electronic component for a bicycle, the electronic component comprising: a processor configured to:
receive data from a sensor; (see Fig 1, and paragraph 19-20 where the bike 10 has sensor 130 that can capture an acceleration of the bike and in the longitudinal direction and a second sensor 140 that can detect a pitch of the bike 10 or the sensors can detect a torque)
determine a first speed and a second speed of the bicycle based on a subset of the received data; (see claim 1-2 where the velocity of the bike can be determined and if a threshold velocity is reached then the motor can be regulated.)
PNG
media_image1.png
528
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“...determine an acceleration of the bicycle based on the determined first speed” (see paragraph 19 where a velocity sensor can be determined from a velocity sensor and in FIG. 4 the acceleration of the bike and the velocity profile of the bike can both be determined.).
“...and the determined second speed of the bicycle;” (see p 32 after the first velocity v1 of the electric bicycle 100 is reached at the time t1, for example 3 km/h, there is initially no further acceleration a by the electric bicycle 100 in the longitudinal direction, see FIG. 4. The first velocity v1 remains constant up to the time t2, because there is no acceleration a by the electric bicycle 100 in the longitudinal direction as a result of a manual pushing or braking force or a force impulse from the cyclist. Between a time t2 and a time t3, the cyclist accelerates the electric bicycle 100 positively in a longitudinal direction by means of a manual force. The positive acceleration a of the electric bicycle 100 in the longitudinal direction is captured and regulation 380 of the electric motor 110 in order to increase the torque M is performed, so that the velocity v of the electric bicycle 100 is increased between the time t2 and the time t3. This results in a second velocity v2. Between the time t3 and the time t4, the second velocity v2 remains constant. Between a time t4 and a time t5, the cyclist accelerates the electric bicycle 100 negatively, i.e. counter to the longitudinal direction. The cyclist 200 accordingly slows down the electric bicycle 100 with a manual force. The acceleration a of the electric bicycle 100 counter to the longitudinal direction is captured by the control method in step 330, and regulation 380 of the electric motor 110 is performed, which lowers the torque M of the electric motor 110, so that the velocity of the electric bicycle 100 is reduced between the time t4 and the time t5. Finally, the electric motor 110 is used to produce a third velocity v3 for the push assistance by virtue of the torque M. In this manner, the cyclist can set a preferred velocity for the push assistance by exerting an appropriate manual pushing or braking force on the bicycle.)
“...compare the determined acceleration of the bicycle to a predetermined threshold acceleration; and (see FIG. 4)
control the bicycle based on the comparison. (see paragraph 32 where when the velocity and the acceleration are within the desired ranges then the motor is activated ; fter the first velocity v1 of the electric bicycle 100 is reached at the time t1, for example 3 km/h, there is initially no further acceleration a by the electric bicycle 100 in the longitudinal direction, see FIG. 4. The first velocity v1 remains constant up to the time t2, because there is no acceleration a by the electric bicycle 100 in the longitudinal direction as a result of a manual pushing or braking force or a force impulse from the cyclist. Between a time t2 and a time t3, the cyclist accelerates the electric bicycle 100 positively in a longitudinal direction by means of a manual force. The positive acceleration a of the electric bicycle 100 in the longitudinal direction is captured and regulation 380 of the electric motor 110 in order to increase the torque M is performed, so that the velocity v of the electric bicycle 100 is increased between the time t2 and the time t3. This results in a second velocity v2. Between the time t3 and the time t4, the second velocity v2 remains constant. Between a time t4 and a time t5, the cyclist accelerates the electric bicycle 100 negatively, i.e. counter to the longitudinal direction. The cyclist 200 accordingly slows down the electric bicycle 100 with a manual force. The acceleration a of the electric bicycle 100 counter to the longitudinal direction is captured by the control method in step 330, and regulation 380 of the electric motor 110 is performed, which lowers the torque M of the electric motor 110, so that the velocity of the electric bicycle 100 is reduced between the time t4 and the time t5. Finally, the electric motor 110 is used to produce a third velocity v3 for the push assistance by virtue of the torque M. In this manner, the cyclist can set a preferred velocity for the push assistance by exerting an appropriate manual pushing or braking force on the bicycle.)
The applicant states that no reference in the prior art discloses or suggests either individually or together with any other prior art of record “...determine an acceleration of the bike based on the first determined speed and the second determined speed”.
In paragraph 45, the applicant’s specification recites “...[a] significant advantage of the disclosed bicycle control is that determining acceleration of the bicycle based on wheel speed information does not require any additional sensor hardware, as wheel speed measurement using, for example, a reed switch or a Hall effect sensor is currently provided on state-of-the-art electric bicycles. Accordingly, the disclosed bicycle control provides low-cost detection of wheel slipping and wheel lock to avoid a safety critical situation for a rider”.
Therefore, the acceleration of the bike is determined from the wheel speed.
In paragraph 11 of the SEAGRAVES reference to FORD™, “..[i]n example environment 100, bicycle 130 may be equipped with a stability control system 145 which may include, for instance, a plurality of sensors 140A-140D, a controller 150 and a stability adjustment mechanism 160. It is noteworthy that, although a set number of sensors is shown in FIG. 1, i.e., four, the number of sensors may vary in various embodiments of the present disclosure. Each of the one or more sensors 140A-140D may be communicatively connected to controller 150 and may include, but not limited to, one or more of the following: a gyroscope, an accelerometer, a steering angle position sensor, a wheel speed sensor, a brake effort sensor, and a pedal effort sensor. Controller 150 may be configured to monitor one or more parameters related to a movement of bicycle 130 to detect an impending occurrence of an event related to bicycle 130 based on the monitoring, using data received from the plurality of sensors 140A-140D. The event in concern may include, for example, falling of bicycle 130 due to a lean angle of bicycle 130 exceeding a threshold angle. The one or more parameters related to the movement of bicycle 130 may include, but not limited to, one or more of the following: a lean angle of bicycle 130, a speed of bicycle 130, an acceleration of bicycle 130, a steering angle of bicycle 130, a wheel speed of bicycle 130, a measurement of brake effort, and a measurement of pedal effort”.
Therefore, using the WHEEL SPEED SENSOR and acceleration of the bike 130 can be determined. Therefore, the reference does disclose “...determine an acceleration of the bike based on the first determined speed and the second determined speed”.
The applicant states that this is improper hindsight.
The office does not agree. Converting acceleration from velocity or velocity from acceleration is well known in the art.
The bike may have two-wheel speed sensors that can detect an acceleration. It is not understood what the applicant is referring to when they state that this is not shown explicitly in the reference. This is not limited to falling over but instead to decelerate the bike.
The applicant also appears to be arguing limitations which are not claimed. The claims require a very specific combination.
On page 12 they are that a specific acceleration range is not shown. This is false to determine a bike tipping over by the acceleration implicitly requires a range of values.
On page 21 of the remarks stating a duplication of parts does not confer patentability of the claims. Determining an additional time point and a third speed is a duplication of parts and only involves a routine skill in the art.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 20170021827 A1 to Seagraves et al. filed in 2015 and who is assigned to FORD™ and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20110202236A1 to Galasso et al. filed in 2011 and in view of Japanese Patent Publication. No.: JP H05319240 A1 to SUETSUGU et al. filed in 1992.
PNG
media_image2.png
980
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, 19, and 20, Seagraves discloses “...1. An electronic component for a bicycle, the electronic component comprising: a processor configured to:
receive data from a sensor; (see Fig 2, where the bike has a control system 205 that has a number of sensors 215a to 215n and a processor and a memory and that can adjust 1. An active steering, 2. Active braking and 3. Active pedaling of the bike)
PNG
media_image3.png
930
772
media_image3.png
Greyscale
determine a first speed and a second speed of the bicycle based on a subset of the received data; (see paragraph 11 where the bike has an accelerometer and a wheel speed sensor that can determine 1. A speed of the bike 130 and 2. A wheel speed of the bike and 3. A wheel speed and 4 a measurement of brake effort) (see paragraph 11 where the bike has an accelerometer and a wheel speed sensor that can determine 1. A speed of the bike 130 and 2. A wheel speed of the bike and 3. A wheel speed and 4 a measurement of brake effort and 5. An acceleration of the bike)
Seagraves is silent but Suetsugu teaches “...determine an acceleration of the bicycle based on the determined first speed” (see abstract where the wheel speed of each wheel is determined and then from the wheel speed an acceleration of the wheel is determined from a time variation of each wheel speed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Seagraves with the teachings of Suetsugu as a wheel can be determined to have a wheel speed. From the wheel speed, the acceleration of the wheel is determined from a time variation of the wheel speed. From these two parameters the wheel can be determined as slipping or gripping. Then a control action can be taken. See abstract.
Seagraves is silent but Galasso teaches “...and the determined second speed of the bicycle;” (see paragraph 69 where the device has a wheel speed sensor that measures different travel points; see paragraph 51 where a controller takes a derivative of the acceleration to determine if there is a cull and a dip;)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Seagraves with the teachings of Galasso as a wheel can be determined to have a wheel speed from a wheel speed sensor on the bike. The bike also has a sensor 5 on the front forks that can measure wheel speed and acceleration and pedal bob acceleration. See paragraph 30. From the wheel speed, the acceleration of the wheel and the force, a valve can be controlled by both sensors 5 and 30. See paragraph 40-48.
Seagraves discloses “...compare the determined acceleration of the bicycle to a predetermined threshold acceleration; and (see paragraph 16-17 where the acceleration is used to determine the lean angle and the cornering speed of the bike during maneuvering)
control the bicycle based on the comparison. (see blocks 400-480 where the acceleration may indicate that the bike is going to tip over and fall based on the acceleration, and gyroscopic information and then a remedial measure can be provided to prevent a fall; see claim 1-14)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 20170021827 A1 to Seagraves et al. filed in 2015 and who is assigned to FORD™ and in view of United States Patent Pub. No.: US20190077480A1 to Bailey that was filed in 2017 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20110202236A1 to Galasso et al. filed in 2011 and in view of Japanese Patent Publication. No.: JP H05319240 A1 to SUETSUGU et al. filed in 1992.
Seagraves is silent but Bailey teaches “...2. The electronic component of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to identify wheel slip of a bicycle wheel of the bicycle when, based on the comparison, the determined acceleration of the bicycle is greater than the predetermined threshold acceleration”. (see paragraph 22-44)”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of BAILEY and the disclosure of the primary reference to SEAGRAVES since BAILEY teaches that a number of accelerometers can measure a y axis acceleration and compare this to a threshold to determine a roll angle of the bike. Then a roll and slip of the tires can be determined and in response a steering augmentation can be provided for to prevent a fall. See Bailey at claims 1-16 paragraph 60.
Claim 3 is cancelled.
Seagraves discloses “...wherein the bicycle is an electric bicycle. (see paragraph 9)”.
Seagraves discloses “...4. The electronic component of claim 1, wherein the control of the electric bicycle based on the comparison comprises control of an assist motor of the electric bicycle based on the comparison. (see paragraph 19)”.
Seagraves discloses “...5. The electronic component of claim 4, wherein the control of the assist motor of the electric bicycle based on the comparison comprises reduction of a power of the assist motor for a predetermined period of time when, based on the comparison, the determined acceleration of the electric bicycle is greater than the predetermined threshold acceleration. (see paragraph 11-16 where the speed can be adjusted and claims 15-19).
Seagraves discloses “..6. The electronic component of claim 5, wherein the predetermined threshold acceleration is a maximum acceleration of the electric bicycle. (see claim 1-8 and paragraph 32-38 where the acceleration can indicate a high speed and the fall can result and then the speed can be reduced)”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 20170021827 A1 to Seagraves et al. filed in 2015 and who is assigned to FORD™ and in view of United States Patent Pub. No.: US20190077480A1 to Bailey that was filed in 2017 and in view of Great Britain Patent No.: GB2432230A to Lu that was filed in 2006 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20110202236A1 to Galasso et al. filed in 2011 and in view of Japanese Patent Publication. No.: JP H05319240 A1 to SUETSUGU et al. filed in 1992.
Lu teaches “..7. The electronic component of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to identify a wheel lock of a bicycle wheel of the bicycle when, based on the comparison, the determined acceleration of the electric bicycle is less than the predetermined threshold acceleration”. (see paragraph 1-10 where the INS unit can include accelerometers to measure side slip where the wheels are locked and now moving laterally and see claim 1-16 where a lateral acceleration of the vehicle can be measured and a slip of the wheels and locking and yaw can be detected).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of LU and the disclosure of the primary reference to SEAGRAVES since LU teaches that a number of accelerometers can measure the state of the vehicle and then a lateral force can be determined on each tire. This can determine a body acceleration for the vehicle and a longitudinal and locking and side slip of the wheels. Then a vehicle can be controlled to reverse the slipping and increase stability. See FIG. 7 and the abstract.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 20170021827 A1 to Seagraves et al. filed in 2015 and who is assigned to FORD™ and in view of United States Patent Pub. No.: US20190077480A1 to Bailey that was filed in 2017 and in view of Great Britain Patent No.: GB2432230A to Lu that was filed in 2006 and in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No.: US 20130296129 to ITAKURA that was filed in 2013 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20110202236A1 to Galasso et al. filed in 2011 and in view of Japanese Patent Publication. No.: JP H05319240 A1 to SUETSUGU et al. filed in 1992.
ITAKURA teaches “...8. The electronic component of claim 7, wherein the control of the bicycle based on the comparison comprises deactivation of electronic shifting of the bicycle for a predetermined period of time when, based on the comparison, the determined acceleration of the bicycle is less than the predetermined threshold acceleration. (see paragraph 73-75 and 158).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of ITAKURA and the disclosure of the primary reference to SEAGRAVES since ITAKURA teaches that an acceleration or deceleration can be determined and in response to the acceleration and the shift position then the shifting can be deactivated and matched with the rotational speed that is desired. See paragraph 158.
The office takes official notice that deactivation of the shifting can be occur when there is a mechanical braking. See paragraph 152, U.S. Patent Application Pub. NO.: US 2010/0133542 A1 to Ratti et al.
Seagraves discloses “...9. The electronic component of claim 8, wherein the predetermined threshold acceleration is a minimum acceleration of the bicycle”. (see claims 1-2 where the acceleration can be a minimum and a lean angle can be a maximum to indicate that the user can fall off the bike)”.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec.103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 20170021827 A1 to Seagraves et al. filed in 2015 and who is assigned to FORD™ and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20110202236A1 to Galasso et al. filed in 2011 and in view of Japanese Patent Publication. No.: JP H05319240 A1 to SUETSUGU et al. filed in 1992.
Seagraves discloses “...10. The electronic component of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a bicycle wheel speed sensor and is configured to sense at least one sensed element disposed about a bicycle wheel of the bicycle as the at least one sensed element rotates through a proximal region of the sensor. (see paragraph 11 and claims 8-9).
Seagraves discloses “...11. — The electronic component of claim 10, wherein: the determination of the first speed comprises:
identification of a first time point and a second time point from the subset of the received data, the identified first time point and the identified second time point being times at which the bicycle wheel speed sensor senses a respective sensed element of the at least one sensed element, the second time point being after the first time point;
determination of a first elapsed time based on a difference between the identified second time point and the identified first time point; and
determination of the first speed based on a size of the bicycle wheel and the determined first elapsed time; and
determination of the second speed comprises: identification of the second time point and a third time point from the subset of the received data, the identified third time point being a time at which the bicycle wheel speed sensor senses a respective sensed element of the at least one sensed element, the third time point being after the second time point; determination of a second elapsed time based on a difference between the identified third time point and the identified second time point; and determination of the second speed based on the size of the bicycle wheel and the determined second elapsed time. (see paragraph 11-23 and 24-35 where the speed and acceleration and wheel speed over time can indicate that the bike is about to fall and tip over and then the processor can adjust the steering and the acceleration to increase the acceleration and speed to prevent the bike from falling over)
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 20170021827 A1 to Seagraves et al. filed in 2015 and who is assigned to FORD™ and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20110202236A1 to Galasso et al. filed in 2011 and in view of Japanese Patent Publication. No.: JP H05319240 A1 to SUETSUGU et al. filed in 1992.
Seagraves discloses “..12. The electronic component of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a third speed of the bicycle based on the subset of the received data, the determination of third speed of the bicycle comprising: identification of the third time point and a fourth time point from the subset of the received data, the identified fourth time point being a time at which the bicycle wheel speed sensor senses a respective sensed element of the at least one sensed element, the fourth time point being after the third time point; determination of a third elapsed time based on a difference between the identified fourth time point and the identified third time point; and determination of the third speed based on the size of the bicycle wheel and the determined third elapsed time, and wherein the determined acceleration of the bicycle is also based on the determined third speed of the bicycle. (see paragraph 11-23 and 24-35 where the speed and acceleration and wheel speed over time can indicate that the bike is about to fall and tip over and then the processor can adjust the steering and the acceleration to increase the acceleration and speed to prevent the bike from falling over)
Seagraves discloses “...13. The electronic component of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a first acceleration of the bicycle based on the first speed of the bicycle and the second speed of the bicycle; and determine a second acceleration of the bicycle based on the second speed of the bicycle and the third speed of the bicycle, and 3 wherein the determination of the acceleration of the bicycle is based on the determined first acceleration of the bicycle and the determined second acceleration of the bicycle. (see paragraph 11-23 and 24-35 where the speed and acceleration and wheel speed over time can indicate that the bike is about to fall and tip over and then the processor can adjust the steering and the acceleration to increase the acceleration and speed to prevent the bike from falling over)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 20170021827 A1 to Seagraves et al. filed in 2015 and who is assigned to FORD™ and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20110202236A1 to Galasso et al. filed in 2011 and in view of Japanese Patent Publication. No.: JP H05319240 A1 to SUETSUGU et al. filed in 1992.
Seagraves discloses “...14.‘ The electronic component of claim 13, further comprising a memory in communication with the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store the determined first speed of the bicycle, (see block 222) the determined second speed of the bicycle, and the determined third speed of the bicycle as first samples of a first sample buffer, respectively, and wherein the memory is configured to store the determined first acceleration of the bicycle and the determined second acceleration of the bicycle as second samples of a second sample buffer, respectively. (see paragraph 11-23 and 24-35 where the speed and acceleration and wheel speed over time can indicate that the bike is about to fall and tip over and then the processor can adjust the steering and the acceleration to increase the acceleration and speed to prevent the bike from falling over)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 20170021827 A1 to Seagraves et al. filed in 2015 and who is assigned to FORD™ and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20110202236A1 to Galasso et al. filed in 2011 and in view of Japanese Patent Publication. No.: JP H05319240 A1 to SUETSUGU et al. filed in 1992.
Seagraves discloses “...15. The electronic component of claim 14, wherein the received data includes a plurality of data points that identify receipt of magnetic field pulses by the sensor at a plurality of time points, respectively, the plurality of time points including the first time point, the second time point, the third time point, the fourth time point, and one or more additional time points, (see sensor 215a TO N where these are all compared to an index in memory for the angle, speed, acceleration and wheel acceleration over time) wherein the processor is further configured to: determine one or more additional speeds of the bicycle based on the fourth time point and the one or more additional time points; and determine one or more additional accelerations of the bicycle based on the determined third speed of the bicycle and the determined one or more additional speeds of the bicycle, wherein the memory is further configured to: store the determined one or more additional speeds of the bicycle as one or more additional first samples of the first sample buffer, respectively; and store the determined one or more additional accelerations of the bicycle as one or more additional second samples of the second sample buffer, respectively. (see paragraph 11-23 and 24-35 where the speed and acceleration and wheel speed over time can indicate that the bike is about to fall and tip over and then the processor can adjust the steering and the acceleration to increase the acceleration and speed to prevent the bike from falling over)”.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 20170021827 A1 to Seagraves et al. filed in 2015 and who is assigned to FORD™ and in view of United States Patent App. Pub. No.: US20100036639A1 to Vock that was filed in 1998 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20110202236A1 to Galasso et al. filed in 2011 and in view of Japanese Patent Publication. No.: JP H05319240 A1 to SUETSUGU et al. filed in 1992.
Vock teaches “...16. The electronic component of claim 15, wherein the determination of the acceleration of the bicycle comprises an average of the second samples and the one or more additional second samples stored in the second sample buffer of the memory”. (see paragraph 52-58).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of VOCK and the disclosure of the primary reference to SEAGRAVES since VOCK teaches that an average value of speed over time can be stored for reference by the memory from the number of accelerometers. This can be stored for reference by the processor and a remote cloud server. See claims 1-15.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 20170021827 A1 to Seagraves et al. filed in 2015 and who is assigned to FORD™ and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20110202236A1 to Galasso et al. filed in 2011 and in view of Japanese Patent Publication. No.: JP H05319240 A1 to SUETSUGU et al. filed in 1992.
Seagraves discloses “...17. The electronic component of claim 14, wherein the first sample buffer is configured to store a first predetermined number of first samples, and the second sample buffer is configured to store a second predetermined number of second samples. (see sensor 215a TO N where these are all compared to an index in memory for the angle, speed, acceleration and wheel acceleration over time) (see paragraph 11-23 and 24-35 where the speed and acceleration and wheel speed over time can indicate that the bike is about to fall and tip over and then the processor can adjust the steering and the acceleration to increase the acceleration and speed to prevent the bike from falling over)
Seagraves discloses “...18. The electronic component of claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive additional data from the sensor, the received additional data identifying a fifth time point at which the bicycle wheel speed sensor senses a respective sensed element of the at least one sensed element, the fifth time point being after the fourth time point;
determine a fourth speed based on the fourth time point and the fifth time point; and
determine a third acceleration based on the determined third speed and the determined fourth speed of the bicycle,
wherein when a number of the first samples stored in the first sample buffer is the same as the first predetermined number of first samples, such that the first sample buffer is full, the memory is configured to store the determined fourth speed of the bicycle as one of the first samples of the first sample buffer and replace an oldest of the first samples,
wherein when a number of the second samples stored in the second sample buffer is the same as the second predetermined number of second samples, such that the second sample buffer is full, the memory is configured to store the determined third acceleration of the bicycle as one of the second samples of the second sample buffer and replace an oldest of the second samples, and(see sensor 215a TO N where these are all compared to an index in memory for the angle, speed, acceleration and wheel acceleration over time) (see paragraph 11-23 and 24-35 where the speed and acceleration and wheel speed over time can indicate that the bike is about to fall and tip over and then the processor can adjust the steering and the acceleration to increase the acceleration and speed to prevent the bike from falling over)
Vock teaches “...wherein the determination of the acceleration of the bicycle comprises an average of the second samples over a predetermined time period”. (See paragraph 52-57
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of VOCK and the disclosure of the primary reference to SEAGRAVES since VOCK teaches that an average value of speed over time can be stored for reference by the memory from the number of accelerometers. This can be stored for reference by the processor and a remote cloud server. See claims 1-15.
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, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2018/0086417 A1 to Baumgaertner that was filed in 2016.
In regard to claim 1, 19, and 20, BAUMGAERTNER et al, discloses “...1. An electronic component for a bicycle, the electronic component comprising: a processor configured to:
receive data from a sensor; (see Fig 1, and paragraph 19-20 where the bike 10 has sensor 130 that can capture an acceleration of the bike and in the longitudinal direction and a second sensor 140 that can detect a pitch of the bike 10 or the sensors can detect a torque)
determine a first speed and a second speed of the bicycle based on a subset of the received data; (see claim 1-2 where the velocity of the bike can be determined and if a threshold velocity is reached then the motor can be regulated.)
PNG
media_image1.png
528
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“...determine an acceleration of the bicycle based on the determined first speed” (see paragraph 19 where a velocity sensor can be determined from a velocity sensor and in FIG. 4 the acceleration of the bike and the velocity profile of the bike can both be determined.).
“...and the determined second speed of the bicycle;” (see p 32 after the first velocity v1 of the electric bicycle 100 is reached at the time t1, for example 3 km/h, there is initially no further acceleration a by the electric bicycle 100 in the longitudinal direction, see FIG. 4. The first velocity v1 remains constant up to the time t2, because there is no acceleration a by the electric bicycle 100 in the longitudinal direction as a result of a manual pushing or braking force or a force impulse from the cyclist. Between a time t2 and a time t3, the cyclist accelerates the electric bicycle 100 positively in a longitudinal direction by means of a manual force. The positive acceleration a of the electric bicycle 100 in the longitudinal direction is captured and regulation 380 of the electric motor 110 in order to increase the torque M is performed, so that the velocity v of the electric bicycle 100 is increased between the time t2 and the time t3. This results in a second velocity v2. Between the time t3 and the time t4, the second velocity v2 remains constant. Between a time t4 and a time t5, the cyclist accelerates the electric bicycle 100 negatively, i.e. counter to the longitudinal direction. The cyclist 200 accordingly slows down the electric bicycle 100 with a manual force. The acceleration a of the electric bicycle 100 counter to the longitudinal direction is captured by the control method in step 330, and regulation 380 of the electric motor 110 is performed, which lowers the torque M of the electric motor 110, so that the velocity of the electric bicycle 100 is reduced between the time t4 and the time t5. Finally, the electric motor 110 is used to produce a third velocity v3 for the push assistance by virtue of the torque M. In this manner, the cyclist can set a preferred velocity for the push assistance by exerting an appropriate manual pushing or braking force on the bicycle.)
“...compare the determined acceleration of the bicycle to a predetermined threshold acceleration; and (see FIG. 4)
control the bicycle based on the comparison. (see paragraph 32 where when the velocity and the acceleration are within the desired ranges then the motor is activated ; fter the first velocity v1 of the electric bicycle 100 is reached at the time t1, for example 3 km/h, there is initially no further acceleration a by the electric bicycle 100 in the longitudinal direction, see FIG. 4. The first velocity v1 remains constant up to the time t2, because there is no acceleration a by the electric bicycle 100 in the longitudinal direction as a result of a manual pushing or braking force or a force impulse from the cyclist. Between a time t2 and a time t3, the cyclist accelerates the electric bicycle 100 positively in a longitudinal direction by means of a manual force. The positive acceleration a of the electric bicycle 100 in the longitudinal direction is captured and regulation 380 of the electric motor 110 in order to increase the torque M is performed, so that the velocity v of the electric bicycle 100 is increased between the time t2 and the time t3. This results in a second velocity v2. Between the time t3 and the time t4, the second velocity v2 remains constant. Between a time t4 and a time t5, the cyclist accelerates the electric bicycle 100 negatively, i.e. counter to the longitudinal direction. The cyclist 200 accordingly slows down the electric bicycle 100 with a manual force. The acceleration a of the electric bicycle 100 counter to the longitudinal direction is captured by the control method in step 330, and regulation 380 of the electric motor 110 is performed, which lowers the torque M of the electric motor 110, so that the velocity of the electric bicycle 100 is reduced between the time t4 and the time t5. Finally, the electric motor 110 is used to produce a third velocity v3 for the push assistance by virtue of the torque M. In this manner, the cyclist can set a preferred velocity for the push assistance by exerting an appropriate manual pushing or braking force on the bicycle.)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666