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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102022202975.5, filed on 03/25/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 5/01/2023 and 9/14/2023 has been acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit configured to perform the method” in claim 10. Claim 10 does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because “control unit” is considered to be a known device to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: A method for controlling motor assistance provided by a motor of an electric bike, comprising:
determining a variable rate of change of a governing factor defining the extent to which the governing factor changes over a defined time interval, the governing factor being a factor that determines a degree to which the motor assistance is limited, wherein the rate of change is selected such that the governing factor is decremented when a current speed is greater than a target speed, and the governing factor is incremented when the current speed is less than a target speed.
adjusting the governing factor based on the determined variable rate of change of the governing factor to generate an adjusted governing factor; and
applying the adjusted governing factor to a determined motor assistance determined for actuating the motor, wherein the governing factor determines a degree to which the determined motor assistance is restricted such that a greater governing factor results in greater motor assistance than a comparatively lesser governing factor.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “determining, adjusting, and applying” steps encompass a user gather data and make calculations using that data. Determining a variable rate of change is simply doing calculations to determine a value. Adjusting the governing factor is multiplying the previous factor with the rate of change. Applying the adjusted governing factor to a determined motor assistance is multiplying the adjusted factor to the power used. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “motor”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “motor” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining, adjusting, and applying steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the motor is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a motor.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a motor or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the method, the motor amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Hence, Claim 1 is not patent eligible. Dependent Claims 2-14 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takata (U.S. Patent No 5,474,148).
Regarding claim 1, Takata teaches a method for controlling motor assistance provided by a motor of an electric bike (Takata Figures 1,2 and Abstract). The method comprises:
determining a variable rate of change of a governing factor ("assist rate" or “assist ratio” = governing factor) defining the extent to which the governing factor changes over a defined time interval, the governing factor being a factor that determines a degree to which the motor assistance is limited (Takata Abstract “operator may select the assist ratio or assist ratio curve provided.” Figs. 9-10 ref a, c, d, e, etc, Col 1 lines 64-66 “Means are provided for selectively varying the amount of electric motor assist”, Claim 1 “operating said electric motor at a ratio related to said force signal for assisting the driving of said vehicle”, Claim 6, Claim 10 “means for selectively varying the variation in the amount of electric motor assist” Time can be anything, such as when the speed increases from a stopped condition to a predetermined low speed), wherein the rate of change is selected such that the governing factor is decremented when a current speed is greater than a target speed (Takata Claim 4: "wherein the electric motor assist ratio is reduced as the speed increases above the predetermined speed" ), and the governing factor is incremented when the current speed is less than a target speed (Takata Claim 6: "wherein the electric motor assist is varied from zero (0) assist ratio to a constant assist ratio as the speed of the vehicle increases from a stopped condition to a predetermined low speed").
adjusting the governing factor based on the determined variable rate of change of the governing factor to generate an adjusted governing factor (Takata Fig. 9-10 and col 4 line 67 to col 5 line 2 “assist ratio is decreased linearly as shown by the curve "a" until it reaches zero (0) at the speed S.sub.E” and Claim 10 “means for selectively varying the variation in the amount of electric motor assist”);
applying the adjusted governing factor to a determined motor assistance determined for actuating the motor (Takata col 5 lines 10-35 and claim 1 “an electric motor for exerting a driving force to said vehicle, means responsive to the output force signal of said force sensing means for supplying an amount of electrical power for operating said electric motor at a ratio related to said force signal for assisting the driving of said vehicle, a vehicle condition sensing device outputting a vehicle condition signal, and means for varying the ratio of electric motor assist relative to the force sensed by said force sensing means in response to the vehicle condition signal output by said vehicle condition sensing device.”), wherein the governing factor determines a degree to which the determined motor assistance is restricted (Takata Abstract) such that a greater governing factor results in greater motor assistance than a comparatively lesser governing factor (Takata Summary of the invention 60-64 and col 1 lines 32-37 “For example, at low speeds it may be desirable to provide a large electric motor drive force and this results in the election of a large assist rate .eta.. However, if this is used then when the vehicle is being driven at high speed, there will be high electrical energy applied and the speed may become excessive and cause excessive consumption of the battery.”).
Regarding claim 5, Takata teaches that the rate of change is proportional to a difference between the current speed and a maximum speed (Takata Fig 9-10).
Regarding claim 8, Takata teaches that given a change in the current speed, the rate of change changes less within a predefined speed interval around the target speed than at a speed above and/or below the speed interval. (Takata Figure 10 curve 'e' and paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 9, Takata teaches a maximum duration beyond which a maximum speed can be exceeded is defined (Takata col 4 lines 58-61), and the motor assistance drops to zero within the maximum duration (Takata col 4 lines 58-61).
Regarding claim 10, Takata teaches an apparatus for controlling motor assistance provided by a motor of an electric bike, comprising a control unit configured to perform the method according to claim 1. (Takata "controlled by means of a controller 32" - col 2 lines 61-62)
Regarding claim 14, Takata teaches that the method further comprises determining the determined motor assistance before applying the adjusted governing factor to the determined motor assistance (Takata Claim 1).
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) 2-4, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (U.S. Patent No 5,474,148) in view of Manewald (DE 102020200198).
Regarding claim 2, Takata teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 and that the rate of change is determined based on the current speed (Takata Col 4 lines 41-42 "the assist ratio is varied in response to actual vehicle speed"). Takata does not teach that the rate of change is determined based on a current acceleration. However, Manewald teaches that the rate of change is determined based on a current acceleration (Manewald "The variable setting on the basis of an operating variable can be carried out by one or more operating parameters of the underlying work device or of the vehicle, for example the first and / or second limit speed is set or adjusted depending on the acceleration of the vehicle" Disclosure of the invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata to incorporate the teachings of Manewald such that the rate of change is determined based on the current speed and a current acceleration. Doing so would allow for the required down-regulations to be more adaptable and less abrupt and disruptive, as recognized by Manewald (Disclosure of the invention [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Takata and Manewald teach all of the limitations of the current invention in claims 2. Takata further discloses that the rate of change is further determined based on additional measured variables (Takata Abstract) detected by a substrate detection device. (Takata torque sensor 33, vehicle speed sensor 66).
Regarding claim 4, Takata and Manewald teach all of the limitations of the current invention in claims 2. Manewald further discloses that at an equal acceleration, increasing current speed causes the rate of change to lead to a faster decrementation of the governing factor (Manewald Fig. 4), and at an equal speed, increasing current acceleration causes the rate of change to lead to a faster decrementation of the governing factor. (Manewald "in the event of a particularly high acceleration… reduction of the relative motor support from the value 1 on the value 0 starts earlier" Preferred embodiments of the invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata to incorporate the teachings of Manewald such that at an equal acceleration, increasing current speed causes the rate of change to lead to a faster decrementation of the governing factor, and at an equal speed, increasing current acceleration causes the rate of change to lead to a faster decrementation of the governing factor. Doing so would prevent abrupt disruptions (Disclosure of the invention [0003]) and reduce the jerky feeling to riders (Preferred embodiments of the invention [0045]), as recognized by Manewald.
Regarding claim 6, Takata teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Takata does not teach that the governing factor is restricted to a minimum value of "0" and a maximum value of "1". However, Manewald teaches that the governing factor is restricted to a minimum value of "0" and a maximum value of "1". (Fig 4 Manewald).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata to incorporate the teachings of Manewald such that the possible values of the rate of change are restricted to a predefined interval, and/or the governing factor is restricted to a minimum value of "0" and a maximum value of "1". Doing so would allow for the maximum producible engine torque (“1”) and no motor support (“0”) to easily be identified as recognized by Manewald (Preferred embodiments of the invention [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, Takata and Manewald teach all of the elements of the current invention in claims 3. Manewald further discloses additional measured variables, including a maximum motor torque ("maximum torque applied" - Manewald), and a rider torque ("muscular motor torque applied by the driver to the output shaft" - Manewald).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata to incorporate the teachings of Manewald such that the additional measured variables the rate of change depends on includes a maximum motor torque and a rider torque. Doing so would allow for the vehicle to considering different operating conditions, including user input, as recognized by Manewald (Disclosure of the invention [0004] and [0008]).
Claim(s) 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (U.S. Patent No 5,474,148) in view of Huang (CN 113415375).
Regarding claim 7, Takata teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Takata does not teach that the governing factor is applied to the respectively lesser of a maximum allowable motor torque and a torque requested by a rider in order to determine a torque to be provided by the motor for the motor assistance. However, Huang teaches that the governing factor is applied to the respectively lesser of a maximum allowable motor torque (Huang "target motor torque") and a torque requested by a rider (Huang "current pedal torque") in order to determine a torque to be provided by the motor for the motor assistance. (Huang Claim 8 "calculating the product of the adjustment coefficient and the target motor torque to obtain the adjusted target motor torque;" and Description “controlling the motor based on the adjusted target motor torque”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata to incorporate the teachings of Huang such that the governing factor is applied to the respectively lesser of a maximum allowable motor torque and a torque requested by a rider in order to determine a requested torque to be provided by the motor for the motor assistance. Doing so would allow the power-assisted bicycle to consider that the current human power output can be correspondingly changed along with different road conditions, as recognized by Huang (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Takata teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Takata does not teach that the governing factor is multiplied by the respectively lesser of a maximum allowable motor torque and a torque requested by a rider in order to determine a torque to be provided by the motor for the motor assistance. However, Huang teaches that the governing factor is multiplied by the respectively lesser of a maximum allowable motor torque (Huang "target motor torque") and a torque requested by a rider (Huang “current pedal torque”) in order to determine a torque to be provided by the motor for the motor assistance (Huang Claim 8 "calculating the product of the adjustment coefficient and the target motor torque to obtain the adjusted target motor torque;" and Description “controlling the motor based on the adjusted target motor torque”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata to incorporate the teachings of Huang such that the governing factor is multiplied by the respectively lesser of a maximum allowable motor torque and a torque requested by a rider multiplied by said torque in order to determine a requested torque to be provided by the motor for the motor assistance. Doing so would allow the power-assisted bicycle to consider that the current human power output can be correspondingly changed along with different road conditions, as recognized by Huang (Abstract).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (U.S. Patent No 5,474,148) in view of JP79 (JP-3974979-B2).
Regarding claim 13, Takata teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Takata does not teach that the variable rate of change of the governing factor represents a slope of a curve of the governing factor. However, JP79 teaches that the variable rate of change of the governing factor represents a slope of a curve of the governing factor (JP79 Fig. 7 and [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takata to incorporate the teachings of JP79 such that the variable rate of change of the governing factor represents a slope of a curve of the governing factor. Doing so would make it possible to obtain auxiliary power corresponding to the pedaling force, and to make it possible to travel comfortably without changing the auxiliary power with the same pedaling force (JP79 [0004]).
Status of Application
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim 1 is the independent claims.
Claims 13 and 14 are new.
This Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 12/16/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/16/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Applicant remarks:
Takata Does Not Disclose Determining a Variable Rate of Change of a Governing Factor, or Adjusting the Governing Factor Based on the Variable Rate of Change of the Governing Factor In the Office Action, the Office alleged that Takata discloses selectively varying motor assist, which means that the variable rate of change must be determined, because Takata discloses that the electric motor assist is selectively varied, and claims 6 and 10 recite "means for selectively varying the variation in the amount of electric motor assist." (Office Action at pages 5-6 and 12-13.) The Applicant respectfully disagrees. The recitation in Takata of a means for selectively varying the amount of electric motor assist does not determine the rate of change of motor assist, nor does it set the electric motor assist based on the rate of change thereof. In fact, Takata's means simply includes varying the electric motor assist as a function of the instantaneous speed of the bicycle. (Takata column 4, lines 44-57 and Fig. 9.)
Further, neither of claims 6 and 10 discloses varying the motor assist based on the determined rate of change of a governing factor applied to the motor assist. Claim 6 simply recites that the motor assist is varied from zero to a constant assist ratio as the speed increases from a stopped speed to a low speed. (Takata claim 6.) In other words, claim 6 again only discloses adjusting a motor assist based on the instantaneous speed. (See, e.g., Takata column 4, lines 44-57 and Fig. 9.)
Aside from this limitation in claim 10, the disclosure of Takata is silent as to any “varying the variation in the amount of electric motor assist,” at least in the manner for which the Office cited claim 10. Thus, at the very least, claim 10 is not an enabled disclosure as to the operation for which it is cited, and it cannot therefore be the basis of the rejection. (MPEP 2121.)
In fact, claim 10 simply references the operation discussed with reference to Fig. 10, in which the operator can select a different one of the speed-based variation curves or, in other words, the operator can selectively change the curve on which the instantaneous speed-based motor assist is based. (See Takata column 5, lines 21-39.) Specifically, Takata allows for the user to select, or “selectively vary” the assist curve (e.g. curve “c”, “d”, or “e¢” in Fig. 10) used to permit the operator to select the type of assist ratio he desires. (Takata column 5, lines 35-39 and Fig. 10, reproduced below.) Indeed, claim 11 of Takata, which depends from claim 10, further explains that the operator can select any of a plurality of ratios of assist in relation to a given vehicle condition, which is commensurate with the embodiment of Fig. 10. Thus, in context, it is clear that Takata’s claim 10 simply allows the user to selectively vary which curve is used to determine the assist rate as a function of the vehicle’s instantaneous speed.
Takata Fails to Disclose Applying an Adjusted Governing Factor to a Determined Motor Assistance Claim 1 requires that the governing factor limits the motor assistance, and more specifically, is applied to the determined motor assistance for actuating the motor. (See, e.g., Applicant's specification at paragraph [0006].) In the Office Action, it was alleged that Takata's electric motor assist rate corresponds to the claimed governing factor. (Office Action at page 5.) In Takata, however, the motor assist rate is determined from a curve that associates the assist rate with a given instantaneous vehicle speed. (Takata column 4, lines 43-57 and Fig. 9.) Takata does not apply this value to any determined motor assistance. As such, Takata fails to disclose "applying the adjusted governing factor to a determined motor assistance determined for actuating the motor," as recited in claim 1.
Office Response:
Like stated prior for clarity, the assist ratio/rate of Takata is what’s being interpreted as the governing factor, which is a degree to which the motor assistance is limited. Figures 9 shows that the assist ratio is changed based om three different rates, two that are zero and one that is constant, which is by definition, a variable rate of change. Those variable rates are determined because it was noted that the rates don’t change until a certain current speed is met. Looking at the linear assist ratio change, it is changed linearly based on the vehicle being between two speeds. Figure 9 also clearly shows that the assist ratio is being changed based on the rate of change. Figure 9 is also a graphical view showing a possible relationship. Additionally, since time interval is so broad, the office is treating time interval as anything, whether instantaneous, or from one speed to the other.
Varying the motor assist based on the determined rate of change of a governing factor applied to the motor assist is not a limitation of claim 1. The adjusted governing factor based on the determined variable rate of change is what is being applied to the motor assistance, not the determined rate of change of a governing factor, which is what the office believes applicant means. But even so, the office believes that claim 1 and Figure 9-10 still discloses the limitation (See the slopes of the figures).
The Office is confused how Takata is silent to “varying the variation in the amount of electric motor assist” as it is clearly stated in claim 10.
If Takata states that the operator can selectively change the curve on which the motor assist is based, which applicant believes to be the case, then the office believes that means that the variable rate of change of the assist ratio can be changed/determined.
Takata claim 1 states “an electric motor for exerting a driving force to said vehicle, means responsive to the output force signal of said force sensing means for supplying an amount of electrical power for operating said electric motor at a ratio related to said force signal for assisting the driving of said vehicle, a vehicle condition sensing device outputting a vehicle condition signal, and means for varying the ratio of electric motor assist relative to the force sensed by said force sensing means in response to the vehicle condition signal output by said vehicle condition sensing device.”. The office respectfully maintains the stance that Takata teaches applying an adjusted governing factor to a determined motor assistance.
In regards to the inherency arguments applicant points out, the Office never once in the action stated an official notice, and thus no inherency was ever stated in the claim mappings. The office explicitly maps out “determining a variable rate of change of a governing factor” or “adjusting the governing factor based on the variable rate of change of the governing factor”.
Therefore, based on the cited prior art, it remains the Office’s stance that the cited prior art still teaches the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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 Browne can be reached at 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666