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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/29/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-11 are
pending in the application. Claims 10-11 are new.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Huang et al. (CN113415375A) in view of Yang et al. (US20210122444A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a method comprising: determining, based on measured values of a drivetrain of the electric bicycle, a first drive power describing a power supplied via the drivetrain during a pedaling operation of a driver of the electric bicycle ([10-16] and [58], determining current drive power, i.e. first drive power, by adding current human power and current motor power); and actuating a motor of the electric bicycle so as to supply, by way of a targeted power control, a second drive power through the motor ([58-59], target motor power and torque is determined; [62], motor power controlled by modifying motor torque so that “power output of the motor matches different road conditions).
Huang does not explicitly teach that the motor is actuated in response to the pedaling being ended, and that the second drive power is continuously less than or equal to the first drive power over a given first time interval. Although Huang does teach determining a pedaling cadence and pedaling torque to determine a pedaling power being provided in order to determine a proportional motor power to supply via the drivetrain ([65-68]), and therefore determines when pedaling is ended, it does not explicitly disclose any subsequent operations.
In the same field of endeavor, related reference Yang teaches a method that, in response to pedaling being ended ([0067], “when the user … does not pedal), controls a motor so that the second drive power is continuously less than or equal to the first drive power over a given first time interval ([0056-0058, motor torque of the second drive, i.e. motor torque after pedaling ceases, is controlled so that it gradually decreases; [0067], motor output, and speed of the vehicle decrease after pedaling ends). A skilled artisan would have understood that because all of those values decrease or remain the same after pedaling ends, the second drive power must also decrease or remain the same as well. Note that this operation is part of a method of determining pedaling torque in order to determine a proportional motor power to supply via the drivetrain, but specifically occurs after pedaling ends. Combining Huang with this teaching of Yang would result in the method controlling a desired drive power after a pedaling operation ends. This allows the vehicle to be decreasing or maintaining its output for a period of time, allowing the vehicle to perform a “coasting” operation in a manner that is harmonious to an operator.
As Yang is analogous to the art of managing the power output of motors in motor-assisted electric bicycles, it would have been obvious to modify Huang by ensuring that after the pedaling of a bicycle ends, the drive power subsequently decreases or remains the same for the motivation, as taught by Yang, of decreasing the speed smoothly, thereby extending gliding time and avoiding unharmonious acceleration of the bike ([0067]).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Yang further teaches that the motor is actuated such that the second drive power is equal to the first drive power over the given first time interval ([0065], motor outputs power at a constant value for a period of time), and abates subsequent to the given first time interval ([0065-0066], after time period, motor decreases output).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Yang further teaches that the motor is actuated such that the second drive power continuously abates over the given first time interval ([0067]), “when the user … does not pedal, the controller can also control the motor to gradually lower down the output”).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Huang further teaches that the first drive power is a combination of a motor power supplied by the motor of the electric bicycle and a pedaling power supplied by the driver of the electric bicycle ([58], current power of the system, i.e. first drive power, is determined by summing current human power and current motor power).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Huang further teaches that when the first drive power is determined, a power last supplied during the pedaling operation via the drivetrain of the electric bicycle is determined ([58], the current power of the system, i.e. the first drive power, is determined from the last available values for power supplied via the drive train, which is the current human power and the current motor power).
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches an apparatus for controlling a drive of an electric bicycle, comprising a control unit ([0114-0116]), which is configured to: determine, based on measured values of a drivetrain of the electric bicycle, a speed of the drivetrain of the electric bicycle and a torque of the drivetrain ([73-74], obtain current motor torque and speed of the motor); calculate, based on the speed and torque of the drivetrain, a first drive power describing a power supplied via the drivetrain during a pedaling operation of a driver of the electric bicycle ([10-16] and [58], determining current drive power, i.e. first drive power, by adding current human power and current motor power; [75], current motor power is calculated using current motor torque and speed); and actuate a motor of the electric bicycle so as to supply, a second drive power through the motor by way of a targeted power control ([58-59], target motor power and torque is determined; [62], motor power controlled by modifying motor torque so that “power output of the motor matches different road conditions).
Huang does not explicitly teach that this targeted power control is including (i) decreasing a torque of the motor in response to an increase in the speed of the drivetrain and (ii) increasing the torque of the motor in response to a decrease in the speed of the drivetrain
However, it does teach that the target motor output power is a product of the target motor torque multiplied by the motor speed ([62]). It additionally teaches that this target motor torque is obtained and controlled so as to realize a relationship between the current human output power and the target motor output power ([63]). This is done so the target motor output power is in proportion to the current human output power so that the pedal force of the rider is “maintained in a comfortable range, which improves the comfort of riding” ([63]).
As the target motor output power is in proportion to the current human output power, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an increase in motor speed with no change in the target motor torque would result in a target motor output power that is no longer in proportion with the current human output power. Therefore, when such a change in motor speed occurs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to (i) decrease a torque of the motor in response to an increase in the speed of the drivetrain and (ii) increase the torque of the motor in response to a decrease in the speed of the drivetrain so that the target motor output power remains in proportion to the current human output power. As taught by Huang, this leads to an increased comfort of riding for the rider ([63]).
Huang does not teach that the motor is actuated in response to the pedaling being ended, and that the second drive power is continuously less than or equal to the first drive power over a given first time interval after the pedaling is ceased. Although Huang does teach determining a pedaling cadence and pedaling torque to determine a pedaling power being provided in order to determine a proportional motor power to supply via the drivetrain ([65-68]), and therefore determines when pedaling is ended, it does not explicitly disclose any subsequent operations.
In the same field of endeavor, related reference Yang teaches that, in response to pedaling being ended ([0067], “when the user … does not pedal), a motor is controlled such that the second drive power is continuously less than or equal to the first drive power over a given first time interval ([0056-0058, motor torque of the second drive, i.e. motor torque after pedaling ceases, is controlled so that it gradually decreases; [0067], motor output, and speed of the vehicle decrease after pedaling ends).
A skilled artisan would have understood that because all of those values decrease or remain the same after pedaling ends, the second drive power must also decrease or remain the same as well. Note that this operation is part of a method of determining pedaling torque in order to determine a proportional motor power to supply via the drivetrain, but specifically occurs after pedaling ends. Combining Huang with this teaching of Yang would result in the system controlling a desired drive power after a pedaling operation ends. This allows the vehicle to be decreasing or maintaining its output for a period of time, allowing the vehicle to perform a “coasting” operation in a manner that is harmonious to an operator. This additionally ensures that the outputted motor power remains in proportion to what leads to the improved comfort of riding for the rider even after pedaling ends, which is a stated desire as taught by Huang ([63]).
As Yang is analogous to the art of managing the power output of motors in motor-assisted electric bicycles, it would have been obvious to modify Huang by ensuring that after the pedaling of a bicycle ends, the drive power subsequently decreases or remains the same for the motivation, as taught by Yang, of decreasing the speed smoothly, thereby extending gliding time and avoiding unharmonious acceleration of the bike ([0067]).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art remains as applied in claim 9. Huang further teaches wherein the speed of the drivetrain is a motor speed ([74]).
Claims 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paick et al. (WO2022060107A1).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. The prior combination does not explicitly teach that the first drive power is a power supplied by the motor of the electric bicycle. However, in the same field of endeavor, Paick does teach that the first drive power is a power supplied by the motor of the electric bicycle ([0026], the motor torque, which is a power supplied by the motor of the electric bicycle, is determined to be the first drive power, and the torque in which the motor is actuated to provide subsequent the pedaling ceasing is determined to be the current motor torque). Unlike the prior combination, only the motor torque is taken into effect in the determination of first drive power and initial second drive power, with no form of pedaling power being used in the determination.
As Paick is analogous to the art of managing the power output of motors in motor-assisted electric bicycles, it would have been obvious to modify the prior combination so that the first drive power is determined only from the power provided by the motor. The motivation for this combination, as taught by Paick, is so that the drive power of the vehicle in low speeds, such as when slowing down to avoid collisions or obstacles, does not increase when pedaling ceases ([77]).
Regarding claim 7, the prior remains as previously applied in claim 1, and Huang further teaches determining a pedaling power supplied by the driver of the electric bicycle during the pedaling operation ([65-68]).
The prior combination does not teach selecting a duration of the given first time interval based on the pedaling power, the duration of the first time interval increases with increasing pedaling power. However, in the same field of endeavor, Paick teaches selecting a duration of the given first time interval based on the pedaling power ([25], selecting a driving control time in which to control the inertial travel based on vehicle speed), the duration of the first time interval increases with increasing pedaling power ([31-32], duration of the time interval must increase in order for “users [to] feel the same inertia driving feeling compared to general manpower bicycles”). A skilled artisan would have understood that the amount of power assistance that motors of motor-assisted bikes provide to a biker is proportional to the pedaling power they provide. As such, increasing pedaling power would lead to an increase in the vehicle speed, thereby increasing the duration of the first time interval of Paick.
As Paick is analogous to the art of managing the power output of motors in motor-assisted electric bicycles, it would have been obvious to modify the prior combination by increasing the duration of the first time interval with an increase of pedaling speed for the motivation, as taught by Paick, of modifying total coasting time of the bicycle so that an operator can better predict how it will operate, as man-powered bicycles coast for longer when they are traveling faster ([32]).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art remains as previously applied in claim 7, and Yang further teaches that the determination of the pedaling power comprises an averaging and/or filtering of a measured pedaling power ([0034], filters for the maximum value).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN113415375A) in view of Yang et al. (US20210122444A1) and Saiki et al. (US 20190185107 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Huang a method for controlling a drive of an electric bicycle, comprising: determining, based on measured values of a drivetrain of the electric bicycle, a first drive power describing a power supplied via the drivetrain during a pedaling operation of a driver of the electric bicycle ([10-16] and [58], determining current drive power, i.e. first drive power, by adding current human power and current motor power; [75], current motor power is calculated using current motor torque and speed); the first drive power being a combination of a motor power
supplied by the motor of the electric bicycle and a pedaling power supplied by the driver of the electric bicycle ([58], the current power of the bicycle is the sum of current human output power and current motor power); and actuating a motor of the electric bicycle so as to supply, by way of a targeted power control, a second drive power through the motor ([58-59], target motor power and torque is determined; [62], motor power controlled by modifying motor torque so that “power output of the motor matches different road conditions).
Huang does not explicitly teach that the motor is actuated in response to the pedaling being ended, and that the second drive power is continuously less than or equal to the first drive power over a given first time interval. Although Huang does teach determining a pedaling cadence and pedaling torque to determine a pedaling power being provided in order to determine a proportional motor power to supply via the drivetrain ([65-68]), and therefore determines when pedaling is ended, it does not explicitly disclose any subsequent operations.
In the same field of endeavor, related reference Yang teaches a method that, in response to pedaling being ended ([0067], “when the user … does not pedal), controls a motor so that the second drive power is continuously less than or equal to the first drive power over a given first time interval ([0056-0058, motor torque of the second drive, i.e. motor torque after pedaling ceases, is controlled so that it gradually decreases; [0067], motor output, and speed of the vehicle decrease after pedaling ends). A skilled artisan would have understood that because all of those values decrease or remain the same after pedaling ends, the second drive power must also decrease or remain the same as well. Note that this operation is part of a method of determining pedaling torque in order to determine a proportional motor power to supply via the drivetrain, but specifically occurs after pedaling ends. Combining Huang with this teaching of Yang would result in the method controlling a desired drive power after a pedaling operation ends. This allows the vehicle to be decreasing or maintaining its output for a period of time, allowing the vehicle to perform a “coasting” operation in a manner that is harmonious to an operator.
As Yang is analogous to the art of managing the power output of motors in motor-assisted electric bicycles, it would have been obvious to modify Huang by ensuring that after the pedaling of a bicycle ends, the drive power subsequently decreases or remains the same for the motivation, as taught by Yang, of decreasing the speed smoothly, thereby extending gliding time and avoiding unharmonious acceleration of the bike ([0067]).
Although Huang teaches that the current drive power of the bicycle is the sum of the current motor power and a current human power, but doesn’t teach that this current human power is the average pedaling power. Note that Huang teaches that an amount of motor power outputted to assist the rider’s pedaling is in proportion to the amount of power the rider is outputting ([63] and [76]).
In the same field of endeavor, Saiki teaches that, rather than the pedaling torque be determined at every instant, the average pedaling torque is determined and used to determine a motor output required in proportion to the pedaling performed ([0048]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of average pedaling torque can be used to determine an average pedaling power to determine the power supplied by the drivetrain while pedaling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Huang to use the average pedaling power rather than the instantaneous pedaling power based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Saiki, of using the average pedaling values to avoid the janky motion caused by peaks and valleys in the determined pedaling values ([0048]). Averaging the determined pedaling values over a certain crank angle stabilizes the determined pedaling values, ensuring that the corresponding motor power that is outputted in proportion does not create jerky motion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Huang in view of Yang fails to teach “actuating a motor of the electric bicycle in response to the pedaling operation being ended so as to supply, by way of a targeted power control, a second drive power through the motor, which is continuously less than or equal to the first drive power over a given first time interval.” This is unpersuasive. Huang teaches actuating a motor of the electric bicycle so as to supply, by way of a targeted power control, a second drive power through the motor ([58-59], target motor power, i.e. second drive power, is determined based on the current power of the drivetrain, i.e. first drive power). While not explicitly applying this upon the pedaling operation being ended and while not explicitly continuously less than or equal to the first drive power, Yang does teach that the drive power of the bicycle after pedaling is ended, i.e. second drive power, is supplied so that it is continuously less than or equal to the previous first drive power of the bicycle during pedaling ([0056-0058], [0067], and Figs. 4E and 4F, torque supplied by the motor is gradually decreased after pedaling ceases). It would have been obvious to modify Huang so that this after pedaling control is performed so that the speed is decreased smoothly ([0067] of Yang).
Applicant interpreted that “the Office suggests modifying Huang, not only to incorporate the post-pedaling torque-based control of Yang, but also to modify the post-pedaling torque-based control of Yang to incorporate a power-based control”, and thus argues that “a person having ordinary skill would not be motivated to modify the post-pedaling torque-based control of Yang to be a power-based control.” This is not recognized by the examiner. Huang already teaches that the target motor torque is controlled so as to realize a target motor power that is in proportion to a current human pedaling power ([62-63]). Thus, when modified with the post-pedaling control of Yang that gradually reduces the motor torque after pedaling ceases, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the motor power would also gradually reduce as well as the target motor power is directly calculated as a product of the target motor torque ([62]). Therefore, no such second modification is performed in the rejection of claim 1 as interpreted by the applicant.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that “Yang is completely unaware of the specific power surge problem that arises from simple torque decay when RPM varies post-pedaling”) are not recited in the rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This process is not a part of the claim language of claim 1, and thus is not necessary to consider when mapping the claim to the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, applicant argues that Huang in view of Yang fails to teach "actuate a motor of the electric bicycle, in response to the pedaling operation having been ended, so as to supply a second drive power through the motor by way of a targeted power control, which the targeted power control including (i) decreasing a torque of the motor in response to an increase in the speed of the drivetrain and
(ii) increasing the torque of the motor in response to a decrease in the speed of the drivetrain, such that the second drive power is continuously less than or equal to the first drive power over a given first time interval." While Huang in view of Yang teaches most of this amended limitation per the response to the arguments presented over claim 1, claim 9 has been amended to include the increasing or decreasing of motor torque in response to a respective decreasing or increasing of the speed of the drivetrain. Applicants that these “are the 'edge cases where motor torque is not directly proportional to motor power,' referred to by the examiner during the interview on November 3, 2025. In other words, motor torque is not proportional to motor power by the same proportion when there are changes in speed, because those changes in speed result in changes in power even when motor torque is held the same”, and are thus not taught by Huang in view of Yang. The examiner disagrees. Huang does teach that the target motor output power is determined by multiplying the target motor torque by the motor speed ([62]). It additionally teaches that the target motor torque is obtained “based on the change relationship between the current human output power and the target motor output power to control the motor… so that the pedal force of the rider is maintained in a comfortable range.” ([63]). This means that the target motor torque is directly obtained and controlled so as to realize a motor power that is in proportion to the human output power. While Huang doesn’t explicitly consider a scenario where the motor speed increases or decreases, based on the equation for determining the target motor output power, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a change in motor speed that is not balanced by a change in the target motor torque will result in a target motor output power that is no longer in proportion to the human output power, which would not improve the riding comfort as this operation of Huang is directed towards ([63]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to inversely change the target motor torque based on the change in motor speed so that the target motor output power remains in proportion to the human output power. Note that this does not change the combination with Yang as Yang teaches that, after pedaling is ceased, the output of the motor, i.e. motor power, is “gradually lowered down…so that the user can decrease the speed smoothly” ([0067]), which means that fluctuations of the torque would not increase the output of the motor.
Regarding claim 11, applicant argues that Huang in view of Yang fails to teach “the first drive power being a combination of a motor power supplied by the motor of the electric bicycle and an average pedaling power supplied by the driver of the electric bicycle” and “the second drive power being set based on the first driver power so as to be continuously less than or equal to the first drive power over a given first time interval.” This argument is unpersuasive. Huang teaches that a first drive power is determined as a combination of current motor power and current human output power ([58-59]). It also determines a second, future drive power based on this current drive power ([58-59]), but doesn’t explicitly apply this to post-pedaling operations. However, Yang does, with the citations and rationale for the combination being previously presented in response to the arguments provided over claim 1. However, claim 11 uniquely introduces that the pedaling power used to determine the first drive power is an average pedaling power, which Huang in view of Yang does not disclose. However, newly cited reference Saiki does teach that average pedaling values are used to determine the proportional motor power in response ([0058]), and it would have been obvious to modify Huang to use these values as presented in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R. BREWER
Examiner
Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663