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 .
This is a Final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 17 February 2026. Claims 1, and 3-11 and 13-24 are currently pending, as discussed below. Claim 2 and 12 have been canceled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 July 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 February 2026 have been fully considered and are not fully persuasive.
Interpretation of "electronic controller" includes a general placeholder, is followed by a functional language "configured to control the transmission device" and the word “electronic” does not does not provide sufficient structure in Prong C of MPEP 2181 therefore "electronic controller" is interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112f is sustained.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Examiner has fully considered amendments to claim 1 and after further search and consideration, examiner sustains 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 11-15, 17-19, 21 and 23-24 as being obvious over Guderzo (US 20050043129 A1) in view of Takebayashi, Haruyuki (US 20020128097 A1). Guderzo teaches a predetermined period measured from a first time after a first shifting action of the transmission device is completed (Figure. 8 depicts Delay D, 11d measured after the first shifting action is completed, is see at least [¶ 51 - 55, FIG. 8, Guderzo]: “Between one single gear-shifting and the other, the electronic control unit 40 can wait for a confirmation of successful gear-shifting, for example the confirmation by the transducer 18, 19 (optional block 105) … When in block 105 both the wait for the confirmation signal and the wait for the delay D are actuated, the delay D can be counted from the receipt of the confirmation signal (FIG. 8)“).
Takebayashi teaches an inhibiting unit inhibits output of a second shift signal for a predetermined standby time and this standby time is changed in accordance with a traveling state of the human powered vehicle (the standby time may also be varied in accordance with bicycle speed, see at least ¶ 37, Takebayashi: “The standby time may also be varied in accordance with bicycle speed. For example, the standby time can be set to 1.4 s at a low speed (10 km/h or less), 1.0 s at an intermediate speed (over 10 km/h and up to 20 km/h), and 0.7 s at a speed in excess of 20 km/h. The same standby time can be used both for upshifting and for downshifting”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set Guderzo’s predetermined delay period measured from the completion of the first shifting action to change the delay period to incorporate the standby time of Takebayashi so that it varies or changes in accordance with bicycle speed. The standby time changes according to the traveling speed of the bicycle which includes the period after initiation of the first shifting signal and before the completion of the first shifting action and apply that updated standby time to the Delay that is measured after the completion of the first shifting action. The combination is appropriate since both references are directed to bicycle shifting controls and doing so would allow the transmission device to operate the shifting device in a smooth manner during rapid acceleration or deceleration or when multiple gears are shifted at one time (see at least ¶4, Takebayashi). During rapid acceleration or deceleration, one of ordinary skill would change the standby time change in accordance with the operating speed of the bicycle which would include a period right before completion of the first shifting action to set the delay/standby time that is measured after the completion of the first shifting action.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
electronic controller in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for an electronic controller:
" The human-powered vehicle control device 60 includes an electronic controller 62. The electronic controller 62 includes, for example, at least one processor 62A that executes predetermined control programs. The processors include, for example, a central processing unit (CPU) or a micro-processing unit (MPU). The electronic controller 62 can include one or more microcomputers located at separate positions. The electronic controller 62 can include more than one processor located at separate positions. The electronic controller 62 will hereinafter be referred to as the “controller 62” for the sake of brevity. The terms “controller” and “electronic controller” as used herein refer to hardware that executes a software program, and does not include a human being", [¶ 77] and Fig. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11-15, 17-19, 21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guderzo (US 20050043129 A1) in view of Takebayashi, Haruyuki (US 20020128097 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Guderzo teaches a control device for controlling a transmission device of a human-powered vehicle (FIG. 2: Electronic Control Unit 40 drives the Gear Shift Actuator 16 and Derailer Actuator 17, see at least [¶ 33, FIG. 2, Guderzo]: “a microprocessor electronic control unit 40 for driving the actuators 16, 17, receiving the output signals of the transducers 18, 19 if provided, and controlling a user interface”), the control device comprising:
an electronic controller configured to control the transmission device (FIG. 2: Electronic Control Unit 40 drives the Gear Shift Actuator 16 and Derailer Actuator 17, see at least [¶ 33, FIG. 2, Guderzo]: “a microprocessor electronic control unit 40 for driving the actuators 16, 17, receiving the output signals of the transducers 18, 19 if provided, and controlling a user interface”), upon a user starting to perform a first operation on an operating device, the controller being configured to restrict actuation of the transmission device for a second shifting action for a predetermined period measured from a first time after a first shifting action of the transmission device is completed (Figure.8 depicts Delay D, 11d measured after the first shifting action is completed, see at least [¶ 51 - 55, FIG. 6, FIG. 8, Guderzo]: “Between one single gear-shifting and the other, the electronic control unit 40 can wait for a confirmation of successful gear-shifting, for example the confirmation by the transducer 18, 19 (optional block 105) … When in block 105 both the wait for the confirmation signal and the wait for the delay D are actuated, the delay D can be counted from the receipt of the confirmation signal (FIG. 8)“), the first shifting action being a shift between a current sprocket when the user starts performing the first operation and a first adjacent sprocket that is adjacent to the current sprocket, the second shifting action being a shift between the first adjacent sprocket and a second adjacent sprocket that is adjacent to the first adjacent sprocket (see at least [¶ 51 - 55, FIG. 5, Guderzo]: adjacent sprockets 11a – 11i are depicted in Fig. 5 and the first shifting action is from 11c to 11d, and the second shifting action is from 11d to 11e), and the electronic controller is configured to change the predetermined period in accordance with a traveling state of the human-powered vehicle (see at least [¶ 90, Guderzo]: “Besides being able to have a preset value, the delay can be dynamically calculated, in other words it can be predetermined as a function of a predetermined desired displacement of the chain 13 on the intermediate toothed wheel“).
Guderzo does not explicitly teach change the predetermined period in accordance with a traveling state of the human-powered vehicle at a second time, the second time being between initiation of the first shifting action of the transmission device and before completion of the first shifting action.
Takebayashi, directed to a bicycle shifting control device, teaches change the predetermined period in accordance with a traveling state of the human-powered vehicle at a second time, the second time being between initiation of the first shifting action of the transmission device and before completion of the first shifting action (the standby time may also be varied in accordance with bicycle speed and is re-calculated for each shift, see at least ¶ 37, Takebayashi: “The standby time may also be varied in accordance with bicycle speed. For example, the standby time can be set to 1.4 s at a low speed (10 km/h or less), 1.0 s at an intermediate speed (over 10 km/h and up to 20 km/h), and 0.7 s at a speed in excess of 20 km/h. The same standby time can be used both for upshifting and for downshifting”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set Guderzo’s predetermined delay period measured from the completion of the first shifting action to incorporate the standby time of Takebayashi that varies or changes in accordance with bicycle speed. The standby time changes according to the traveling speed of the bicycle which includes the period after initiation of the first shifting signal and before the completion of the first shifting action and apply that updated standby time to the Delay that is measured after the completion of the first shifting action. The combination is appropriate since both references are directed to bicycle shifting controls and doing so would allow the transmission device to operate the shifting device in a smooth manner during rapid acceleration or deceleration or when multiple gears are shifted at one time (see at least ¶4, Takebayashi). During rapid acceleration or deceleration, one of ordinary skill would change the standby time change in accordance with the operating speed of the bicycle which would include a period right before completion of the first shifting action to set the delay/standby time that is measured after the completion of the first shifting action.
Regarding claim 3, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teaches the control device according to claim 1,
Takebayashi, directed to a bicycle shifting control device, further teaches wherein: the traveling state includes a first state and a second state that differs from the first state; the electronic controller is configured to change the predetermined period so that the predetermined period becomes a first predetermined period in a case where the traveling state is the first state;
the electronic controller is configured to change the predetermined period so that the predetermined period becomes a second predetermined period in a case where the traveling state is the second state; and
the first predetermined period is longer than the second predetermined period (the standby time may be varied in accordance with bicycle speed where the standby time can be set to 1.4 in the first state which is is a low speed which is a longer predetermined period than a standby time of 1.0s in the second state which is an intermediate speed, see at least [¶37, Takebayashi]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Guderzo’s to set the restriction period after completion of a transmission action according to wherein: the traveling state includes a first state and a second state that differs from the first state; the electronic controller is configured to change the predetermined period so that the predetermined period becomes a first predetermined period in a case where the traveling state is the first state;
the electronic controller is configured to change the predetermined period so that the predetermined period becomes a second predetermined period in a case where the traveling state is the second state; and the first predetermined period is longer than the second predetermined period as taught by Takebayashi. Doing so would allow the transmission device to operate the shifting device in a smooth manner during rapid acceleration or deceleration or when multiple gears are shifted at one time (see at least ¶4, Takebayashi).
Regarding claim 11, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the traveling state includes at least one of rotational speed of a crank, human torque input to the crank, force input to a pedal, transmission ratio, transmission stage number, and vehicle speed (angular speed of one of the wheels combined with the current transmission ratio can be used to measure the displacement of the chain to calculate the delay time, see at least [¶ 90-91, Guderzo]: “Besides being able to have a preset value, the delay can be dynamically calculated, in other words it can be predetermined as a function of a predetermined desired displacement of the chain 13 on the intermediate toothed wheel … The displacement can be evaluated based upon an angular position or angular speed sensor (not shown) of one or both gearshift groups 9, 10 with respect to an angular reference position. It should be noted that the angular speeds of the two gearshift groups are related to each other by the current transmission ratio, given by the ratio between the radii of the toothed wheels 11, 12 respectively engaged with the chain 13. Therefore, a single sensor in one of the two gearshift groups is sufficient. As a further alternative, an angular position or angular speed sensor coupled with one of the two wheels 4, 6 of the bicycle 1 can be used”).
Regarding claim 13, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teaches the control device according to claim l, wherein the first time is a time point at which the first shifting action of the transmission device is completed (FIG.8 depicts a first time is at location 204 where block 105 from FIG.6 receives a confirmation signal that actuation of a gear has finished shifting, see at least [¶ 54-55, FIG. 6 and FIG. 8, Guderzo]: “The delay between the successful actuation of every single gear-shifting 101, 102 and the start of a subsequent single gear-shifting 102 … When in block 105 both the wait for the confirmation signal and the wait for the delay D are actuated, the delay D can be counted from the receipt of the confirmation signal (FIG. 8)”).
Regarding claim 14, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teaches the control device according to claim 1, further comprising: a receiver configured to receive a shifting completion signal from the transmission device upon completion of the fire(see at least [¶ 33, FIG. 2, Guderzo]: “The electronically servo-assisted gearshift comprises a microprocessor electronic control unit 40 for driving the actuators 16, 17, receiving the output signals of the transducers 18, 19 if provided, and controlling a user interface”), the first time being a time point at which the shifting completion signal is received (FIG. 7 depicts signals falling edges at 204, 205, and 206 indicating gear shifting completion, see at least [¶ 52, FIG. 7, Guderzo]: “FIG. 7, which is not to scale, shows the time axis t, signals 201-203 that correspond to the time ranges in which the actuator 16(17) is driven by the electronic control unit 40 (actuation of the single gear-shiftings 101, 102, 102), and the toothed wheels 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f with which the chain 13 engages. The rising edges of the signals 201-203 correspond to the start of the single gear-shifting steps, and the falling edges 204-206 correspond to the confirmations of successful gear-shifting”).
Regarding claim 15, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic controller is configured to control the transmission device so that the transmission device is actuated in accordance with one or more operations performed by the user on an operating device that is operated by the user (Users operate buttons on the display unit or levers on the handlebars to provide gear-shifting requests to the transmission device, see at least [¶ 74-77, FIG. 2, Guderzo]: “The various checks of what the user wishes to do can take place on the user interface, for example a graphical interface implemented on the display unit 60, through a touch-sensitive display or through auxiliary buttons as exemplified by the buttons 61-63 of FIG. 2 and/or on the basis of the same manual command means that are used to send the upward and downward gear-shifting request commands … Such manual command means can for example comprise levers 43, 44 (FIGS. 1 and 2) … and levers 45, 46 (FIG. 2) … The levers or buttons suitable to provide the single gear-shifting requests can also be used to provide the multiple gear-shifting requests”).
Regarding claim 17, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teach the control device according to claim 15, wherein: the electronic controller is configured to control the transmission device so that the transmission device initiates the first shifting action as the user starts performing the first operation on the operating device (FIG.14 depicts block 403 start of gear shifting request which initiates a single gear shifting 101, see at least [¶ 84, FIG. 14, Guderzo]: “Another embodiment (FIG. 14) comprises the steps of waiting 403 for the receipt of a start of gear-shifting request, carrying out block 101 (cf. FIG. 6) of actuating a single gear-shifting to move the chain 13 to a toothed wheel immediately adjacent to the current toothed wheel”); and the electronic controller is configured to control the transmission device so that the transmission device initiates the second shifting action as the predetermined period ends in a case where the user starts performing a second operation on the operating device after ending the first operation and before the predetermined period ends (FIG.14 depicts a parallel process that includes a second operation indicating the end of a gear shifting request 404 and a yes signal 405, the yes signal 405 is inserted into location 405a which occurs after the single gear shifting 101 but before the delay period 105 has ended, see at least [¶ 84, FIG. 14, Guderzo]: “and at the same time monitoring, in a parallel cycle represented by block 404, the receipt of an end of gear-shifting request. If the end of gear-shifting request is received--as represented by the generation of the lightning symbol 405--before starting the first execution of step 102 (cf. FIG. 6), the operation goes back to block 403”).
Regarding claim 18, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the control device is provided separately from the transmission device (FIG. 2 depicts the Electronic Control Unit 40 is provided separately from the gear shift actuator 16 and derailleur actuator 17, see at least [¶ 33, FIG. 2, Guderzo]: “The electronically servo-assisted gearshift comprises a microprocessor electronic control unit 40 for driving the actuators 16, 17, receiving the output signals of the transducers 18, 19 if provided, and controlling a user interface” and [¶41, FIG. 2, Guderzo]: “During single gear-shifting, the electronic control unit 40 drives the actuator 16, 17 in order to move the guide element 14, 15 for the chain 13 to engage it with the target toothed wheel 11, 12”).
Regarding claim 19, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teaches a human-powered vehicle component comprising the control device according to claim 1, the human-powered vehicle component further comprising:
the transmission device (FIG. 2: The actuators 16 and 17 are the transmission device, see at least [¶ 41, FIG.2, Guderzo]: “During single gear-shifting, the electronic control unit 40 drives the actuator 16, 17 in order to move the guide element 14, 15 for the chain 13 to engage it with the target toothed wheel 11, 12“).
Regarding Claim 21, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teaches, the control device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic controller is configured to begin the second shifting action when the predetermined period ends (Fig. 5 depicts a second single-gear shifting is performed from 11d to 11e and Fig. 7, 8, 9 and 10 depict that after the delay 11d block 202 is performed which is the second shifting action, see at least, ¶52-58, Guderzo).
Regarding Claim 23, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teaches, the control device according to claim 21, wherein the electronic controller is configured to begin the second shifting action when the predetermined period ends and the user has performed a second operation on the operating device after performing the first operation (user actuates mechanical command gearshift using many actuations in quick succession for multiple gear-shifting command, see at least, ¶12, Guderzo).
Regarding Claim 24, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teaches, the control device according to claim 1, wherein the current sprocket, the first adjacent sprocket and the second adjacent sprocket are different sprockets, the first shifting action includes shifting a chain between the current sprocket and the first adjacent sprocket which are adjacent ones of a plurality of sprockets, and the second shifting action includes shifting the chain between the first adjacent sprocket and the second adjacent sprocket which are adjacent ones of the plurality of sprockets (Fig. 5 depicts current sprocket 11c, first adjacent sprocket 11d, and second adjacent sprocket 11e and the first shifting action shifts a chain between 11c and 11d which are adjacent of the plurality of sprockets 11a-11i and the second shifting action includes shifting the chain between first adjacent 11d and second adjacent 11e, see at least, ¶45, fig. 5, Guderzo).
Claim(s) 4-10, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guderzo (US 20050043129 A1) in view of Takebayashi, Haruyuki (US 20020128097 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 11-15, 17-19, 21 and 23-24 and further in view of WATARAI; Etsuyoshi (US 20160031526 A1) (Watarai 526).
Regarding claim 4, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teach the control device according to claim 3.
Guderzo in view of Takebayashi does not explicitly teach wherein: the traveling state includes a rotational speed of a crank; the rotational speed of the crank in the first state includes a first crank rotational speed; the rotational speed of the crank in the second state includes a second crank rotational speed; and the electronic controller is configured to change the predetermined period so that the first predetermined period becomes longer than the second predetermined period in a case where the first crank rotational speed is less than the second crank rotational speed
Watarai 526, directed to a bicycle shifting control apparatus, teaches wherein: the traveling state includes a rotational speed of a crank (Traveling state includes a pedaling state which is measured by a cadence sensor 24 seen in FIG. 2, see at least [¶70, Watarai 526]: "As seen in FIG. 2, the sensing device 18 comprises a cadence sensor 24 configured to sense a cadence of the bicycle 10 as the pedaling state of the bicycle 10. As seen in FIG. 1, the cadence sensor 24 is attached to the bicycle frame 3. The cadence sensor 24 is configured to sense a rotational speed of a right crank arm 4b of the crank assembly 4 as the cadence");
the rotational speed of the crank in the first state includes a first crank rotational speed (FIG. 12 demonstrates a first traveling state where the cadence of the pedals Cs is less than Cth, see at least [FIG. 12, Watarai 526]);
the rotational speed of the crank in the second state includes a second crank rotational speed (FIG. 11 demonstrates a second traveling state where the cadence of the pedals Cs is greater than Cth, see at least [FIG. 11, Watarai 526]); and the electronic controller is configured to change the predetermined period so that the first predetermined period becomes longer than the second predetermined period (FIG. 12 shows T2 Determination interval as longer than T1 in FIG.11, see at least [¶ 100, FIG. 11 and FIG. 12, Watarai 526]: “As seen in FIGS. 11 and 12, the response-speed memory 428 is configured to store a first determination interval T1 and a second determination interval T2. The second determination interval T2 is longer than the first determination interval T1”) in a case where the first crank rotational speed is less than the second crank rotational speed (FIG. 12 also shows that the first crank rotational speed Cs is less than Cth, while in FIG. 11 Cs is greater than Cth, therefore the cadence in FIG. 12 corresponding to a longer T2 time period is less than the cadence in FIG.11 corresponding to a shorter T1 time period, see at least [¶ 99, FIG. 11 and FIG. 12, Watarai 526]: “The speed changing part 416 increases the determination interval T0 if the cadence Cs sensed by the cadence sensor 24 is lower than the cadence threshold Cth”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Guderzo in view of Takebayashi’s setting the restriction period after completion of a transmission action according to the cadence of the pedals to be a shorter period when cadence is greater than a threshold, and a longer period when the cadence is lower than a threshold as taught by Watarai 526. Doing so would allow the transmission device to [¶103, Watarai 526]: “continuously change the determination interval T0 in accordance with the cadence Cs if needed and/or desired”.
Regarding claim 5, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi and Watarai 526 teach the control device according to claim 4.
Watarai 526, directed to a bicycle shifting control apparatus, further teaches wherein: the electronic controller is configured to change the predetermined period to a first control period in a case where the rotational speed of the crank is less than or equal to a first threshold value (determination interval T2 is selected when traveling in the first state where cadence is less than Cth, see at least [¶ 102, FIG. 12, Watarai 526]: “As seen in FIG. 12, the response-speed selector 430 is configured to select the second determination interval T2 as the determination interval T0 from among the first determination interval T1 and the second determination interval T2 if the cadence Cs sensed by the cadence sensor 24 is lower than the cadence threshold Cth”); and
the first control period is a fixed period regardless of the rotational speed of the crank (FIG. 12 shows that the determination interval is at T2 and continues as fixed value that sustains a level horizontal line indicating that it does not fluctuate as the cadence fluctuates in the Cadence graph below, see at least [¶ 103, FIG. 12, Watarai 526]: “ response-speed selector 430 is configured to select one of the stored determination intervals as the determination interval T0 in accordance with the cadence Cs”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Guderzo’s setting the restriction period after completion of a transmission action according to a first period that is fixed when the cadence of the pedals becomes less than a threshold value as taught by Watarai 526 with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would allow the transmission device to [¶103, Watarai 526]: “continuously change the determination interval T0 in accordance with the cadence Cs if needed and/or desired”.
Regarding claim 6, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi and Watarai 526 teach the control device according to claim 5.
Watarai 526, directed to a bicycle shifting control apparatus, further teaches wherein the electronic controller is configured to change the predetermined period to a second control period in a case where the electronic controller does not obtain information related to the rotational speed of the crank (FIG.15 demonstrates a determination interval T2 which is a second control period when the electronic controller obtains information on the pedaling power Ps and not obtaining information related to the rotational speed of the crank, see at least [¶ 113, FIG. 15, Watarai 526]: “As seen in FIG. 15, the response-speed selector 530 is configured to select the second determination interval T2 as the determination interval T0 from among the first determination interval T1 and the second determination interval T2 if the pedaling power Ps sensed by the power sensor 225 is higher than the power threshold Pth stored in the power-threshold memory 226. The response-speed selector 530 outputs the second determination interval T2 to the transmission controller 14 as the response speed when selecting the second determination interval T2. The determination part 20 determines at the second determination interval T2 whether the shifting signals SS is continuous”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Guderzo’s setting the restriction period after completion of a transmission action according to a second control period based on the pedaling power instead of the cadence information as taught by Watarai 526 with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would allow the bicycle shifting control apparatus to change the response speed based on the pedaling state sensed by the sensing device using pedaling power in accordance with the condition of the bicycle [¶111, Watarai 526]: “the response-speed selector 530 is configured to select one of the stored determination intervals as the determination interval T0 in accordance with the pedaling power Ps. However, the response-speed selector 530 can be configured to continuously change the determination interval T0 in accordance with the pedaling power Ps”. [¶115, Watarai 526]: “With the bicycle shifting control apparatus 512, the speed changing part 516 is configured to change the response speed based on the pedaling state sensed by the sensing device 18. Accordingly, it is possible to change the response speed of the bicycle transmission 9 in accordance with the condition of the bicycle.”
Regarding claim 7, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi and Watarai 526 teach the control device according to claim 6.
Watarai 526, directed to a bicycle shifting control apparatus, further teaches wherein the second control period is equal to the first control period (FIG.15 demonstrates a determination interval T2 which is a second control period appears to be the period as demonstrated in FIG. 12 first control period T2, see at least [¶ 102, FIG. 12, Watarai 526]: “As seen in FIG. 12, the response-speed selector 430 is configured to select the second determination interval T2 as the determination interval T0 from among the first determination interval T1 and the second determination interval T2 if the cadence Cs sensed by the cadence sensor 24 is lower than the cadence threshold Cth” and [¶ 113, FIG. 15, Watarai 526]: “As seen in FIG. 15, the response-speed selector 530 is configured to select the second determination interval T2 as the determination interval T0 from among the first determination interval T1 and the second determination interval T2 if the pedaling power Ps sensed by the power sensor 225 is higher than the power threshold Pth stored in the power-threshold memory 226. The response-speed selector 530 outputs the second determination interval T2 to the transmission controller 14 as the response speed when selecting the second determination interval T2. The determination part 20 determines at the second determination interval T2 whether the shifting signals SS is continuous”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Guderzo and Watarai 526 so that the restriction period for when the cadence is less than a threshold is the same as the restriction period for when the pedaling power is higher than a power threshold with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would allow the bicycle shifting control apparatus to change the response speed to a longer time period based on low-speed cadence, or high pedaling power and accordingly reducing damage caused by continuous gear changing, [¶121, Watarai 526]: “With the bicycle shifting control apparatus 612, the restricting part 638 is configured to restrict the bicycle transmission 9 from continuously changing the current gear position based on the pedaling state sensed by the sensing device 18. Accordingly, in the bicycle transmission 9, it is possible to reduce damage caused by the continuous gear changing in accordance with the pedaling state”.
Regarding claim 8, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi and Watarai 526 teach the control device according to claim 4.
Watarai 526, directed to a bicycle shifting control apparatus, further teaches wherein:
the electronic controller is configured to change the predetermined period to a third control period in a case where the rotational speed of the crank is greater than or equal to a second threshold value (a first threshold value Cth1 and a second threshold value Cth2 are depicted in FIG. 21, and when the cadence is greater than Cth1 and Cth2, the determination interval selected is T2 which is interpreted as a 3rd control period, see at least [¶131-133, Watarai 526]: "As seen in FIG. 21, …The response-speed selector 430 is configured to select the first determination interval T1 as the determination interval T0 from among the first determination interval T1 and the second determination interval T2 if the cadence Cs sensed by the cadence sensor 24 is equal to or higher than the cadence threshold Cth1 … As seen in FIGS. 21 and 22, in a state where the cadence Cs is equal to or higher than the cadence threshold Cth2, the restricting part 638 allows the bicycle transmission 9 to continuously change the current gear position."); and
the third control period is a fixed period regardless of the rotational speed of the crank (FIG. 21 shows that the determination interval is at T1 and continues as fixed value that sustains a level horizontal line indicating that it does not fluctuate as the cadence fluctuates in the Cadence graph, see at least [FIG. 21, Watarai 526].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Guderzo and Watarai 526 so that the restriction period for when the cadence is greater than a second lower threshold in order to establish a minimum cadence for enablement of continuous switching. This would restrict continuous switching of the gear when the pedaling state is below a minimum second threshold Cth2 with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would allow the bicycle shifting control apparatus to change the response speed according to the pedaling state and reducing damage caused by continuous gear changing due to a cadence being too low to continuously switch gears, [¶127, Watarai 526]: “With the bicycle shifting control apparatus 712, the restricting part 738 is configured to restrict the bicycle transmission 9 from continuously changing the current gear position based on the pedaling state sensed by the sensing device 18. Accordingly, in the bicycle transmission 9, it is possible to reduce damage caused by the continuous gear changing in accordance with the pedaling state”.
Regarding claim 9, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi and Watarai 526 teach the control device according to claim 3.
Watarai 526, directed to a bicycle shifting control apparatus, further teaches wherein: the traveling state includes a rotational speed of a crank (Traveling state includes a pedaling state which is measured by a cadence sensor 24 seen in FIG. 2, see at least [¶70, Watarai 526]: "As seen in FIG. 2, the sensing device 18 comprises a cadence sensor 24 configured to sense a cadence of the bicycle 10 as the pedaling state of the bicycle 10. As seen in FIG. 1, the cadence sensor 24 is attached to the bicycle frame 3. The cadence sensor 24 is configured to sense a rotational speed of a right crank arm 4b of the crank assembly 4 as the cadence") and a transmission ratio (a gear position is interpreted as a transmission ratio, see at least [¶70, Watarai 526]: "The electric front derailleur 8 is configured to shift the bicycle chain C between a plurality of front gear positions in response to operation of the front shifter 6. The electric rear derailleur 9 is configured to shift the bicycle chain C between a plurality of rear gear positions in response to operation of the rear shifter 7");
the rotational speed of the crank in the first state includes a first crank rotational speed, and the transmission ratio in the first state includes a first transmission ratio (FIG. 12 demonstrates a first traveling state where the cadence of the pedals Cs is less than Cth and the gear position starting at a 1st position, see at least [FIG. 12, Watarai 526]);
the rotational speed of the crank in the second state includes a second crank rotational speed, and the transmission ratio in the second state includes a second transmission ratio (FIG. 11 demonstrates a second traveling state where the cadence of the pedals Cs is greater than Cth and a gear position starting at a 1st position, see at least [FIG. 11, Watarai 526]); and
the electronic controller is configured to change the predetermined period so that the first predetermined period becomes longer than the second predetermined period (FIG. 12 shows T2 Determination interval as longer than T1 in FIG.11, see at least [¶ 100, FIG. 11 and FIG. 12, Watarai 526]: “As seen in FIGS. 11 and 12, the response-speed memory 428 is configured to store a first determination interval T1 and a second determination interval T2. The second determination interval T2 is longer than the first determination interval T1”) in a case where the first transmission ratio is equal to the second transmission ratio (FIG. 12 and FIG. 11 show that both initial Gear Positions start at a 1st position, see at least [FIG. 12 and FIG. 11, Watarai 526]) and the first crank rotational speed is less than the second crank rotational speed (FIG. 12 demonstrates that the first crank rotational speed Cs is less than Cth, while in FIG. 11 cadence Cs is greater than Cth, therefore the cadence in FIG. 12 corresponding to a longer T2 time period is less than the cadence in FIG.11 corresponding to a shorter T1 time period, see at least [¶ 99, FIG. 11 and FIG. 12, Watarai 526]: “The speed changing part 416 increases the determination interval T0 if the cadence Cs sensed by the cadence sensor 24 is lower than the cadence threshold Cth”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Guderzo and Watarai 526 to set the restriction period after completion of a transmission action according to the cadence of the pedals to be a shorter period when cadence is greater than a threshold, and a longer period when the cadence is lower than a threshold for the same gear positions as taught by Watarai 526 526 with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would allow the transmission device to compare cadences with respect the same gear ratio/position and [¶103, Watarai 526]: “continuously change the determination interval T0 in accordance with the cadence Cs if needed and/or desired”.
Regarding claim 10, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi and Watarai 526 teach the control device according to claim 3, wherein: the traveling state includes a rotational speed of a crank (Traveling state includes a pedaling state which is measured by a cadence sensor 24 seen in FIG. 2, see at least [¶70, Watarai 526]: "As seen in FIG. 2, the sensing device 18 comprises a cadence sensor 24 configured to sense a cadence of the bicycle 10 as the pedaling state of the bicycle 10. As seen in FIG. 1, the cadence sensor 24 is attached to the bicycle frame 3. The cadence sensor 24 is configured to sense a rotational speed of a right crank arm 4b of the crank assembly 4 as the cadence") and a transmission stage number (a gear position is interpreted as a transmission stage number, see at least [¶70, Watarai 526]: "The electric front derailleur 8 is configured to shift the bicycle chain C between a plurality of front gear positions in response to operation of the front shifter 6. The electric rear derailleur 9 is configured to shift the bicycle chain C between a plurality of rear gear positions in response to operation of the rear shifter 7");
the rotational speed of the crank in the first state includes a first crank rotational speed, and the transmission stage number in the first state includes a first transmission stage number (FIG. 12 demonstrates a first traveling state where the cadence of the pedals Cs is less than Cth and the gear position starting at a 1st gear position, see at least [FIG. 12, Watarai 526]);
the rotational speed of the crank in the second state includes a second crank rotational speed, and the transmission stage number in the second state includes a second transmission stage number (FIG. 11 demonstrates a second traveling state where the cadence of the pedals Cs is greater than Cth and a gear position starting at a 1st gear position, see at least [FIG. 11, Watarai 526]); and the electronic controller is configured to change the predetermined period so that the first predetermined period becomes longer than the second predetermined period (FIG. 12 shows T2 Determination interval as longer than T1 in FIG.11, see at least [¶ 100, FIG. 11 and FIG. 12, Watarai 526]: “As seen in FIGS. 11 and 12, the response-speed memory 428 is configured to store a first determination interval T1 and a second determination interval T2. The second determination interval T2 is longer than the first determination interval T1”) in a case where the first transmission stage number is equal to the second transmission stage number (FIG. 12 and FIG. 11 show that both initial Gear Positions start at a 1st position, see at least [FIG. 12 and FIG. 11, Watarai 526]) and the first crank rotational speed is less than the second crank rotational speed (FIG. 12 demonstrates that the first crank rotational speed Cs is less than Cth, while in FIG. 11 cadence Cs is greater than Cth, therefore the cadence in FIG. 12 corresponding to a longer T2 time period is less than the cadence in FIG.11 corresponding to a shorter T1 time period, see at least [¶ 99, FIG. 11 and FIG. 12, Watarai 526]: “The speed changing part 416 increases the determination interval T0 if the cadence Cs sensed by the cadence sensor 24 is lower than the cadence threshold Cth”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Guderzo and Watarai 526 to set the restriction period after completion of a transmission action according to the cadence of the pedals to be a shorter period when cadence is greater than a threshold, and a longer period when the cadence is lower than a threshold taking to account identical gear positions/stages as taught by Watarai 526 with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would allow the transmission device to compare cadences with respect the same gear position/stage and [¶103, Watarai 526]: “continuously change the determination interval T0 in accordance with the cadence Cs if needed and/or desired”.
Regarding claim 16, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi and Watarai 526 teach the control device according to claim 15.
Watarai 526, directed to a bicycle shifting control apparatus, further teaches wherein: the electronic controller is configured to control the transmission device so that the transmission device initiates the first shifting action as the user starts performing the first operation on the operating device (FIG.3 depicts on the rising edge of the shifting signal the commend generator 22 sends a first shifting command, controlling the gear position to go from a first to a second position, see at least [¶ 64, FIG. 3, Watarai 526]: “in a case where the bicycle transmission 9 upshifts the current gear position from a first gear, the command generator 22 outputs an upshifting command to the bicycle transmission 9 when the shifting signal SS is inputted from the shifter 7 to the transmission controller 14. The bicycle transmission 9 changes the current gear position from the first gear to a second gear in response to the upshifting command from the command generator 22”); and
the electronic controller is configured to control the transmission device so that the transmission device initiates the second shifting action in a case where the first operation is continuously performed as the predetermined period ends (FIG.3 further depicts initiating a second shifting command while the shifting signal is continuously performed past the first predetermined period T0 as a ss continuous signal, see at least [¶ 65, FIG. 3, Watarai 526]: “As seen in FIG. 3, when the determination part 20 determines at the determination interval T0 that the shifting signal SS is continuous, the command generator 22 outputs an additional upshifting command to the bicycle transmission 9. The bicycle transmission 9 changes the current gear position from the second gear to a third gear in response to the additional upshifting command”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Guderzo and Watarai 526 to accept multiple shifting requests by reading a continuous shifting signal of a button or lever pressed that is sustained passed a first predetermined period as taught by Watarai 526. Doing so would improve the bicycle response to gear shift commands from electric operating devices [¶4, Watarai 526]: “the bicycle industry is constantly improving the various components of the bicycle. One bicycle component that has been extensively redesigned is a bicycle transmission configured to be electrically operated. Such bicycle transmissions are configured to change a gear position in response to gear shift commands from electric operating devices”.
Regarding Claim 22, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teaches, the control device according to claim 21,
Guderzo in view of Takebayashi does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic controller is configured to begin the second shifting action when the predetermined period ends and the user has performed the first operation on the operating device continuously since starting to perform the first operation.
Watarai 526, directed to a bicycle shifting control apparatus, further teaches wherein the electronic controller is configured to begin the second shifting action when the predetermined period ends and the user has performed the first operation on the operating device continuously since starting to perform the first operation (Fig. 11 depicts shifting signal SS is continuously performed when the second shifting action begins, see at least, ¶104, Fig. 11, Watarai 526).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Guderzo in view of Takebayashi to incorporate the teachings of Watarai 526 which teaches wherein the electronic controller is configured to begin the second shifting action when the predetermined period ends and the user has performed the first operation on the operating device continuously since starting to perform the first operation since they are both related to bicycle shifting control and incorporation of the teachings of Watarai 526 would improve the bicycle response to gear shift commands from electric operating devices.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guderzo (US 20050043129 A1) in view of Takebayashi, Haruyuki (US 20020128097 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 11-15, 17-19, 21 and 23-24 and further in view of WATARAI; Etsuyoshi (US 20150345620 A1) (Watarai 620).
Regarding claim 20, Guderzo in view of Takebayashi teaches a human-powered vehicle drive unit comprising the control device according to claim 1.
Guderzo in view of Takebayashi does not explicitly teach the drive unit further comprising: a motor configured to apply a propulsion force to the human-powered vehicle.
Watarai 620, directed to changing gears of a bicycle and an electrically assisted system, teaches the drive unit further comprising: a motor configured to apply a propulsion force to the human-powered vehicle (FIG. 2 Assist mechanism 32, and FIG. 3 Motor 50, see at least [¶ 36, FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, Watarai 620]: “The assist mechanism 32 comprising the motor 50 assists the manual drive force that rotates the front sprocket 42 with the drive of the motor 50”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Guderzo in view of Takebayashi’s transmission control device for a human powered vehicle with the assist mechanism as taught by Watarai 620 with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would apply an assistive force in propelling the vehicle forward ([¶ 19, Watarai 620]: “an electrically assisted bicycle … comprises the bicycle gear changing control apparatus as recited … and a motor that assists a manual drive force”).
Conclusion
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 IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664