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 .
Status of Claims
This final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amended filing of 07/28/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, and 22 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has amended claim 1; cancelled claim 10; and added new claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-11 rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Nishimura is not reasonable to combine with Hahn because Nishimura is not directed toward assistance while shifting, and would only apply to propulsion assistance. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the examiner acknowledges Nishimura does not disclose controlling the assist motor while shifting, it’s relied on to suggest a predetermined threshold load is exceeded that indicates a foreign object to not activate drive assist. This is important to help prevent the bicycle from driving while the foreign object is caught in moving components that could potentially damage the motor or harm the passenger, and is applicable to both shifting and propelling scenarios disclosed in Hahn as they are implemented through the same drive motor.
The Applicant further argues that Hahn’s minimum speed requirement for shifting makes it incompatible with Nishimura’s prohibited control that operates at a low speed low torque state, and therefore prevent shifting as disclosed by Hahn. Additionally, the Applicant argues this does not represent stopping the drive motor in response to the predetermined load. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Nishimura discloses only preventing driving assist at low speed low torque states, Nishimura is focused on detecting the presence of a foreign object based on a predetermined load. As stated above, one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate this feature into Hahn’s driving assist to help prevent the bicycle from driving while the foreign object is caught in moving components that could potentially damage the motor or harm the passenger. While this does not teach stopping the drive motor in response to a predetermined load, Nishimura is not required to disclose, teach, or suggest this feature, and Miyoshi is relied on to suggest this deficiency.
Lastly, the Applicant argues that Miyoshi fails to teach the deficiency because it is directed toward measuring a load during braking in a walk mode and not while the bike is shifting gears. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously counterargued, Hahn primarily discloses the drive controller operating a derailleur for shifting gears if a given speed is achieved. As claimed, the predetermined condition to satisfy to stop the drive motor is not dependent on shifting gear control, only on experienced predetermined load as suggested by Miyoshi. This would help the controller distinguish when the rider intends to brake the bicycle instead of continuing to travel by coasting.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn et al. (US 20200262512 A1) in view of Manewald et al. (US 20230303208 A1) and Miyoshi et al. (US 20160016638 A1).
Regarding claim 1, discloses a control device for a human-powered vehicle including a crank axle configured to receive a human driving force (see at least ¶ [0017-0018] and Fig. 1), a first rotational body connected to the crank axle (see at least ¶ [0017-0018] and Fig. 1), a wheel (see at least ¶ [0017-0018] and Fig. 1), a second rotational body connected to the wheel (see at least ¶ [0017-0018] and Figs. 1-2), a transmission body engaged with the first rotational body and the second rotational body to transmit a driving force between the first rotational body and the second rotational body (see at least ¶ [0017-0018] and Figs. 1-2), a motor configured to drive the transmission body (see at least ¶ [0017-0018] and Fig. 1), and a derailleur configured to operate the transmission body and shift a transmission ratio of a rotational speed of the wheel to a rotational speed of the crank axle (see at least ¶ [0055] and [0061] disclosing the controller operates a derailleur and stores gear ratio and upshift/downshift tables), the control device comprising:
an electronic controller configured to control the motor (see at least ¶ [0027] and Fig. 3 disclosing a controller directing an assist motor),
in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied, the electronic controller being configured to drive the motor (see at least ¶ [0076-0077] disclosing a full automatic mode that drives the assist motor when the rider is not pedaling) so that a rotational torque of the first rotational body produced by the motor is kept less than or equal to a predetermined torque,
and the predetermined condition including a first condition in which rotation of the crank axle is stopped (see at least ¶ [0076-0077] disclosing a full automatic mode that drives the assist motor when the rider is not pedaling) and a second condition in which the derailleur operates the transmission body to shift the transmission ratio (see at least ¶ [0055], [0061], and [0073] disclosing the controller operates a derailleur and stores gear ratio and upshift/downshift tables and directs the assist motor to supply torque according to a current gear ratio).
While Hahn discloses the electronic controller is configured to drive the motor so that a rotational torque of the first rotational body is produced by the motor (see at least ¶ [0013], [0066], and [0072-0073] disclosing the assist motor supplying torque to the chainring to drive the rear wheel), it does not disclose that the torque is kept less than or equal to a predetermined torque.
and the predetermined torque being 1 Nm or greater and 10 Nm or less.
However, Manewald teaches an electric bike with a drive unit which supplies torque to a chain and crank assembly by predicting torque based off of specific torque thresholds (see at least abstract and ¶ [0011], [0024-0026], [0038], and [0047-0055]).
This suggests driving the motor so that a rotational torque of the first rotational body produced by the motor is less than or equal to a predetermined torque because it describes supplying torque to electric bicycle when it predicts the torque to falls below a certain threshold. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the torque thresholds of Manewald into the electric bicycle of Hahn with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward motor assisted pedaling of electric bikes. This would help prevent the rider from experiencing kickback due to motor torque (see Manewald ¶ [0003-0004] and [0018]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the predetermined torque to 1 Nm or greater and 10 Nm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The combination of Hahn and Manewald does not disclose, in a case where the electronic controller has started driving the motor in response to the predetermined condition being satisfied, the electronic controller is configured to stop driving the motor upon determining that a load on the motor exceeds a predetermined load.
However, Miyoshi suggests, in a case where the electronic controller has started driving the motor in response to the predetermined condition being satisfied, the electronic controller is configured to stop driving the motor upon determining that a load on the motor exceeds a predetermined load (see at least ¶ [0023-0025] and [0099-0100] disclosing a controller forcibly stopping a motor of an electric bicycle when a predetermined load is applied like in braking).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the deterministic stop condition of Miyoshi into the combination of Hahn and Manewald with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward motor assisted driving of electric bikes. This would help the controller distinguish when the rider intends to brake the bicycle instead of continuing to travel by coasting.
Regarding claim 2, Hahn discloses the predetermined torque is 2 Nm or greater and 10 Nm or less (see at least ¶ [0073] disclosing motor output torque is limited to 2 Nm).
Regarding claim 3, Hahn discloses the predetermined torque is set in accordance with a transmission ratio of the human-powered vehicle (see at least ¶ [0072-0073] disclosing motor output torque is limited to correspond to the current wheel speed and gear ratio).
Regarding claim 5, Hahn discloses, in a case where a speed of the human-powered vehicle is less than or equal to a predetermined first speed, the electronic controller is configured to drive the motor so as to apply a propulsion force to the human-powered vehicle in accordance with at least one of the human driving force and the rotational speed of the crank axle (see at least ¶ [0028], [0031-0032], and [0072-0073] disclosing the speed of the bicycle being monitored and used as input to determine when the assist motor provides torque to enable the derailleur to shift gears without oversupplying torque and producing kickback or unexpected acceleration);
the electronic controller is configured to control the derailleur (see at least ¶ [0055] and [0061] disclosing the controller operates a derailleur and stores gear ratio and upshift/downshift tables);
and the electronic controller is configured so as not to actuate the derailleur upon determining the speed of the human-powered vehicle is in a predetermined speed range including the predetermined first speed in a case where the predetermined condition is satisfied (see at least ¶ [0028], [0031-0032], [0056-0057], [0060-0068], and [0072-0073] disclosing the speed of the bicycle being monitored and used as input to determine when the assist motor provides torque to enable the derailleur to shift gears without oversupplying torque and producing kickback or unexpected acceleration).
Regarding claim 6, Hahn discloses the predetermined condition further includes a third condition in which the wheel is rotating (see at least ¶ [0056-0057], [0060-0068], and [0072-0073] disclosing the controller operating the assist motor and derailleur when the wheel is rotating).
Regarding claim 7, Hahn discloses the electronic controller is configured to determine that rotation of the crank axle is stopped in a case where a rotational speed of the crank axle is less than or equal to a predetermined rotational speed (see at least ¶ [0028], [0031-0032], [0058], and [0091] discloses pedal speed sensor and wheel speed sensor used to determine cadence data to determine that the crank has stopped pedaling).
Regarding claim 8, Hahn discloses the electronic controller is configured to drive the motor so that a rotational speed of the first rotational body becomes less than or equal to an estimated rotational speed (see at least ¶ [0057], [0060], and [0072-0073] disclosing the processor computing a rotational and/or cadence speed based on RPM and driving the motor and chainring to match that speed and be less than the wheel speed factored by the gear ratio);
and the estimated rotational speed is calculated from a transmission ratio of the human-powered vehicle and a speed of the human-powered vehicle (see at least ¶ [0057], [0060], and [0072-0073] disclosing the processor computing a rotational and/or cadence speed based on RPM and driving the motor and chainring to match that speed and be less than the wheel speed factored by the gear ratio).
Regarding claim 11, Hahn suggests the predetermined condition includes a fourth condition in which the first condition is satisfied after a condition is satisfied in which the human driving force received by the crank axle is greater than or equal to a predetermined driving force (see at least ¶ [0067], [0086-0087], [0091] disclosing watching the rider’s force of pedaling to determine if it is above a cadence threshold and/or determine if the bike is moving above a certain speed to know if to direct the derailleur to shift gears).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn et al. in view of Manewald et al. and Miyoshi et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Nishimura et al. (JP 2016007929 A).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Hahn, Manewald, and Miyoshi does not disclose the predetermined load being set to a value enabling determination that a foreign object is caught in at least one of the transmission body, the first rotational body, and the second rotational body.
However, Nishimura suggests the predetermined load being set to a value enabling determination that a foreign object is caught in at least one of the transmission body, the first rotational body, and the second rotational body (see at least ¶ [0034], [0038], and [0048] of the machine translation disclosing a motor-assisted bicycle monitoring motor speed and torque to determine if a foreign object is sandwiched in the driven pulley and belt and to not supply auxiliary driving force if a foreign object is present).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the foreign object stop condition of Nishimura into the combination of Hahn, Manewald, and Miyoshi with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward motor assisted driving of electric bikes. This would help the controller prevent the bicycle from driving while a foreign object is caught in moving components that could potentially damage the motor or harm the passenger.
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 JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.C.B./
Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights