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 office action is in response to the amendments/remarks filed on 12/09/2025. Claims 1-8, 15-16, 19 are pending; claims 1-2 have been amended, claims 7-8, 16 are withdrawn, 9-14, 17-18 are canceled; claim 19 is added; claims 1-6, 15, 19 will be examined.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
Applicant's arguments, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
1-Applicant argued “The Office Action indicates that the amount of experimentation required for a person skilled in the art to accomplish the claimed feature of controlling the electric motor is unknown and that the specification does not provide any operative guidance. However, Applicant submits that a person skilled in the art would know how to calculate the necessary speed and/or torque at which to control the electric motor to accomplish the feature of driving the transmission body without propelling the human-powered vehicle. Basically, all that is required is information regarding the gear ratio between the electric motor and the rear wheel (or whichever wheel is driven by the transmission body) and information regarding the current speed of the wheel. Moreover, there are existing references indicating that the feature of driving the transmission body (e.g., the chain) without causing propulsion of the bicycle is known in the bicycle field. For example, please see U.S. Patent No. 9,199,630B to Gao. Column 9, lines 19-39 of Gao disclose controlling the output of a motor 120 such that the driving force does not exceed a reference value corresponding to the riding speed. Gao does not disclose a specific algorithm, but Gao clearly shows that the feature of using a motor 120 to drive a chain 117 such that the rear wheel 105 is not driven (i.e., such that the bicycle is not propelled) is known in the bicycle field. Please note that this control disclosed in Gao is only executed during gear shifting (see
Figures 4, 6, and 8 and column 8, line 34 to column 9, line 67 of Gao). In view of the preceding remarks, Applicant submits that the claims comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b). Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.”
--In response to the argument above, examiner respectfully disagrees because enablement requires the specification provides enough guidance such as mechanical arrangements, control algorithms or operational conditions required to achieve the claimed functionality to teach how to “driving the transmission body without propelling the human-powered vehicle” and not rely on one skill in the art could figure it out with outside knowledge or other patents. While Gao shows motor control during gear shifting to prevent propulsion, but Gao’s system is different: it uses different control logic, mechanical arrangements. Importantly, Gao’s disclosure is not part of the applicant’s specification. For that reason, the rejections under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) are maintained.
Applicant argues Goebel is silent regarding shifting gears and silent regarding controlling the motor to drive the chain without conveying torque to the rear wheel. This argument is not persuasive because the claim does not require “torque is not conveyed to the rear wheel”; “shifting gear”; it requires an operating unit “irrelevant to shifting”. Goebel’s system has no shifting control, instead Goebel’s system has a freewheel operates base on speed differentials not by gear selection or any shifting related command (see¶[0021]-[0022]. While GOEBEL discloses motor braking control, the system includes a motor operatively coupled to a chain drive through a freewheel mechanism and controlled via precise torque modulation. The system is capable of rotating transmission body without propelling the bicycle in particular under coasting conditions where the rear wheel rotates and the freewheel overruns, the motor torque below the engagement threshold of the freewheel would result in rotation of the chain without transmitting force to the wheel (see ¶[0022]; [0033]). This condition satisfies the claimed limitation.
Secondly, applicant argues with respect to the amended limitation of claim 1 has been considered but moot because the present rejection of claim 1 now is based on obviousness under 35 USC 103, not on anticipation on Goebel alone. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
With regarding to the rejection of claims 3-5 since applicant does not have any specific arguments to the dependent claims, thereof, the rejections of dependent claims are maintained for the reasons above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an electronic controller configured to control the motor so as to drive the transmission body without propelling the human-powered vehicle with the driving force of the motor upon the user operating the first operating unit.” The specification does not enable the limitation of “the motor transmitting a force to the transmission body without propelling a human powered vehicle”, the disclosure provides no structural feature by which the controller achieve the claimed result. The recitation lacks corresponding enabling disclosure in view of Wands factors: 1-quantity of experimentation needed: the specification ¶[0057] of PGPUB version expressly discloses motor 22 configure to apply propulsion force to human power vehicle and ¶[0059] of PGPUB version: “motor 22 can be configured to transmit a rotational force to the transmission body 20 without using the first rotational body 14. In an example in which the motor 22 is configured to transmit rotational force to the transmission body 20 without using the first rotational body 14, a sprocket that engages the transmission body 20 is provided on an output shaft 22A of the motor 22 or a transmission member to which the force from the output shaft 22A of the motor 22 is transmitted.” but fails to identify mechanical arrangement to achieve the claimed functionality; 2-the amount of direction provided by the inventor: the specification provides no operative guidance beyond the result to be achieve; 3-state of prior art: while controllers for motors and transmission are known, the specific operation recited “driving the transmission body without propelling the human-powered vehicle” is not conventional and thus cannot be implement without more detailed instructions provided by the inventor.
The dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an electronic controller configured to control the motor so as to drive the transmission body without propelling the human-powered vehicle with the driving force of the motor upon the user operating the first operating unit.” The limitation is indefinite because from [¶[0045] appears to describe motor 22 is configured to apply propulsion force to human-power vehicle, which contradicts the claimed limitation reciting “the motor so as to drive the transmission body without propelling the human-powered vehicle” and it is unclear how a motor would be able to accomplish the claimed function.
The dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOEBEL (DE102022208669A1) in view of ARIMUNE (US 20140166383 A1)
Claim 1: GOEBEL discloses a control device (5, 51, 52) for a human-powered vehicle (10; Fig.1) including a crank axle (7) configured to receive a human driving force (e.g. manual pedaling force, see ¶[0028), a first rotational body (6) connected to the crank axle (7), a wheel (9), a second rotational body (see annotated Fig below) connected to the wheel (9), a transmission body (8) engaged with the first rotational body (6) and the second rotational body (see annotated fig below) to transmit a driving force between the first rotational body (6) and the second rotational body (see annotated Fig below), a motor (2) configured to drive the transmission body (8), and a first operating unit (e.g. freewheeling, and step 21) configured to be operable by a user (e.g. driver) of the human-powered vehicle (10) and the first operating unit (e.g. freewheeling and step 21) being irrelevant to a shifting operation of the human-powered vehicle (10) (see ¶[0021-[0022]: a freewheel operates base on speed differentials not by gear selection or any shifting related command.),
the control device (5, 51, 52) comprising:
an electronic controller (5) configured to control the motor (2) so as to drive (via 6) the transmission body (8) with the motor without propelling the human-powered vehicle with the driving force of the motor (2) upon the user operating the first operating unit (e.g. freewheeling, and step 21) (¶[0022]: when freewheel is open. This prevents, in particular, the specific operation of the electric motor from having an impact on the actual torque acting on a drive wheel during operation of the electric bicycle.¶[0033]: the operation of the electric motor 2 can be automatically terminated or stopped. This preferably occurs when the freewheel opens automatically.)
GOEBEL does not disclose a first operating unit that is provided on a handlebar of the human power vehicle.
ARIMUNE teaches a human power vehicle (1; Fig.1) having a transmission operation unit (93) and indicator (150) provided on a handlebar (23) (¶[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of GOEBEL to include a handle bar mounted operating unit as taught by ARIMUNE to improve user controllability and system robustness.
Claim 5: GOEBEL as modified by ARIMUNE discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein: the human-powered vehicle (10) further includes a second operating unit (step 22) that differs from the first operating unit (step 21 and freewheeling), and the second operating unit (step 22) is configured to be operable by the user (driver); and in a case where the user (driver) operates the first operating unit (step 21) and drives the motor (2) (¶[0036]), the electronic controller (5) is configured to stop the motor (2) upon the user operating the second operating unit (step 22).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOEBEL (DE102022208669A1) in view of ARIMUNE (US 20140166383 A1) and further in view of NELSON (US 20220297794 A1)
Claim 3: GOEBEL as modified by ARIMUNE discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic controller (5) is configured to stop the motor (2)(step 21, 23).
GOEBEL does not disclose the first operating unit includes switch to turn on/off the motor.
NELSON teaches on/off switch (126; Fig.1) for controllably turning the electric motive power unit (110; Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the on/off switch (126-NELSON) in the operating unit (freewheel and 21) from the modified device of GOEBEL in order to energy efficiency and safety reasons.
Accordingly, the combination of GOEBEL in view of ARIMUNE and further in view of NELSON teach or render obvious a controller (5-GOEBEL) configured to stop motor (2-GOEBEL) in case where the user (e.g. driver) stops operating the first operating (e.g. freewheeling, step 21-GEOBEL and on/off switch 126-as taught by NELSON. As user presses the switch of NELSON; the switch “OFF” ) as claimed.
Claim 4: GOEBEL as modified by ARIMUNE discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the user (driver) operates the first operating unit (e.g. freewheeling, step 21-GEOBEL) to drive the motor (as discussed in step 21).
GOEBEL does not disclose the first operating unit includes switch to turn on/off the motor.
NELSON teaches on/off switch (126; Fig.1) for controllably turning the electric motive power unit (110; Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the controller from the modified device of GOEBEL with the on/off switch (126-NELSON) as input for motor control in order to allow the user to command the controller to stop the motor and energy efficiency.
Accordingly, the combination of GOEBEL in view of ARIMUNE and further in view of NELSON teaches or renders obvious a first operating unit (freewheel and 21-GOEBEL and (on/off switch )-NELSON ) to drive motor (e.g. as user presses switch of NELSON; the switch “ON”) and then stops operating the first operating unit (e.g. user does not operate the freewheel); the controller (5-GOEBEL) is configured to stop the motor (2-GOEBEL) upon the user (driver) operating the first operating unit (freewheel and 21-GOEBEL and (on/off switch )-NELSON) again (e.g. as user presses the switch of NELSON- the switch “OFF”) as claimed.
Claim 19: GOEBEL as modified by ARIMUNE does not disclose wherein the first operating unit includes at least one of a switch, a lever, and a dial.
NELSON teaches vehicle control units commonly includes on/off switch (126; Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a switch as taught by NELSON in the modified system of GOEBEL in order to improve usability, predictability.
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 Lillian T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571)270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/LILLIAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3655A