DETAILED ACTION
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 action is in reply to the application filed on July 11th, 2023, the Response to Election/Restriction filed May 21st, 2025, the amendments and response filed 10/03/2025, the amendments, response, and request for continued examination filed 1/15/2026, and the amendments and response filed 5/02/2026.
Election was made of Claims 1-7 and 15 without traverse in response to the restriction requirement mailed April 4th, 2025
No claims are currently amended.
Claims 1 and 7 have been previously amended.
Claims 2, 8-14, 16, and 17 have been cancelled.
Claim 18 (renumbered from claim 16, see Claim Objections below) has been added.
Claims 1, 3-7, 15, and 18 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/15/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 10/06/2023 and 2/19/2026 have been received and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 5/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the prior art failing to teach a stop condition based on motor load. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is set forth in view of Schieffelin (US 9656672), Gao (US 9199630), and Hering (WO 2023247433).
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). Claim numbers 16 and 17 have been presented previously in the claim set originally filed 7/11/2023. Therefore, the newly added and misnumbered claim 16 has been renumbered claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schieffelin (US 9656672, hereinafter “Schieffelin”) in view of Gao (US 9199630, hereinafter “Gao”) and Hering et al (WO 2023247433, hereinafter “Hering,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation)
Regarding Claim 1, Schieffelin teaches:
A control device for a human-powered vehicle including a crank axle configured to receive a human driving force, a first rotational body connected to the crank axle, (Schieffelin Col 2 lines 10-21 “a derailleur-based electronic transmission system for an electric bicycle comprises […] a pedal crank configured to cause rotation of the driven sprocket set by providing a user pedal force to the driven sprocket set through at least a second one-way clutch and the drive chain [Fig 1&2 item 108 and 202];”)
a wheel, a second rotational body connected to the wheel, (Schieffelin Col 2 lines 10-13 “a derailleur-based electronic transmission system for an electric bicycle comprises a wheel [Fig 1 Item 208]; a driven sprocket set coupled to the wheel via at least a first one-way clutch [Fig 1 shown on Item 208],”)
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, (Schieffelin Col 2 lines 10-21 “a derailleur-based electronic transmission system for an electric bicycle comprises […] a drive chain configured to engage the driven sprocket set [Fig 1 item 214]; […] a pedal crank configured to cause rotation of the driven sprocket set by providing a user pedal force to the driven sprocket set through at least a second one-way clutch and the drive chain [Fig 1&2 item 108 and 202];” emphasis added)
a derailleur configured to operate the transmission body to shift a transmission ratio of a rotational speed of the wheel to a rotational speed of the crank axle, (Schieffelin Col 2 lines 10-18 “a derailleur-based electronic transmission system for an electric bicycle comprises […] a driven sprocket set coupled to the wheel via at least a first one-way clutch, the driven sprocket set comprising two or more concentric sprockets of different effective diameters; […] an electronically controllable derailleur configured to move the drive chain among the two or more sprockets;” the two or more concentric sprockets allowing a shift of transmission ratios)
a motor configured to drive the transmission body, (Schieffelin Col 2 lines 10-24 “a derailleur-based electronic transmission system for an electric bicycle comprises […] a motor configured to cause rotation of the driven sprocket set by providing an electromechanical force to the driven sprocket set through at least a the drive chain [Fig 1 item 212];”)
a first detector that detects a first parameter related to the rotational speed of the crank axle, (Schieffelin Col 26 lines 56-62 “the one or more sensors may include a pedal cadence sensor 652 configured to measure, for example, the number of revolutions of the pedal crank during a period of time, such as a second, minute, hour, and/or the like. Specifically, pedal cadence sensor 652 may measure the rate at which a cyclist or user is pedaling and/or turning the pedals;” and Col 28 lines 4-6 “In an embodiment, the sensors of the mobile device may measure, detect, and/or calculate […] pedal crank speed,”)
and a second detector that detects a second parameter related to the rotational speed of the wheel, (Schieffelin Col 26 lines 62-64 “the one or more sensors may comprise a wheel speed sensor 654 configured to measure the speed of the front and/or rear wheels;”)
the control device comprising: an electronic controller (Schieffelin Col 2 lines 10-24 “a derailleur-based electronic transmission system for an electric bicycle comprises […] an electronic controller,”)
configured to control the motor so as to drive the transmission body with the motor without propelling the human-powered vehicle with the driving force of the motor (Schieffelin Col 2 lines 24-29 “responsive to a determination that a shift should occur at a time when neither the pedal crank nor the motor is causing rotation of the driven sprocket: operate the motor to rotate the driven sprocket at a rotational speed less than or equal to a current rotational speed of the wheel,”)
in a case […] in which the crank axle is rotated (Schieffelin Col 17 lines 45-55 “As another example, the pedal crank may be rotating, but the present speed of the pedal crank and the present gear ratio may not result in an optimum rotational speed of the derailleur sprocket for effecting a gear change. Accordingly, if an optimum shift would be enabled by a derailleur sprocket speed, the system may be configured to decouple or at least partially decouple the pedal crank from the derailleur sprocket to enable the motor (and/or the momentum of the bicycle) to turn the derailleur sprocket at a faster speed than it would be turned by the pedal crank in the current gear alone,” teaching a case where the pedal crank is rotating and a shift occurs)
and the human- powered vehicle is propelled without the human driving force (Schieffelin Col 2 lines 24-27 ““responsive to a determination that a shift should occur at a time when neither the pedal crank nor the motor is causing rotation of the driven sprocket:” and Col 39 lines 21-26 “it can be desirable to continually monitor the wheel speed during the gear change and dynamically increase or decrease the motor speed to ensure the driven sprocket remains at a speed as close to the current wheel speed as possible, but without introducing any new torque or power into the wheel,” describing driving the motor without introducing new torque or power into the wheel, equivalent to propelling the vehicle)
and a shifting condition for shifting the transmission ratio with the derailleur are satisfied, […] (Schieffelin Col 2 lines 35-37 “in some embodiments, the electronic controller can be configured to determine that the shift should occur by determining that a stop event is occurring,” a stop event being the shifting condition)
[…] including a condition that the rotational speed of the crank axle obtained from the detection of the first detector is greater than zero (Schieffelin Col 17 lines 45-46 “As another example, the pedal crank may be rotating, […],” teaching a specific case where rotation is present, meaning the rotational speed is greater than zero)
and less than or equal to an estimated rotational speed, the estimated rotational speed being calculated from […] the second parameter, (Schieffelin Col 3 lines 16-25 “a derailleur-based electronic transmission system for an electric bicycle operates automatically by determining, by an electric bicycle controller, that a stop event is occurring; determining, by the electric bicycle controller, that a downshift is desirable before the stop event completes; measuring, directly or indirectly, a rotational sprocket set speed and determining that the rotational sprocket set speed is below a threshold speed for effecting the downshift before the stop event completes” teaching measurement of sprocket rotational speed as a condition for shifting and Col 4 lines 21-28 “the derailleur-based electronic transmission system for an electric bicycle further operates automatically by continually monitoring, directly and/or indirectly, the rotational speed of the wheel during the shift of the chain; and reducing the rotational speed of the sprocket set as needed, during the shift of the chain, to maintain the rotational speed of the sprocket set equal to or less than the rotational speed of the wheel,” teaching measurement of wheel speed to control sprocket speed during shifting)
in a case where the first condition (Schieffelin Col 37 lines 50-52 “At block 828, a wheel speed sensor measures rear wheel speed, front wheel speed and/or speeds of both wheels,” Fig 8 items 828 and 838 in combination for determination of optimum speed, the first condition referring to Gao Col 9 lines 3-18 as described above, with obviousness and motivation as described above)
and the shifting condition are satisfied (Schieffelin Col 26 lines 48-53 “If at block 834 a stop event is detected, at block 836, the computing system, electric bicycle controller, motor control module and/or other component of the electric bicycle system calculates an optimal (or available) gear change time window and/or shifting window to effect the shift in gears,” Fig 8 item 834, the stop event being the shifting condition as established in claim 1)
and the motor is driven, (Schieffelin Col 41 lines 24-27 “At block 840, a power control module optimizes a torque output for the shift in gears and/or rotates the motor to cause the driven sprocket set to be rotated at the calculated optimal RPM and/or torque for the shift,” Fig 8 item 840)
the electronic controller being configured to stop the motor upon a stopping condition of the motor being satisfied, the stopping condition including […] (Schieffelin Col 41 lines 37-38 “At block 846, once the system effects the shift in gears, the motor is stopped,” Fig 8 item 846, the condition being the shift in gears has been “effected”)
Schieffelin does not teach:
[…]where a first condition [in which the crank axle is rotated…]
[…] the first condition […]
[…] the transmission ratio and […]
[…] a condition in which a load on the motor is greater than or equal to a threshold value.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schieffelin, Gao teaches:
[…] where a first condition [in which the crank axle is rotated…] and the first condition […] (Gao Col 9 lines 3-18 “The drive controller 3 is programmed to operate the motor 120 to drive the chain 117 based on the detection results of the rotational state detection device 2 when a determination is made that the rotational state of the crank 112 is in a prescribed state. Specifically, the drive controller 3, based on the cadence of the crank 112 that is detected by the rotational state detection device 2, determines whether or not the rotational state of the crank 112 is in a prescribed state. For example, the drive controller 3 is programmed to determine whether or not the cadence of the crank 112 is less than or equal to a prescribed value that is preset beforehand. Additionally, if a determination is made that the cadence is less than or equal to the prescribed value, the drive controller 3 is programmed to control the motor driver 120a to operate the motor 120, and thus, drive the chain 117,” teaching a prescribed condition of crank rotation for operating the motor for shifting, as applied to Schieffelin’s operation while the crank is rotating, in combination with Schieffelin’s operation while the crank is rotating)
[…an estimated rotational speed, the estimated rotational speed being calculated from] the transmission ratio and [the second parameter] (Gao Col 9 lines 19-37 “if the rotational state of the crank 112 is in a prescribed state, the drive controller 3 controls the motor 120 so that the driving force that is output by the motor 120 will not exceed a reference value that corresponds to the riding speed that is detected by the speed detection device 6. This “reference value that corresponds to the riding speed” refers to the driving force of the motor 120 that is necessary to achieve this riding speed. If the motor 120 outputs a driving force that exceeds this reference value, the rear wheel 105 is driven by the motor 120 via the chain 117, the rear sprocket group 116, etc. For this reason, with the drive controller 3 controlling the motor 120 so that the driving force that is output by the motor 120 does not exceed the above-described reference value, the motor 120 drives only the chain 117 and will not drive the rear wheel 105. Meanwhile, this reference value can change depending on the gear ratio, etc., and the drive controller 3 stores information regarding the reference value that is correlated with the gear ratio and the riding speed,” teaching that the motor is controlled as an additional condition while shifting, correlated to both travelling speed (second parameter) and gear ratio, within the BRI of “calculated from the transmission ratio and the second parameter” as a substitution for Schieffelin’s operation solely referring to wheel speed)
Schieffelin and Gao are considered analogous because they both relate to motorized bicycle gear shifting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the case where the pedal crank is turning, meaning a rotational speed greater than zero, and a shift occurs of Schieffelin with the substitution of the crank speed less than or equal to a prescribed value of Gao, and further the shift monitoring of wheel speed of Schieffelin substituted with shift crank speed limit changing correlated with the gear ratio and the riding speed Gao. These modifications would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by preventing the motor driving force from exceeding the riding speed (Gao Col 9 lines 19-33).
The combination of Schieffelin and Gao does not teach:
[…] a condition in which a load on the motor is greater than or equal to a threshold value.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schieffelin and Gao, Hering teaches:
[…the electronic controller being configured to stop the motor upon a stopping condition of the motor being satisfied, the stopping condition including] a condition in which a load on the motor is greater than or equal to a threshold value. (Hering Pg 3 ¶ 4 lines 4-10 “The electronic control unit can then be configured to detect the presence of the termination criterion in the event of a deviation of one or more recorded measured values from […] the reference current value curve that exceeds a tolerance threshold. This results in a […] a characteristic reference current value curve if the freewheel is open and remains open during a switching process and is therefore in a decoupling state. If a deviation from one or more of these stored curves is detected during the switching process, it can be concluded that the freewheel is no longer open, but closed,” teaching stopping condition (termination criterion) of a reference motor current value, representing driving motor load which directly teaches the claimed “load on the motor,” wherein deviation from the reference value includes exceeding the value)
Schieffelin, Gao, and Hering are considered analogous because they both relate to motorized bicycle gear shifting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic gear shifting when the crank is not driving the bicycle and shut-off condition of the shift completing of Schieffelin with the addition of Hering’s shift abort criteria of a motor load reference value during the shift. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by preventing unexpected wheel acceleration during shifting (Hering Pg 3 ¶ 1 line 3).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Schieffelin, Gao, and Hering teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Schieffelin further teaches:
the stopping condition further includes a condition (Schieffelin Col 38 lines 53-65 “For example, the system may analyze a current rate of deceleration and estimate from at least that current rate of deceleration how long it will be before the bicycle comes to a stop, and or how many revolutions of the drive wheel there will be until the bike comes to a stop. In some embodiments, this time before the bicycle comes to a stop may be considered the available window for effecting the gear change (see, for example, window 1140 shown in FIG. 11C). In some embodiments, however, the system may further take into account that, to effect the gear change efficiently or optimally, it may be desirable to rotate the sprocket set within a certain rotational velocity range,” teaching determination of a condition to complete a shift in terms of time and speed, and Col 41 lines 34-36 “In some embodiments, block 844 is performed during the optimal gear change window of time and/or at an optimal rotational speed for the shift in gears.”)
in which a predetermined period elapses from when driving of the motor is started.
(Schieffelin Col 40 lines 25-28 “For example, the system may further calculate or estimate the amount of rotation, such as the number of degrees of rotation of the drive sprocket required to affect the shift,” indicating a condition of a predetermined amount of rotation of the drive sprocket to complete the shift)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Schieffelin, Gao, and Hering teaches the elements of Claim 3 as described above. Schieffelin further teaches:
wherein the predetermined period includes at least one of a predetermined time, […] (Schieffelin Col 38 lines 53-65 “For example, the system may analyze a current rate of deceleration and estimate from at least that current rate of deceleration how long it will be before the bicycle comes to a stop, and or how many revolutions of the drive wheel there will be until the bike comes to a stop. In some embodiments, this time before the bicycle comes to a stop may be considered the available window for effecting the gear change,” teaching determination of a condition to complete a shift in terms of time which may represent the predetermined period, and Col 41 lines 34-36 “In some embodiments, block 844 is performed during the optimal gear change window of time and/or at an optimal rotational speed for the shift in gears.”)
[…] and a period during which the first rotational body is rotated by the motor more than a second rotational angle. (Schieffelin Col 40 lines 25-28 “For example, the system may further calculate or estimate the amount of rotation, such as the number of degrees of rotation of the drive sprocket required to affect the shift,” additionally teaching a condition which may represent the predetermined period of a number of degrees of rotation (a rotational angle analogous to the claimed second rotational angle) of the drive sprocket (first rotational body) to complete the shift)
Schieffelin does not teach the alternative predetermined period of: […] a period during which an output shaft of the motor is rotated more than a first rotational angle, […]
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Schieffelin, Gao, and Hering teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Schieffelin further teaches:
the electronic controller is configured to control the derailleur; (Schieffelin Col 41 lines 27-30 “At block 842, a communications module activates an electric derailleur module and/or a clutch actuator module configured to move the chain and/or belt,” Fig 8 item 842)
and the electronic controller is configured to drive the transmission body with the motor (Schieffelin Col 41 lines 24-27 “At block 840, a power control module optimizes a torque output for the shift in gears and/or rotates the motor to cause the driven sprocket set to be rotated at the calculated optimal RPM and/or torque for the shift,” Fig 8 item 840)
and operate the transmission body with the derailleur (Schieffelin Col 41 lines 30-34 “At block 844, an electronically operatable derailleur shifts gears by automatically moving the chain and/or belt to the next gear and/or the optimal gear for the gear change while the driven sprocket is being caused to rotate by the motor.,” Fig 8 item 844)
in a case where the first condition and the shifting condition are satisfied. (Schieffelin Col 26 lines 48-53 “If at block 834 a stop event is detected, at block 836, the computing system, electric bicycle controller, motor control module and/or other component of the electric bicycle system calculates an optimal (or available) gear change time window and/or shifting window to effect the shift in gears,” Fig 8 item 834, the stop event being the shifting condition as established in claim 1, and Col 37 lines 50-52 “At block 828, a wheel speed sensor measures rear wheel speed, front wheel speed and/or speeds of both wheels,” Fig 8 items 828 and 838 in combination for determination of optimum speed, with the first condition as described above in Claim 1)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Schieffelin, Gao, and Hering teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Schieffelin further teaches:
the human-powered vehicle further includes a third detector that detects a third parameter related to a human torque that is input to the crank axle of the human-powered vehicle; (Schieffelin Col 27 lines 1-5 “Torque sensor 658 may be configured to measure […] the torque applied by the pedals,”)
the first condition is satisfied in a case where the rotational speed of the crank axle obtained from a detection value of the first detector is greater than zero (Schieffelin Col 17 lines 45-46 “As another example, the pedal crank may be rotating, […]”, teaching a case where the pedal crank is rotating, meaning that the rotational speed is greater than zero)
and less than or equal to the estimated rotational speed, (Schieffelin Col 3 lines 16-25 in combination with Gao Col 9 lines 19-37 as described in Claim 1 above)
and the human torque obtained from a detection value of the third detector is less than or equal to a predetermined torque; and the predetermined torque is 0 Nm […] (Schieffelin Col 8 lines 19-22 “the electronic controller configured to determine based on the torque production that the at least one user input device is not producing a torque,” analogous to 0 N•m)
Schieffelin does not teach:
[…] or greater and 5 Nm or less
Within the same field of endeavor as Schieffelin, Gao teaches:
[…] or greater and 5 Nm or less (Gao Col 11 lines 21-36 “The drive controller 3 operates the motor 120 to drive the chain 117, based on the manual drive force detected by the manual drive force detecting device 150 when a determination has been made that the manual drive force is less than or equal to a prescribed value. Specifically, the drive controller 3 determines whether or not the torque that is detected by the manual drive force detecting device 150 is less than or equal to a prescribed value that is preset beforehand. Additionally, if a determination is made that the torque is less than or equal to the prescribed value, the drive controller 3 controls the motor driver 120a to operate the motor 120 and thus drives the chain 117. […] Meanwhile, the above-described prescribed value is, for example, 5 N•m,” emphasis added, teaching a range at or below 5 N•m in combination with Schieffelin’s “not producing a torque,” analogous to 0 N•m)
Schieffelin and Gao are considered analogous because they both relate to motorized bicycle gear shifting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the case where the pedal crank is not producing a torque of Schieffelin with the addition of Gao’s condition of a torque at or below 5 N•m to create a range between 0 and 5 N•m. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by allowing a small tolerance of torque range to account for cyclist behavior such as light pedaling while stopping.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Schieffelin, Gao, and Hering teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Schieffelin further teaches:
wherein the shifting condition is related to at least one of a traveling state of the human-powered vehicle, (Schieffelin Col 2 lines 35-37 “in some embodiments, the electronic controller can be configured to determine that the shift should occur by determining that a stop event is occurring,” a stop event being related to a traveling state of the vehicle)
a traveling environment of the human-powered vehicle,
and an operating state of a shifting device of the human-powered vehicle.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Schieffelin, Gao, and Hering teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Schieffelin does not teach:
Wherein the stopping condition is satisfied when the condition in which the load on the motor is greater than or equal to the threshold value occurs before the shifting of the transmission ratio is completed.
Within the same field of endeavor as Schieffelin, Hering teaches:
Wherein the stopping (Hering Pg 2 ¶ 5 line 1 – Pg 3 ¶ 1 line 3 “The basic idea of the proposed solution is therefore to cancel an electronically controlled switching process, which is to be carried out on a rolling electric bicycle without pedal movement to change a gear ratio between the drive train and the drivable wheel, when a freewheel of the wheel is or is closed and thus a driving force of the drive motor is sent to the Wheel is transmitted and would therefore lead to an undesirable acceleration of the wheel,” teaching cancellation of the electronically controlled switching process, i.e. a stopping condition for shifting)
condition is satisfied when the condition in which the load on the motor is greater than or equal to the threshold value occurs before the shifting of the transmission ratio is completed. (Hering Pg 3 ¶ 4 lines 4-10 “The electronic control unit can then be configured to detect the presence of the termination criterion in the event of a deviation of one or more recorded measured values from […] the reference current value curve that exceeds a tolerance threshold. This results in a […] a characteristic reference current value curve if the freewheel is open and remains open during a switching process and is therefore in a decoupling state. If a deviation from one or more of these stored curves is detected during the switching process, it can be concluded that the freewheel is no longer open, but closed,” teaching a reference motor current value, representing driving motor load which directly teaches the claimed “load on the motor,” wherein deviation from the reference value includes exceeding the value, and furthermore teaching detection of the threshold values for the stopping condition during the shift, i.e. before the shift is completed)
Schieffelin, and Hering are considered analogous because they both relate to motorized bicycle gear shifting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic gear shifting when the crank is not driving the bicycle of Shieffelin with the addition of Hering’s shift abort criteria of a motor load reference value during the shift. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by preventing unexpected wheel acceleration during shifting (Hering Pg 3 ¶ 1 line 3).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schieffelin in view of Gao and Hering and further in view of Kimmich (US 20160052594, hereinafter “Kimmich”).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Schieffelin, Gao, and Watarai teaches the elements of Claim 5 as described above. Schieffelin further teaches:
the electronic controller is configured to drive the transmission body with the motor without propelling the human-powered vehicle with the driving force of the motor (Schieffelin Col 39 lines 21-26 “it can be desirable to continually monitor the wheel speed during the gear change and dynamically increase or decrease the motor speed to ensure the driven sprocket remains at a speed as close to the current wheel speed as possible, but without introducing any new torque or power into the wheel,” describing driving the motor (established as driving the chain in claim 1) without introducing new torque or power into the wheel, equivalent to propelling the vehicle)
and operate the transmission body with the derailleur in a case where […] the shifting condition are satisfied; […] in a case where rotation of the crank axle is stopped. (Schieffelin Col 17 lines 42-45 “When the pedal crank is motionless or not turning, the system may be configured to still be able to rotate the motor and/or derailleur sprocket to cause or enable a gear change,” teaching a second case where the crank axle is stopped)
Schieffelin does not teach:
[…] a second condition and […] and the second condition is satisfied [in a case where rotation of the crank axle is stopped.]
Within the same field of endeavor as Schieffelin, Kimmich teaches:
[…] a second condition and […] and the second condition is satisfied [in a case where rotation of the crank axle is stopped.] (Kimmich ¶ 0007 lines 3-11 “The control device is set up to control the electric actuator of the gearshift mechanism in such a way that when no crank movement is detected, the gearshift mechanism switches to a lower gear than the gear currently engaged […] as soon as the crank assembly sensor detects no movement of the crank assembly, i.e., when the rider is not pedaling, the gearshift mechanism is shifted back into a lower gear,” teaching shifting when the no crank movement is detected, meaning rotation is stopped)
Schieffelin and Kimmich are considered analogous because they both relate to motorized bicycle gear shifting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic gear shifting when the crank is not moving of Schieffelin with the addition of Kimmich’s condition to shift when no crank movement is detected. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by “ that a lower gear is already engaged in the gearshift mechanism as soon as the rider starts pedaling again, so that the pedaling can be resumed without any problems” (Kimmich ¶ 0007 lines 12-15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hering, particularly the passages cited in the rejection of Claim 18 as well as Pg 5 ¶ 1, also applies to Claim 6 as Kimmich does.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights