DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are allowed.
Claim(s) 2-9, 17-23, 25 and 30 would be allowable if (#1) rewritten to overcome all pending objection(s) and all pending rejection(s) set forth in this Office action; and (#2) rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Election
Applicant’s election with traverse filed on 28 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Claim 30 should be included to Group I (corresponds to Claims 1-27 and 29 from Restriction). In response, The Examiner finds Applicant’s reply persuasive after the amendment; therefore, Group I is now updated to include Claim 30. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Therefore, Claim(s) 28 and 31-35 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Preliminary Amended Claim(s) 1-27 and 29-30 is/are examined in this office action, and Claim(s) 28 and 31-35 is/are withdrawn. Please refer to Election section for details.
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 .
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.
Amendment to The Specification
The Amendment to The Specification filed 9 November 2023 is acknowledged.
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 Analysis will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke § 112(f) or (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) are “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for”.1, 2
Structural placeholders that do not invoke § 112(f) or (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) are “circuit for,” “detent mechanism,” “digital detector for,” “reciprocating member,” “connector assembly,” “perforation,” “sealingly connected joints,” and “eyeglass hanger member.”3, 4
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:
“an input unit configured to” (see Claims 1, 26 and 27. The Examiner takes the position “configured to” is an alternative linking phrase to “for”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit configured to” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”. The “unit configured to” limitation when read in light of The Original Filed Specification is disclosed in [0024] as “crank pedals” which are responsible for “receiving an input of a force (a stepping force) from legs of the driver”.);
“an input acquisition unit configured to” (see Claims 2 and 4. The Examiner takes the position “configured to” is an alternative linking phrase to “for”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit configured to” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”. The “unit configured to” limitation when read in light of The Original Filed Specification is disclosed in [0233] as either a “torque sensor” or “cadence sensor”.);
“an another input unit configured to” (see Claims 3 and 6. The Examiner takes the position “configured to” is an alternative linking phrase to “for”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit configured to” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”. The “unit configured to” limitation when read in light of The Original Filed Specification is disclosed in [0235] as “accelerator grip”.);
“an age acquisition unit configured to” (see Claim 8. The Examiner takes the position “configured to” is an alternative linking phrase to “for”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit configured to” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”. The “unit configured to” limitation when read in light of The Original Filed Specification is disclosed in [0245] as “rider information acquisition unit 410” which is illustrated in Fig. 3 as software executed by CTR 40 according to [0045].);
“a determination unit configured to” (see Claim 10. The Examiner takes the position “configured to” is an alternative linking phrase to “for”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit configured to” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”. The “unit configured to” limitation when read in light of The Original Filed Specification is disclosed in [0253] as “determination unit 431” which is illustrated in Fig. 3 as software executed by CTR 40 according to [0045].);
“a travel path acquisition unit configured to” (see Claim 12. The Examiner takes the position “configured to” is an alternative linking phrase to “for”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit configured to” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”. The “unit configured to” limitation when read in light of The Original Filed Specification is disclosed in [0249] as “travel path acquisition unit 420” which is illustrated in Fig. 3 as software executed by CTR 40 according to [0045].); and
“an notification unit configured to” (see Claim 14. The Examiner takes the position “configured to” is an alternative linking phrase to “for”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit configured to” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”. The “unit configured to” limitation when read in light of The Original Filed Specification discloses a “notification control unit 440” as front notification lamp 90a and rear notification lamp 90b according to [0058].).
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.
THIS SECTION IS NOT A REJECTION! The Examiner expresses that this particular section of the office action identifies and clarifies how the means-plus-function limitation(s) listed above are interpreted during examination and further acts as a formal statement on claim interpretation that is recorded into the prosecution history. 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.
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 of this title, 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 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170297651 A1 (“Tsuchizawa”) and further in view of US 20220081062 A1 (“Ganz”).
As to Claim 1, Tsuchizawa discloses A vehicle (e.g., “bicycle 10”; see at Fig. 1 with associated text), comprising:
an input unit (e.g., “pedals 32”) configured to receive an input of a force from a leg of a rider (see at least [0042]);
a wheel (e.g., “rear wheel”) to which the force input to the input unit is transmitted (see at least [0042]); and
an electric motor (e.g., “motor 60”) configured to output power to be transmitted to the wheel (see at least [0006], Fig. 1 with associated text; in particular, [0046] and [0049]) or (Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.)
wherein the vehicle is switchable between a first driving state in which the wheel is driven by at least the force input to the input unit, and a second driving state in which the wheel or (Only one option is required to satisfy an “or” limitation.) (see at least Fig. 3-4, 11-12 with associated text).
Tsuchizawa does not directly disclose an electric only mode.
However, Ganz teaches an electric only mode (see at least [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuchizawa’s invention by incorporating shoe-pedaling coupling as taught by Ganz in order to determine a predetermined cadence condition for a pedal associated with a cadence sensor (see Abstract).
As to Claim 24, Tsuchizawa discloses wherein the vehicle is a bicycle (e.g., “bicycle 10” from Fig. 1) including a front wheel (e.g., “front wheel 12” from Fig. 1), a rear wheel (e.g., “rear wheel 14” from Fig. 1), and a seating portion (see at least Fig. 1) on which the rider sits (see at least Fig. 1 with associated text), and the input unit is a pedal configured to receive an input of a stepping force from the leg of the rider (see at least Fig. 1 with associated text; in particular, [0042]).
Claim(s) 14-16 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchizawa in view of Ganz and further in view of US 20190359069 A1 (“Usui”).
As to Claim 14, Tsuchizawa discloses that the vehicle is in either driving state of a first driving state and a second driving state (see at least Fig. 3-4, 11-12 with associated text).
The Tsuchizawa + Ganz Combination does not directly disclose a notification unit configured to notify toward an outside of a vehicle.
However, Usui teaches a notification unit (e.g., “lighting device 46”) configured to notify toward an outside of a vehicle (see at least [0063], [0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify The Tsuchizawa + Ganz Combination by incorporating a human-powered vehicle control device as taught by Usui in order to appropriately control the supply of electric power from a battery to a human-powered vehicle device (see [0005]).
As to Claim 15, The Tsuchizawa + Ganz Combination does not directly disclose wherein the notification unit is provided to be perceivable from a front side and a rear side with respect to the vehicle.
However, Usui teaches wherein the notification unit is provided to be perceivable from a front side and a rear side with respect to the vehicle (see at least [0063], [0071]). (Same motivation and rationale to combine as Claim 14)
As to Claim 16, The Tsuchizawa + Ganz Combination does not directly disclose wherein the notification unit includes a front notification unit provided on a front side of the vehicle, and a rear notification unit provided on a rear side of the vehicle with respect to the front notification unit.
However, Usui teaches wherein the notification unit includes a front notification unit provided on a front side of the vehicle, and a rear notification unit provided on a rear side of the vehicle with respect to the front notification unit (see at least [0063], [0071]). (Same motivation and rationale to combine as Claim 14).
As to Claim 29, The Tsuchizawa + Ganz Combination does not directly disclose wherein the notification unit includes a light emitting unit provided to be visible from an outside of the vehicle.
However, Usui teaches wherein the notification unit includes a light emitting unit provided to be visible from an outside of the vehicle (see at least [0063], [0071]). (See motivation and rationale to combine in Claim 14)
Written Authorization Required for Internet Communication
MPEP § 502.03 II, “Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. The written authorization may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.”
Contact Information
Primary Examiner Calvin Cheung’s contact information is listed at the bottom, and he is best reached MONDAY-THURSDAY, 0700-1700 ET. If attempts to reach the primary by telephone are unsuccessful, the primary’s supervisor, ERIN PIATESKI, is available at telephone number (571) 270-7429.
Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice for scheduling an examiner interview that will be performed over telephone or video conferencing (using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CALVIN CHEUNG/
Direct Office Number (571) 270-7041
Email and Fax send to Calvin.Cheung@USPTO.GOV
1 Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 27 /Wednesday, February 9, 2011 /Notices located at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf, center column, page 6 of 14.
2 MPEP § 2181 (I)(A), first paragraph
3 Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 27 /Wednesday, February 9, 2011 /Notices located at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf, center column, page 6 of 14.
4 MPEP § 2181 (I)(A), second paragraph
Prosecution Insights