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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-10, 14, 16-29, 35, and 36 in the reply filed on 11/21/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because there would be a serious search burden due to the lack of the communicators in Invention II and the presence of rotational shaft and position sensor/power state in Invention III.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-13, 15, and 30-34 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/21/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6-8 and 18-22 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 6 recites the limitation "the movable member" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected for being dependent from rejected claim 6. The Examiner has examined the claims below with the assumption that claim 6 depends from claim 4 where “a movable member” was first claimed.
Claim 18 recites the limitations "a fourth control" and “a fourth condition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a third control” and “a third condition” were not previously claimed. Claiming a fourth control/condition without first claiming a third control/condition renders the claim indefinite. The Examiner has examined the claims below with the assumption that claim 18 depends from claim 9 where “a third control” and “a third condition” were first claimed.
Claim 19 recites the limitations "a fifth control" and “a fifth condition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a third control”, “a third condition”, “a fourth control”, and “a fourth condition” were not previously claimed. Claiming a fifth control/condition without first claiming third and fourth controls/conditions renders the claim indefinite. The Examiner has examined the claims below with the assumption that claim 19 depends from claim 18 where “a fourth control” and “a fourth condition” were first claimed. Claims 20-22 rejected for being dependent from rejected claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 23-29, 35, and 36 allowed and Claims 6-8 and 18-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “a communicator configured to communicate with an additional communicator [understood to be a constituent of the claimed electric device, as disclosed] in accordance with a communication mode; an electronic controller configured to execute a first control to change the communication mode in a case where a first condition that an output of an output unit is greater than or equal to a first threshold is met; and the electronic controller being configured to execute a second control different from the first control in a case where a second condition that the output of the output unit is greater than or equal to a second threshold is met, the second threshold being different from the first threshold” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art cited on the attached PTO-892 teach wireless derailleurs but do not disclose having two controls that change communication modes based on two different conditions wherein the output of the output unit is greater than two different thresholds. Specifically, wherein a first control is executed when an output from a sensor is greater than or equal to a first threshold and a second control is executed when the output from the sensor is greater than or equal to a second threshold.
As stated in the specification and shown in Figure 3, the communicator (WC1) and additional communicator (WC2) are part of the same “electric device” as opposed to the additional communicator being part of a separate external device. As stated in the specification and shown in Figure 2, the “output unit” (60) includes at least one of a vibration sensor, and acceleration sensor, and a motion sensor (38, 40, 42), from which an output is sent to the electronic controller (EC) to be compared to the relevant threshold values.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach derailleurs of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611