Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/328,785

ELECTRIC DEVICE OF HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 05, 2023
Examiner
AGARED, GABRIEL T
Art Unit
2846
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Shimano Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
474 granted / 571 resolved
+15.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
586
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
45.7%
+5.7% vs TC avg
§102
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§112
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 571 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This action is in response to an amendment filed on 12/18/2025. Claims 27-28 are added per the amendment. Claims 1-28 are pending for examination. 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. 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. Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wesling (US 11,541,961 B2) in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2021/0024126 A1 and Matsumura hereinafter). As to Claim 1 and 27, Wesling in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-15 disclose an electric device/a derailleur (36/340) of a human-powered vehicle (100) where a wireless communication system is integrated into the e-bike system (344/352/370), in which a wireless derailleur 340 sends shift signals directly from the bike system 344, which includes the remote battery (201/300), a wireless communicator (308/350), and a controller 306, where the shift signals may be instigated from a user interface (304/342) like a shift button associated with the e-bike system 344 or the e-bike system may use some other parameter to control the derailleurs 340 automatically (At the same time the e-bike system will power the derailleur 340 by the wire 206 from the main e-bike battery using the IPC) (see Col.7, Line 27- Col.9, Line 42), however, it doesn’t explicitly disclose: an input part configured to be electrically connected to an electric power source; an electric actuator configured to move a movable member; an actuator driver electrically connected to the electric actuator to control the electric actuator; and a converter circuit configured to convert a first voltage to a second voltage different from the first voltage, the converter circuit being electrically connected in series with the input part and the actuator driver are connected in series with the actuator driver and the input part Nonethless, Matsumura in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-22 disclose an input part (Start Signal) configured to be electrically connected to an electric power source (76A, 76B); an electric actuator (71A, 71B) configured to move a movable member (FR, FL); an actuator driver (72A, 72B) electrically connected to the electric actuator to control the electric actuator; and a converter circuit (78A, 78B) configured to convert a first voltage (24V, 42V) to a second voltage (12V) different from the first voltage, the converter circuit being electrically connected in series with the input part and the actuator driver (The converter circuits (78A, 78B) are connected in series with the actuator driver (72A,72B) and the input part (START SIGNAL) -see Fig.6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16 and also [0097] – [0106]) Therefore, it would have been an obvious modification before the effective filing date of the instant application to include an electric actuator comprising a converter circuit configured to convert a first voltage to a second voltage as thought by Matsumura within the teachings of Wesling in order to operate the redundant control circuits irrespective of the power source voltage (see [0005]). As to Claim 2, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 1, wherein the converter circuit is configured to convert the first voltage to the second voltage which is lower than the first voltage (see Matsumura: [0086]). As to Claim 3, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 1, wherein the electric power source includes a first electric power source (76A) and a second electric power source (76B), and the input part is configured to be selectively electrically connected to the first electric power source and the second electric power source (START SIGNAL- see Matsumura: [0105] – [0108]). As to Claim 4, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 3, wherein the converter circuit is configured to convert the first voltage to the second voltage in a case where the input part is connected to the first electric power source (see Matsumura: [0105] – [0108]). As to Claim 5, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 4, wherein the converter circuit is configured to output the first voltage without converting the first voltage to the second voltage in a case where the input part is connected to the second electric power source (see Matsumura: [0108] – [0109]). As to Claim 6, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 1, wherein the converter circuit is configured to convert the first voltage to the second voltage in a case where an input voltage applied to the input part is higher than a first voltage threshold (see Matsumura: [0083] – [0087]). As to Claim 7, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 6, wherein the converter circuit is configured to output the first voltage without converting the first voltage to the second voltage in a case where the input voltage is lower than the first voltage threshold (see Matsumura: [0108] – [0109]). As to Claim 8, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 6, wherein the converter circuit is configured to convert the first voltage to the second voltage based on comparison of the input voltage with the first voltage threshold (see Matsumura: [0083] – [0087]). As to Claim 9, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 1, wherein the converter circuit is configured to convert the first voltage to the second voltage in a case where the first voltage is higher than a second voltage threshold (see Matsumura: [0083] – [0087]). As to Claim 10, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 9, wherein the converter circuit is configured to output the first voltage without converting the first voltage to the second voltage in a case where the first voltage is lower than the second voltage threshold (see Matsumura: [0083] – [0096]). As to Claim 11, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 9, wherein the converter circuit is configured to convert the first voltage to the second voltage based on comparison of the first voltage with the second voltage threshold (see Matsumura: [0083] – [0096]). As to Claim 12, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 1, further comprising a determination circuit (11) configured to determine that the converter circuit converts the first voltage to the second voltage (see Matsumura: [0055] – [0056]). As to Claim 13, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 3, wherein the input part is configured to be electrically connected to the first electric power source provided remotely from the electric device (see Matsumura: [0098] – [0109]). As to Claim 14, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 3, wherein the input part is configured to be electrically connected to the first electric power source mounted to a vehicle body of the human-powered vehicle (see Matsumura: [0098] – [0109]). As to Claim 15, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 3, wherein the input part is configured to be electrically connected to the second electric power source (76B) including a power generator configured to generate electricity (see Matsumura: [0044] – [0047]). As to Claim 16, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 3, further comprising a mounting part to which the second electric power source is mounted (see Matsumura: Fig.1 and [0047]). As to Claim 17, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 1, further comprising a housing includes an internal space, and each of the electric actuator and the converter circuit is at least partially provided in the internal space (see Matsumura: Fig.1, 20 and also [0207] – [0226]). As to Claim 18, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 1, wherein the input part is provided closer to the converter circuit than the actuator driver (see Matsumura: Fig.1, 6 and 7). As to Claim 19, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 1, further comprising an electronic controller electrically connected to the actuator driver to control the electric actuator via the actuator driver (see Matsumura: [0031] – [0056]). As to Claim 20, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 19, further comprising an additional converter circuit configured to convert a third voltage to a fourth voltage, the additional converter circuit being electrically connected in series with the input part and the electronic controller (the controllers 72A and 72B are operated by the power source voltage of 12V, and where the power sources 76A and 76B of the voltage of 12V, 24V, or 42V is used, a step-down converter configured to step down the voltage of the power sources 76A and 76B to 12V, and to supply this voltage to the controllers 72A and 72B is used as the DC/DC converters 78A and 78B- see Matsumura: [0086]). As to Claim 21, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 19, wherein the input part is provided closer to the converter circuit than the electronic controller (see Matsumura: the START SIGNAL in at least Fig.6 directly connected to the first and second converters 78A, 78B). As to Claim 22, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 19, further comprising a circuit board, the input part, the converter circuit, and the electronic controller being provided on the circuit board (see Matsumura: [0246] – [0249]). As to Claim 23, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 1, further comprising an output part electrically connecting the electric actuator and the actuator driver to transmit a command from the actuator driver to the electric actuator (see Matsumura: [0031] – [0050]). As to Claim 24, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 23, further comprising a circuit board, wherein the circuit board includes a first surface and a second surface provided on a reverse side of the first surface, and the input part, the output part, and the converter circuit are provided on the first surface (see Matsumura: Fig.1 and [0246] – [0249]). As to Claim 25, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 1, further comprising: a base member mountable to the human-powered vehicle; a movable member movable relative to the base member; and a link member movably coupling the base member and the movable member (see Matsumura: Fig.1 and [0031] – [0050]). As to Claim 26, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the electric device according to claim 25, wherein the converter circuit is at least partially provided to at least one of the base member, the movable member, and the link member (see Matsumura: Fig.1 and [0031] – [0050]). As to Claim 28, Wesling in view of Matsumura disclose the derailleur according to claim 27, further comprising: a housing includes an internal space; a base member mountable to the human-powered vehicle; a movable member movable relative to the base member; and a link member movably coupling the base member and the movable member, wherein each of the electric actuator and the converter circuit is at least partially provided in the internal space, and the housing is partially provided with the base member, the movable member and link member (see Fig.1, Col.3, Line 33-Col.5, Line 19). Response to Arguments/Remarks Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not solely rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 GABRIEL T AGARED whose telephone number is (571)270-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 (Mon- Thur). 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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 5712722060. 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. /GABRIEL AGARED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 05, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 18, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599231
CONTROL METHOD FOR SMART FURNITURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594838
METHOD OF MODULATION OF TORQUE BY VEHICLE PROPULSION MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583327
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR POWER CONVERSION IN AN ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587116
MOTOR STARTING CIRCUIT HAVING DEAD TIME SETTING MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587123
CONTROL DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A POWER CONVERTER, AND ELECTRICAL DRIVE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 571 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month