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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 1/5/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14-16 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Although the previous Core Electronics reference only discloses a coaxial combined power/data cable, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that using separate cables for power and data for a satellite receiver system would be novel and non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Garmin Overlander (released 2019) can be configured to have separate cables for power and data (https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/685257/#accessories).
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 test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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:
Claim 1 and 14: “storage unit” (memory which can store data)
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 11-12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2012029687A1 Aoki et al ("Aoki", previously cited) in view of https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/685257/#accessories, Garmin 2019 ("Garmin Overlander").
As per claims 1 and 14, Aoki teaches the limitations of the vehicle and data collection unit:
A vehicle, in particular single-track vehicle, comprising: at least one front fork suitable for mounting a front wheel, at least one mudguard attached to the front fork, and a data collection unit including a sensor for collecting data relating to the vehicle and/or the surroundings, wherein the data collection unit further includes a satellite signal receiver arranged, preferably substantially centrally, on an upper side of the mudguard in front of the front fork, wherein the data collection unit has a storage unit, wherein the storage unit and the satellite signal receiver are connected to each other by a power cable, in particular detachably (Aoki at least the abstract: “two-wheeled vehicle…GPS antenna…cable…GPS unit…antenna is located at a position separated from the GPS unit”, FIG. 1: 110, “power supply coupler”)
Aoki does not explicitly disclose the data collection unit having a storage unit. Aoki does teach the GPS unit being capable of processing the GPS signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the teachings of Aoki into practice by using conventional processors and at least temporary RAM to allow for the processing of the GPS signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of practicing the teachings of Aoki with a reasonable expectation of success.
Although Aoki teaches a power supply coupler and information supply coupler on the GPS unit, Aoki does not explicitly disclose:
the storage unit and the satellite signal receiver are in data connection with each other, through a detachable data cable, in particular for the reciprocal transmission of collected data.
Garmin Overlander teaches the aforementioned limitations (See Garmin Overlander at least “Vehicle Power Cable”, “Bare Wire Power Cable”, “FMI 45 Data and Traffic Cable, North America”, “AC Adapter Cable, Europe”, “MicroUSB Cable”, “Fleet Power Cable”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aoki with the aforementioned limitations taught by Garmin Overlander with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to create a robust GPS system capable of adapting to different power and data transfer configurations.
As per claim 2, Aoki in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Aoki additionally teaches:
wherein the satellite signal receiver is fastened above the mudguard and/or to the mudguard, preferably detachably. (Aoki at least FIG. 1, FIG. 34)
As per claim 3, Aoki in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Aoki additionally teaches:
wherein the satellite signal receiver has at least one first fastening device, which is formed to fasten the satellite signal receiver above the mudguard and/or to the mudguard, preferably detachably. (Aoki at least FIG. 9: 157, 163)
As per claim 5, Aoki in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Aoki additionally teaches:
wherein the storage unit and the satellite signal receiver are implemented and/or arranged separately from each other. (Aoki at least the abstract: “separated from the GPS unit”, FIG. 3 )
As per claim 6, Aoki in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Aoki additionally teaches:
wherein the storage unit has at least one second fastening device, which is formed to fasten the storage unit to the vehicle, preferably detachably. (Aoki at least: “GPS unit 64 is attached…via a buffer member”)
As per claim 11, Aoki teaches the invention as described above. However, Aoki does not explicitly disclose the storage unit having at least one memory. Aoki does teach the GPS unit being capable of processing the GPS signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the teachings of Aoki into practice by using conventional processors and at least temporary RAM to allow for the processing of the GPS signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of practicing the teachings of Aoki with a reasonable expectation of success.
As per claim 12, Aoki in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Aoki additionally teaches:
wherein the data collection unit has at least one detachable power connection to the vehicle and/or to a power source. (Aoki at least: “GPS unit 64 has, on the side, a power supply coupler…external power supply…”, FIG. 3)
As per claim 15, Aoki in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Aoki additionally teaches:
A use of a data collection unit according to claim 14 in the vehicle. (Aoki at least the abstract: “anti-theft device”)
As per claim 16, Aoki in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Aoki additionally teaches:
A method for operating the data collection unit according to claim 14 in the vehicle, comprising: arranging the satellite signal receiver on the vehicle spatially separated from the storage unit, and, preferably substantially centrally, on an upper side of the mudguard in front of the front fork. (Aoki at least the abstract: “two-wheeled vehicle…GPS antenna…cable…GPS unit…antenna is located at a position separated from the GPS unit”, FIG. 1: 110)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki and Garmin Overlander in view of Salsa Anything Cage ("Salsa") and US20220266939A1 Ericksen et al ("Ericksen").
As per claim 7, Aoki in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Aoki does not explicitly disclose:
the at least one second fastening device is formed to fasten the storage unit to a front fork, in particular to a fork leg, preferably detachably.
Ericksen teaches mounting an electronic device to a front fork leg (Ericksen at least FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aoki with mounting an electronic device on a fork leg taught by Ericksen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to mount an electronic device like a sensor on a suspension fork to adapt the suspension tuning characteristics to the terrain (Ericksen [0020]).
Salsa teaches a mounting fastener designed for carrying a plurality of items on a front fork leg. Though the satellite signal receiver is preferably mounted in a configuration to maximize GPS signal by having a clear view of the sky above, the portion of the data collection unit that is the storage unit can preferably be arranged to be separate from the satellite signal receiver. The storage unit, not needing any particular mounting configuration for the storage unit to perform its duties, can be mounted anywhere on the single track vehicle as designed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Using the teachings of the images in Salsa (reproduced below), one of ordinary skill in the art could deduce that a single track vehicle has limited mounting points for accessory objects to the body of the vehicle that are not direct drivetrain/braking/steering/mobility components giving consideration for the placement of the rider and any displacement of the rider and suspension components. In reference to the Salsa reference, such mounting points would be including but not limited to: proximity of the rider’s seat, behind the handle bars, in front of the handlebars, or on the fork leg.
Given the finite number of possibilities and reasonable expectation of success it would have been obvious to try to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the date of filing of the invention, to mount the storage unit on a fork leg. Thus in reduction to practice it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aoki with mounting an object with detachable fasteners to a fork leg taught by Salsa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to store an object out of the way of a rider’s body.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garmin Overlander in view of US7034747B1 Walters et al ("Walters").
Regarding claim 9, Aoki in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Aoki does not disclose:
wherein the data collection unit has an interface for transmitting external data and/or the collected data and/or data received from the vehicle, in particular for transmitting data to an external receiver and/or for receiving data from an external transmitter.
However, Walters teaches the aforementioned limitation (Walters at least the abstract: "wirelessly linking a GPS device…display").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aoki with the aforementioned limitations taught by Walters with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to separately place a GPS antenna in an appropriate location for signals and the processing unit with a display and user interface in an accessible location (Walters col 2).
Regarding claim 10, Aoki in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Aoki does not disclose:
wherein the interface is formed for the wireless transmission of data, in particular in accordance with the WLAN standard and/or Bluetooth standard.
However, Walters teaches the aforementioned limitation (Walters at least claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Aoki with the aforementioned limitations taught by Walters with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to separately place a GPS antenna in an appropriate location for signals and the processing unit with a display and user interface in an accessible location (Walters col 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669