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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 7/6/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, of which 11-20 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20220169337A1 (“Buechner”).
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: “first communicator” ([0044], hardware device(s))
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200231249A1 Ho in view of US20140235383A1 Wesling and US20220169337A1 (“Buechner”).
As per claim 1, Ho teaches:
A shifting device for a human-powered vehicle, the shifting device comprising: a transmission device configured to shift a transmission ratio of the human-powered vehicle; a first controller configured to control the transmission device; (Ho at least the abstract, [0018], FIG. 1)
information including at least one of information related to a shifting time of the transmission ratio and information related to a shifting period of the transmission ratio. (Ho at least [0042], [0125-0132], [0201])
Ho does not disclose:
a first communicator configured to perform communication with a drive unit of the human-powered vehicle including a motor configured to apply a propulsion force to the human-powered vehicle, the first controller being further configured to control the first communicator so that the first communicator sends first information to the drive unit in a case where the first controller shifts the transmission ratio,
Wesling teaches the aforementioned limitation (Wesling at least the abstract, [0043], [0070], [0021], FIG. 16, FIG. 17, [0006], claim 9, [0018], [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ho with the aforementioned limitations taught by Wesling with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to decrease component wear (Wesling [0010]).
Ho does not disclose:
the first information including a predetermined period for controlling the motor, the predetermined period being specified based on a rotational amount of a rotational body or crank axle.
Buechner teaches the aforementioned limitation (Buechner at least [0104]: “Since the release-side stabilizing tooth and the receiving-side stabilizing tooth are arranged in the circumferential region of the respectively assigned recess formation of upshift and downshift recess formation… delay an upshift operation initiated at a disadvantageous point in time, for example immediately after the release tooth has passed the chain-guiding roller, until a release tooth of the sprocket rotating in the drive direction of rotation approaches the chain-guiding roller again.”, [0108]: “If an upshift operation is now initiated such that an upshift region with a release tooth that is presently in engagement with an inner link plate chain link… delayed by the at least one stabilizing tooth until an upshift region whose release tooth is in engagement with an outer link plate chain link, or is engaging therewith in the present revolution of the sprocket, passes the derailleur.”).
Regarding claim 2, Ho in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Ho does not disclose:
a second communicator configured to receive a shifting signal for shifting the transmission ratio from a shift-operating unit, the first controller being configured to control the first communicator so that the first communicator sends the first information to the drive unit in a case where the second communicator receives the shifting signal.
Wesling teaches the aforementioned limitation (Wesling at least [0021-0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ho with the aforementioned limitations taught by Wesling with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Ho in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Ho additionally teaches:
the second communicator is configured to receive the shifting signal through wireless communication. (Ho at least [0037])
Regarding claim 4, Ho in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Ho additionally teaches:
the first controller is configured to control the transmission device so that the transmission device initiates shifting of the transmission ratio at an initiation time after the predetermined period elapses in a case where the shifting signal is received; and the first information includes at least one of the initiation time. (Ho at least [0042]: “multiple shifts may be timed relative to one another. In an embodiment, user inputs commanding temporally overlapping front and rear shifts, for example recovery shifts where one gear changer performs and upshift and the other gear changer performs a downshift, may be manipulated to align and/or otherwise control the timing of these shifts.”, [0125-0132])
Regarding claim 5, Ho in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Ho additionally teaches:
the first controller is configured to determine at least one of the shifting time and the shifting period in accordance with at least one of the transmission ratio prior to shifting and the transmission ratio subsequent to shifting. (Ho at least [0008], [0206], FIG. 19, FIGs. 20A 20B)
Regarding claim 6, Ho in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Ho does not disclose:
the first controller is configured to control the transmission device in accordance with a shifting signal sent from the drive unit.
Wesling teaches the aforementioned limitation (Wesling at least [0018], [0055], [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ho with the aforementioned limitations taught by Wesling with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Ho in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Ho additionally teaches:
a communication housing provided with the first communicator and formed separately from the transmission device. (Ho at least FIG. 1)
Regarding claim 8, Ho in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Ho does not disclose:
the first communicator is configured to send the first information to the drive unit through wired communication.
Wesling teaches the aforementioned limitation (Wesling at least [0059-0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ho with the aforementioned limitations taught by Wesling with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Ho in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Ho does not disclose:
electric power is supplied from the drive unit.
Wesling teaches the aforementioned limitation (Wesling at least [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ho with the aforementioned limitations taught by Wesling with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Ho in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Ho additionally teaches:
the transmission device includes a derailleur. (Ho at least FIG. 1)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights