DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (U.S. Pat. No. 10,112,620) in view of Hasumi (U.S. Pat. No. 11,014,626).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses a computer-based method for monitoring bicycle range (col. 23, lines 52-56) comprising:
determining a remaining powered bicycle range;
determining a remaining distance to destination (col. 22, lines 20-29);
comparing the powered bicycle range to the distance to destination; and
generating a visualization comparing the powered bicycle range to the distance to destination (claim 1).
wherein the remaining powered bicycle range is based at least partially on a first assist mode of an electric drive unit associated with a bicycle utilized for implementing the method selected from a plurality of potential assist modes (col. 3, lines 45-50 contemplates all battery power as well as assist from engine power which can be construed as pedaling power from the user. Col. 24, lines 45-55 discloses user selectable power consumption, where the engine is mentioned one can substitute that for other forms of power like the user adding the energy instead of the engine) of the electric drive unit, each assist mode of the plurality of potential assist modes (s11, S12 disclosed in col. 12, lines 19-67 is at least 4 power modes that result in distance traveled Lr, Lg, Lj, Ls depicted in fig. 3).
Matsumoto does not discloses that the assist modes are providing a different level of power assist. (although it is discloses different types of power each with its own amount of power level it can expend it is not addressing the “level of power” assist amount that is being argued for)
Hasumi, which deals in electric bicycles, teaches providing a different level of power assist (col. 14, lines 15-21 discloses different power assist modes that allow 83a to determine how much power to add to the crankshaft and based on this mode col. 14, lines 12-14 discloses displaying a range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Matsumoto with the assist levels of Hasumi because this gives the user control over assist (col. 1, lines 36-46).
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Matsumoto discloses wherein determining the remaining powered bicycle range includes: retrieving a powered bicycle range data; and defining the remaining powered bicycle range to be at least partially based on the powered bicycle range data (col. 12, lines 15-60).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Matsumoto discloses wherein determining the remaining distance to a destination includes: acquiring a distance to destination data; and defining the remaining distance to a destination to be at least partially based on the distance to destination data (col. 12, lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 1, Matsumoto discloses wherein the method displays an indication upon determining that the remaining powered bicycle range is less than the remaining distance to the destination (col. 6, lines 22-28).
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 4, Matsumoto discloses wherein the indication is the presentation of the visualization generated to a user or a display or color change of a user interface element in the context of the visualization (navigating to recharging stops is construed as meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 1, Matsumoto discloses wherein the visualization generated presents a first user interface element with a characteristic based on the remaining powered bicycle range and a second user interface element with a characteristic based on the remaining distance to destination, and wherein the characteristic of the first user interface element is a size characteristic proportional to the remaining bicycle range and the characteristic of the second user interface element is a size characteristic proportional to the remaining distance to the destination (the citations above are able to track these different distances and ranges).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 1, Matsumoto discloses wherein the visualization generated includes a map presenting hypothetical destinations, wherein the method further comprises highlighting all destinations of the hypothetical destinations within the remaining powered bicycle range (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 1, Matsumoto discloses wherein the remaining distance to destination is based on a predefined destination, and wherein the method retrieves or determines a current location of a device implementing the method and calculates a distance to the predefined destination based on a mapping module and provides a result as the remaining distance (fig. 2 s14).
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 8, Matsumoto discloses wherein the remaining powered bicycle range is based at least partially on
a grade (col. 2, lines 11-20 discusses gradient) or
surface texture of at least a segment of a route defined by the mapping module,
equipment factors associated with a bicycle utilized for implementing the method,
environmental conditions at a location of the bicycle, or
hardware factors associated with a drive unit or battery utilized by the bicycle (grade option addressed).
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 9, Matsumoto discloses wherein the remaining distance is based on a primary route, and wherein the remaining powered bicycle range is based on the powered bicycle range, and wherein the method further comprises defining and evaluating at least one alternative route based on alternative powered bicycle range data associated with the alternative route and defined by the mapping module (alternative route includes a consideration of a route with a stop to charge), and generating a recommendation of the alternative route upon determining that the alternative powered bicycle range generates an alternative remaining powered bicycle range value that is either larger than that of the powered bicycle range data or represents a larger percentage of the alternative route than the remaining powered bicycle range represents of the primary route.
Regarding claim 12 which depends from claim 9, Matsumoto discloses wherein upon determining that the remaining powered bicycle range is less than the remaining distance to a destination, transitioning the electric drive unit to a second assist mode of the plurality of potential assist modes different from the first assist mode, wherein the second assist mode provides reduced motor output relative to the first assist mode (col. 3, lines 45-50 contemplates all battery power as well as assist from engine power).
Where it is believed that Matsumoto does not qualify because this is intended to be a transition to a lower power level assist mode Hasumi would at least go to the “no assist” mode when realizing it does not have enough power to continue.
Note: is this to a non-zero assist level? At what point does it start the transition? Like will it not allow the higher assist levels from the onset or will do this under 10% power? Answers to these in the claims could overcome the prior art.
Regarding claim 13 which depends from claim 1, Matsumoto discloses wherein a destination is inferred based on a likely travel path, and the remaining powered bicycle range is then based on the likely travel path (the destination being the furthest it can travel on this path).
Regarding claim 14 which depends from claim 1, Matsumoto discloses wherein the remaining powered bicycle range is a projection based at least partially on an amount of power remaining combined with a projected contribution of rider power, such that the remaining powered bicycle range is greater than a battery only powered bicycle range (col. 3, lines 45-55 discusses the use of the engine but this can be considered simply an alternative power source to the electric motor).
Regarding claim 15 which depends from claim 14, Matsumoto discloses wherein the projected contribution of rider power assumes a continuing contribution from a user based on a rolling average over a period of time prior to the determining of powered bicycle range (different forms of power contribution are being considered in col. 3).
Regarding claim 16 which depends from claim 15, Matsumoto discloses wherein the method displays an indication upon determining that the remaining powered bicycle range represented by the powered bicycle range data is less than the distance to the destination represented by the remaining distance to destination, and wherein the method further comprises repeatedly determining updated powered bicycle range and determining or acquiring updated distance to destination data, and wherein the updated remaining powered bicycle range is based on a different period of time prior to the retrieving, such that the indication depends on an updated projected contribution of rider power (col. 28, lines 12-16 discusses updating the results).
Regarding claim 17 which depends from claim 14, Matsumoto discloses wherein the projected contribution of rider power is based at least partially on historical data based on historical bicycle riders in comparable riding scenarios (the citations provide the disclosure of how alternative power sources contribute).
Regarding claim 18, Matsumoto discloses a system comprising: a user interface device having a processor, a communication module, and a display, the user interface device being mounted on a bicycle; an energy storage device mounted on the bicycle, the energy storage device having a communication module in communication with the communication module of the user interface device; and an electric drive unit mounted on the bicycle and powered by the energy storage device, such that the drive unit applies a motive force to the propel the bicycle using energy from the energy storage device, wherein the user interface device retrieves from the energy storage device powered bicycle range data and determines a remaining powered bicycle range based on the bicycle range data, wherein the remaining powered bicycle range is based at least partially on a first assist mode of the electric drive unit selected from a plurality of potential assist modes of the electric drive unit, each assist mode of the plurality of potential assist modes providing a different level or power assist wherein the user interface device determines or acquires distance to destination data representing a remaining distance to a destination, wherein the user interface device compares the powered bicycle range data to the distance to destination data and generates a visualization comparing the powered bicycle range data to the distance to destination data (The limitations of this claim have been addressed in claim 1 above using this system).
Regarding claim 19 which depends from claim 18, Matsumoto discloses wherein the communication module of the user interface device and the communication module of the energy storage module are in wireless communication (col. 9, lines 60-65 discloses wireless communication).
Regarding claim 20 which depends from claim 18, Matsumoto discloses wherein the drive unit has a first configuration utilizing a first of a plurality of assist modes, and wherein the remaining powered bicycle range is based at least partially on the configuration of the drive unit, and wherein upon determining that the remaining bicycle range is less than the remaining distance to destination, the user interface device transmits an instruction to the drive unit by way of the communication module to transition the drive unit to a second configuration utilizing a second of the plurality of assist modes, wherein the second assist mode provides reduced motive force relative to the first assist mode (the limitations of this claim have been addressed in claim 12 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 12-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights