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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner. 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 limitations 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 limitations are: “ a counting unit configured to time a first time-duration ” in claim 1 , wherein the counting unit is interpreted as a portion of the driver being a CPU, MCU, DSP, PLC, SoC, or FPGA as supported by specification pages 5-6. “ a command identifying unit configured to identify ” in claim 1 , wherein the command identifying unit is interpreted as a portion of the driver being a CPU, MCU, DSP, PLC, SoC, or FPGA as supported by specification pages 5-6. “ a control unit connected to the counting unit and the command identifying unit, configured to control ’ in claim 1 wherein the control unit is interpreted as a portion of the driver being a CPU, MCU, DSP, PLC, SoC, or FPGA as supported by specification pages 5-6. “ the command identifying unit is configured to indicate ” in claim 3 , wherein the command identifying unit is interpreted as a portion of the driver being a CPU, MCU, DSP, PLC, SoC, or FPGA as supported by specification pages 5-6. “ the control unit is configured to control ’ in claim 4 wherein the control unit is interpreted as a portion of the driver being a CPU, MCU, DSP, PLC, SoC, or FPGA as supported by specification pages 5-6. “ a status confirming unit connected to the control unit, the motor, and a headlight of the e-bike, configured to confirm ” in claim 5 wherein the control unit is interpreted as a portion of the driver being a CPU, MCU, DSP, PLC, SoC, or FPGA as supported by specification pages 5-6 and page 14. “ the control unit is configured to control ’ in claim 5 wherein the control unit is interpreted as a portion of the driver being a CPU, MCU, DSP, PLC, SoC, or FPGA as supported by specification pages 5-6. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them from 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 , 6 , and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishita et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2018/0072373 A1 hereinafter “Kishita”). Regarding claim 1 Kishita discloses: A control system for an e-bike, integrated with the e-bike having a motor and a pedal, comprising: (Kishita [0055] wherein the bike is an electric bike with motor and pedals) a sensor configured to sense a sensing signal generated when the pedal is pedaled; (Kishita [0055-0056] wherein the bike determines when the bike is being pedaled) and a driver connected to the sensor, (Kishita [0055-0056] wherein the bike determines the power to supply based on pedaling conditions) comprising: a counting unit configured to time a first time-duration under a locking mode in which the motor is locked (Kishita [0093] [0097-0100] [0106] wherein the bike includes controls to either lock the motor and not provide power, or in a locked mode where assistance will be maintained despite operation of a button) and time a second time-duration under a normal operation mode and a standby mode in which the motor is unlocked; (Kishita [0090-0091] wherein different press operations will impact the operating mode of the motor i.e. the normal mode is locked by a long press, but in other operations a quick press can change to a standby unpowered mode and a powered mode) a command identifying unit configured to identify whether the sensing signal matches with an unlocking condition during the first time-duration (Kishita [0106] [0108] [0101-0103] [0132] wherein the operating mode is determined, and can display the state on a display for the user based on the locked and unlocked conditions) and whether the sensing signal matches with a mode-determination condition during the second time-duration; (Kishita [0106] [0108] [0101-0103] [0132] wherein the operating mode is determined, and can display the state on a display for the user based on the locked and unlocked conditions) and a control unit connected to the counting unit and the command identifying unit, configured to control the e-bike to enter the normal operation mode when the sensing signal matches with the unlocking condition, (Kishita [0058] [0096-0099] wherein the bike controls an output based on the operating mode and the locked or unlocked conditions) control the e-bike to enter the standby mode when the sensing signal matches with the mode-determination condition under the normal operation mode, (Kishita [0079-0080] [0132-0135] wherein the bike operates in accordance with the selected mode such as a standby mode, maintaining the operation of the assist motor even if a quick button press/mode switch is made) or control the e-bike to return to the normal operation mode when the sensing signal again matches with the mode-determination condition under the standby mode. (Kishita [0129] wherein bike can be changed back into a normal operation mode). Examiner notes that due to the “or” language, only one of standby mode or the return to the normal mode is needed to fully teach the claim. Regarding claim 6 Kishita discloses A control method for an e-bike, integrated with the e-bike having a motor and a pedal, comprising: (Kishita [0055] wherein the bike is an electric bike with motor and pedals) a) sensing a sensing signal generated when the pedal is pedaled; (Kishita [0055-0056] wherein the bike determines when the bike is being pedaled) b) accumulating a first time-duration under a locking mode in which the motor is locked; (Kishita [0093] [0097-0100] [0106] wherein the bike includes controls to either lock the motor and not provide power, or in a locked mode where assistance will be maintained despite operation of a button) c) controlling the e-bike to enter a normal operation mode in which the motor is unlocked and starting to time a second time-duration when the sensing signal matches with an unlocking condition during the first time-duration; (Kishita [0058] [0096-0099] wherein the bike controls an output based on the operating mode and the locked or unlocked conditions) d) controlling the e-bike to enter a standby mode and accumulating the second time-duration under the standby mode when the sensing signal matches with a mode-determination condition during the second time-duration; (Kishita [0079-0080] [0132-0135] wherein the bike operates in accordance with the selected mode such as a standby mode, maintaining the operation of the assist motor even if a quick button press/mode switch is made) and e) controlling the e-bike to return to the normal operation mode when the sensing signal again matches with the mode-determination condition under the standby mode. (Kishita [0129] wherein bike can be changed back into a normal operation mode). Regarding claim 9 Kishita discloses all of the limitations of claim 6 and Kishita further discloses: The control method in claim 6, further comprising: f) controlling the e-bike to execute a control action corresponding to the operation condition when the sensing signal matches with an operation condition under the standby mode; (Kishita [0079-0080] [0132-0135] wherein the bike operates in accordance with the selected mode such as a standby mode, maintaining the operation of the assist motor even if a quick button press/mode switch is made) wherein the control action corresponding to the operation condition comprises turning on or off a headlight of the e-bike (Kishita [0090] [0135] wherein the system comprises means for switching on and off the headlight, and modes in which the headlight will remain operational for safety reasons) or adjusting an auxiliary mode of the motor to provide an auxiliary force. (Kishita [0079-0080] [0132-0135] wherein the bike operates in accordance with the selected mode such as a standby mode, maintaining the operation of the assist motor even if a quick button press/mode switch is made). Regarding claim 10 Kishita discloses all of the limitations of claim 9 and Kishita further discloses: The control method in claim 9, wherein the step f) comprises: f1) confirming a current status of the motor (Kishita [0077] fig. 4 wherein the display and control unit shows the headlight, motor assist, operating mode, lock operation, and mode power state) or the headlight of the e-bike (Kishita [0090] [0135] wherein the system comprises means for switching on and off the headlight, and modes in which the headlight will remain operational for safety reasons) when the sensing signal matches with the operation condition under the standby mode; (Kishita [0079-0080] [0132-0135] wherein the bike operates in accordance with the selected mode such as a standby mode, maintaining the operation of the assist motor even if a quick button press/mode switch is made) and f2) controlling the motor or the headlight to execute the control action correspondingly (Kishita [0077] fig. 4 wherein the display shows the headlight, motor assist, operating mode, lock operation, and mode power state) when the current status does not conflict with the control action corresponding to the operation condition. (Kishita [0134] wherein the system determines a conflict in the operating mode, such as a rider trying to quit assistance when the assistance mode is running, and controls the motor based on the mode). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 2 , 4-5 , and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishita in view of Hosaka et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2016/0202710 A1 hereinafter “Hosaka”) . Regarding claim 2 Kishita discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Kishita further discloses: The control system in claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises a pedaling sensor, and the sensing signal comprises a pedaling torque signal (Kishita [0055-0056] wherein the pedal torque is sensed by the torque sensor) … Kishita does not appear to disclose: … and a rotation angle signal of the pedal. However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Hosaka discloses: “ and a rotation angle signal of the pedal. ” (Hosaka [0046-0047] wherein the bike includes a pedal rotation sensor). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the pedal sensor of Hosaka with the system of Kishita with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide another means of determining the requested output of an electric bike, correcting or suppressing torque as needed, including if a pedal torque is difficult to determine [0006] [0046-0047]). Regarding claim 4 Kishita in view of Hosaka discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 and Kishita further discloses: The control system in claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured to control the e-bike to execute a control action corresponding to the operation condition when the sensing signal matches with an operation condition under the standby mode, (Kishita [0079-0080] [0132-0135] wherein the bike operates in accordance with the selected mode such as a standby mode, maintaining the operation of the assist motor even if a quick button press/mode switch is made) wherein the control action corresponding to the operation condition comprises turning on or off a headlight of the e-bike (Kishita [0090] [0135] wherein the system comprises means for switching on and off the headlight, and modes in which the headlight will remain operational for safety reasons) or adjusting an auxiliary mode of the motor to provide an auxiliary force. (Kishita [0079-0080] [0132-0135] wherein the bike operates in accordance with the selected mode such as a standby mode, maintaining the operation of the assist motor even if a quick button press/mode switch is made). Examiner notes that due to the “or” language, only one of operating the headlight or the motor force is needed to fully teach the claim. Regarding claim 5 Kishita in view of Hosaka discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 and Kishita further discloses: The control system in claim 2, wherein the driver further comprises: a status confirming unit connected to the control unit, the motor, and a headlight of the e-bike, configured to confirm a current status of the motor (Kishita [0077] fig. 4 wherein the display and control unit shows the headlight, motor assist, operating mode, lock operation, and mode power state) or the headlight (Kishita [0090] [0135] wherein the system comprises means for switching on and off the headlight, and modes in which the headlight will remain operational for safety reasons) when the sensing signal matches with an operation condition under the standby mode; (Kishita [0079-0080] [0132-0135] wherein the bike operates in accordance with the selected mode such as a standby mode, maintaining the operation of the assist motor even if a quick button press/mode switch is made) and an outputting unit connected to the control unit, the motor, and the headlight; (Kishita [0077] fig. 4 wherein the display shows the headlight, motor assist, operating mode, lock operation, and mode power state) wherein the control unit is configured to control the motor or the headlight to execute the control action through the outputting unit (Kishita [0077] fig. 4 wherein the display shows the headlight, motor assist, operating mode, lock operation, and mode power state) when the current status does not conflict with a control action corresponding to the operation condition, (Kishita [0134] wherein the system determines a conflict in the operating mode, such as a rider trying to quit assistance when the assistance mode is running, and controls the motor based on the mode) wherein the control action corresponding to the operation condition comprises turning on or off the headlight (Kishita [0090] [0135] wherein the headlight is operated unless there is a conflicting control status, for example the light must remain on to improve brightness despite mistaken or unwarranted controller operations) or adjusting an auxiliary mode of the motor to provide an auxiliary force. (Kishita [0134] wherein the system determines a conflict in the operating mode, such as a rider trying to quit assistance when the assistance mode is running, and controls the motor based on the mode). Examiner notes that due to the “or” language, only one of the headlight or the motor mode is needed to fully teach the claim. Regarding claim 7 Kishita discloses all of the limitations of claim 7 and Kishita further discloses: The control method in claim 6, wherein the sensing signal comprises a pedaling torque signal … (Kishita [0055-0056] wherein the pedal torque is sensed by the torque sensor) … Kishita does not appear to disclose: … and a rotation angle signal of the pedal. However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Hosaka discloses: “and a rotation angle signal of the pedal.” (Hosaka [0046-0047] wherein the bike includes a pedal rotation sensor). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the pedal sensor of Hosaka with the system of Kishita with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide another means of determining the requested output of an electric bike, correcting or suppressing torque as needed, including if a pedal torque is difficult to determine [0006] [0046-0047]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Prior art fails to disclose or render obvious claim 3 disclosing a system for controlling an electric bike determines pedaling actions and an unlocking condition based on the torque and the pedal angle. Regarding claim 3 the relevant art Kishita in view of Hosaka discloses multiple pedaling actions ( Kishita [0055-0057]) and altering the operation of the motor based on a torque and rotation of the pedal (Hosaka [0045-0047]) but fails to disclose unlocking the motor when the torque is above a threshold and the rotation angle is below a threshold. Specifically, the relevant art fails to disclose “ The control system 2, wherein the command identifying unit is configured to indicate multiple pedaling actions in the sensing signal, and determine that the sensing signal matches with the unlocking condition when the pedaling torque signal of each pedaling action is greater than a first threshold and the rotation angle signal of each pedaling action is smaller than a second threshold. ”. Claim 8 is objected to but would be allowed for similar reasons as those found above. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0166385 A1 discloses a bike drive unit to assist the user based on supplied torques US 2023/0136706 A1 discloses a bicycle controller supplying torque to maintain a roll angle of the body when the speed is zero US 2016/0107719 A1 discloses a motor controller for a bicycle regenerating power with pedal rotation US 2019/0031283 A1 discloses a bicycle controller determining states of the electric operating modes, and determining when to lock or allow operating modes US 2016/0311491 A1 discloses electric bicycle mode configurations based on a sleep or standby mode and the wake mode Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4339 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Wade Miles can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7777 . 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. /KYLE T JOHNSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656