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 .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 6/18/2026 (hereinafter Response) including amendments to the claims has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 4, and 5 have been amended, and claims 21 and 22 are new. Claims 1 – 22 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112(b) rejection of claims 4 and 5 raised in the non-final office action mailed 4/17/2026 (hereinafter Office Action) are withdrawn based on the amendments submitted in the Response.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 recites the limitation "the item space" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation “the item space” will be interpreted as “a space occupied by the item”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-15, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 2016/0039485 A1 to Esquibel et al (hereinafter Esquibel) in view of DE 102019125080 A1 to Meli et al (hereinafter Meli), and in the alternative, unpatentable over Esquibel and Meli, in further view of US Pat. 9,908,227 B1 to Yin.
Regarding Claim 1, Esquibel discloses [a device (100) for a human-powered vehicle, (e.g., a bicycle)] (Figs. 1 & 2; paragraph 0025), comprising;
[a main body (MB)] (Annotated Fig. 2a, below) [configured to be coupled to a vehicle body (VB) of the human-powered vehicle] (Figs. 1, 2a; e.g., the vehicle body is a portion of element 200);
[an item storage (IS) at least partially provided to the main body so as to store an item] (Examiner notes that “item” is understood as an unrelated/unclaimed structure beyond the scope of Claim 1. In other words, the scope of the Claim does not extend to unclaimed/unrelated structures, like items. Anticipatory prior art is only required to disclose positively recited structures/ elements (e.g., “item storage”), which are capable of storing/accommodating/holding items; Fig. 2a, “IS” is the tubular space/cavity positioned throughout a portion of the length of MB proximate to BP in Fig. 2a, below. “IS” is configured to accommodate and store a variety of items, therefore being characterizable as an “item storage”; regarding the limitation “free from function“, Esquibel’s item storage “IS” is capable of storing a variety of items, including items unrelated to any or all electrical devices – for illustration purposes only, note non-electrical items depicted as elements 16, 22, and 31 (Esquibel – Figs. 2a & 3), spare instances thereof representing items that are non-electrical in nature, which could be accommodated/stored by Esquibel’s “IS”); and
[an actuator (32)] (Fig. 2a; paragraph 0029) [coupled to the main body] (Figs. 1 & 2a; paragraph 0032, the actuator is coupled to the main body via a coupling portion 342 and a coupling slot 126),
[the item storage being provided outside a handlebar (200) without storing the handlebar] (Fig. 2a; paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0028; e.g., the handlebar being inserted into a central hole 122 of the main body in Fig. 2a, the main body coupled to the vehicle body via element 16 such that the handlebar does not axially extend into the main body past element 16, the item storage being a portion of the tubular space/cavity of the main body that the handlebar does not extend into).
Esquibel further discloses the main body comprises;
[a first end part (12),
a second end part (SE), as annotated below] (Fig. 2a), however, Esquibel does not explicitly disclose that the device is electrical.
Meli discloses [an electrical component (1) for human-powered vehicles] (Meli – Fig. 1; paragraph 0016 discloses the electrical component is designed as “a handle unit” for bicycles; Fig. 3 illustrates and paragraph 0064 discloses the electrical component comprises thermoelectric generators and a circuit board).
Meli further discloses the electrical component comprises;
[a grip part (11)] (Meli – Fig. 2; paragraph 0060), and
[two coupling rings] (Meli – paragraph 0063 discloses the electrical component is coupled to a handlebar by two coupling rings as illustrated in Fig. 2 of Meli).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the electrical component 1 of Meli with the device 100 of Esquibel where GP is annotated in Fig. 2a using known methods and would have expected nothing more than predictable results. Hereinafter, the device 100 of Esquibel, as modified above by Meli, is referred to as an electrical device.
An ordinary artisan would appreciate having the electrical component 1 of Meli incorporated into the electrical device because Meli describes in paragraph 0075 that the electrical component 1 is low-maintenance, cost-effective, simple in design, and in paragraph 0017 Meli discloses that the electrical component 1 is used to power ancillary devices, without having to use batteries, by generating electricity using heat supplied from a user’s body.
Therefore, the claim is rejected as obvious over Esquibel in view of Meli.
Additionally, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the limitation “item storage” is intended to convey a separate/distinct structural element selectively removable from the main body, and that the Esquibel/Meli device discussed above does not possess it, then Yin discloses [an item storage (10) at least partially provided to a main body (12)] (Fig. 2; col 4, lines 8 – 9) [so as to store an item (22)] (see discussion above regarding Examiner’s interpretation of the claim scope understood as not extending to include the “item”); col 6, lines 21 – 23), [the item being free from function of the electrical device or non-operational with respect to the electrical device in a state where the item is at least partially arranged in the item storage] (this limitation is addressed below).
Yin further discloses:
[the main body is configured to be coupled to a vehicle body (30) of a human-powered vehicle] (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 29 – 30, the vehicle body is disclosed as “a bicycle handlebar”; col 4, lines 53 – 63 describe coupling the main body to the vehicle body via two coupling rings, hereinafter referred to as a coupling ring 34 and a base part 36, as shown in Fig. 2);
the item storage further includes [an item holder (94) configured to hold the item] (namely the storage space representing the inner volume of the item holder; also see col 6, lines 21 – 23);
[numbered element 28 is attached to the item holder] (Fig. 5 and col. 6, lines 3 – 4); and
the item storage further includes [a storage space (ST)] (Yin – Annotated Fig. 5a, below) [in which the item is to be at least partially provided] (Yin – col. 6, lines 22 – 23; Fig. 5a illustrates the storage space comprises the item holder, which is configured to hold the item, i.e., numbered element 14 in Fig. 5a is replaced with the item. As illustrated in Fig. 5a, the item is at least partially provided to the storage space).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrical device of Esquibel/Meli above, to further include Yin’s item storage/holder, wherein the base part is coupled to the main body at “BP” in Fig. 2a, because an artisan would appreciate the advantages of having the item storage of Yin to inconspicuously store various items in a protected space not exposed to the elements.
Mentioned above and herein addressing the following limitation, which is outside the scope of claim 1, regarding the item: [the item is free from function of the electrical device or non-operational with respect to the electrical device in a state where the item is at least partially arranged in the item storage] (Yin – col. 6, lines 22 – 23, e.g., when the item is stored and free from function of the electrical device).
PNG
image1.png
100
100
image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
image3.png
100
100
image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Esquibel as modified above teaches all limitations, including that the item storage includes a storage space in which the item is to be at least partially provided (in either of the alternative interpretations above, the storage space is the inner volume of the item storage, see details above).
Regarding Claims 3-5, Esquibel as modified above discloses all limitations, wherein the item storage includes the item holder configured to hold the item, the item storage includes the storage space in which the item is to be at least partially provided, the item holder is at least partially provided in the storage space, and the storage space is at least partially provided inside the main body (in the first interpretation, the item holder is the inner space of the item storage, located/provided in the storage space discussed above, which is inside the main body; while in the second interpretation, the item holder corresponds to element 94 provided in the storage space annotated as ST above, located in the modified main body, see details above regarding the combination in further view of Yin).
Regarding Claim 9, Esquibel further teaches [a movable member BC movably coupled to the main body MB] (Esquibel – Fig. 2a; paragraphs 0032 – 0033; the movable member BC is understood as a Bowden cable movably coupled to the main body MB via the actuator 32).
Regarding Claim 10, depending on claim 9, Esquibel as modified above discloses the electrical device, wherein
[the actuator 32 is coupled to the movable member BC to operate an operated device in response to a movement of the movable member BC] (e.g., the actuator 32 coupled to the movable member BC to operate a brake, i.e., the operated device, in response to a movement of the movable member BC).
Regarding Claim 11, depending on claim 9, Esquibel as modified above discloses the electrical device, wherein
[the actuator 32 is coupled to the movable member BC to move the movable member BC relative to the main body MB] (Esquibel – Fig. 2a; e.g., an inner wire of the movable member BC moving relative to the main body MB).
Regarding Claim 12, Esquibel as modified above discloses [the main body MB includes the first end part 12 and the second end part SE] (Esquibel – Fig. 2a),
[the first end part 12 is configured to be coupled to the vehicle body 200 of the human-powered vehicle] (Esquibel – Fig. 1; paragraph 0028, “12 can be {firm} mounted on…200”), and
[the main body MB extends between the first end part 12 and the second end part SE in a longitudinal direction LD] (Esquibel – Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 13, depending on claim 12, Esquibel as modified above discloses [the item storage 10 is provided between the first end part 12 and the second end part SE in the longitudinal direction LD] (Esquibel – Fig. 2a; e.g., the item storage 10 being provided between SE and 12 of the main body MB in the longitudinal direction LD).
Regarding Claim 14, depending on claim 12, Esquibel as modified above discloses [the item storage 10 is provided closer to one of the first end part 12 and the second end part SE than to the other of the first end part 12 and the second end part SE in the longitudinal direction LD] (e.g., the item storage 10 being provided closer to the first end part 12 or the item storage 10 being provided closer to the second end part SE, both in the longitudinal direction LD).
Regarding Claim 15, depending on claim 12, Esquibel as modified above discloses [the main body MB] (Esquibel) [includes the grip part 11] (Meli) [provided between the first end part 12 and the second end part SE in the longitudinal direction LD] (Fig. 2a; see claim 1 rejection regarding Meli’s further disclosure of the grip part 11 and that the electrical component 1, which includes the grip part 11, is coupled to MB where GP is indicated such that the grip part 11 of Meli is provided between the first end part 12 and the second end part SE).
Regarding Claim 19, Esquibel as modified above further discloses [the item storage is configured to store at least one of a spare part, a tool, an accessory for the human-powered vehicle, and personal belongings of a user other than the spare part, the tool, the accessory, and the human-powered vehicle] (e.g., the item storage being configured to store a spare item; Examiner notes that the item is outside of the scope of Claim 1 and thus also outside the scope of Claim 19).
Regarding Claim 22, Esquibel as modified above further discloses [the item being free from function of the electrical device or non-operational with respect to the electrical device in a state where the item is at least partially arranged in the item storage] (Yin – col. 6, lines 22 – 23, e.g., when the item is stored and free from function of the electrical device).
Claims 6 – 8, 16 – 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esquibel and Meli in view of Yin (corresponding to the second alternative interpretation under which parent Claim 1 was rejected, see above).
Regarding Claim 6, Esquibel as modified above discloses all limitations, including that [the item storage 10 is at least partially provided to the attachment body 28] (Yin – Fig. 5a and col. 6, lines 3 – 4 disclose that the item holder 94, which is an element of the item storage 10, is at least partially provided to the attachment body 28). The modification also discloses all features of the base part, attachment body, etc. (see above, including element 28 taught by Yin, recognized as an attachment body 28 detachably and reattachably attached to the base part)
Regarding Claim 7, depending on claim 6, Esquibel as modified above further discloses [the base part 36 and the attachment body 28 define a storage space in which the item 22 is to be at least partially provided] (understood as the item 22 is at least partially provided to the portion of item holder 94 that is at least partially provided to the attachment body 28).
Regarding Claim 8, depending on claim 6, Esquibel as modified above discloses the Esquibel/Meli/Yin device, wherein Yin further discloses
[the base part 36 includes a first engagement part 54] (Yin – Fig 4; col. 4, line 65), and
[the attachment body 28 includes a second engagement part, 56 or 58] (Yin – col. 5, line 1), [configured to be detachably and reattachably engaged with the first engagement part 54] (Yin – col. 4, line 66 through col. 5, line 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Esquibel as modified above further discloses [a cover (28) configured to be detachably and reattachably attached to the main body] (see rejection of Claim 1, specifically the location of the base part and is included in the main body; Yin – Figs. 6 & 7; col. 5, lines 50 – 60) [to at least partially cover the main body] (Yin – Annotated Fig. 1a, below, e.g., when the cover is attached to the base part, as illustrated in Fig. 1a, such that a surface of the cover at least partially covers a surface of 36).
Regarding Claim 21, Esquibel as modified above further discloses [the storage space is defined between the base part and the attachment body] (Yin – Fig. 2; e.g., the storage space is defined axially between the base part and the attachment body), and [the item space is provided outside the handlebar without storing the handlebar] (“the item space” is interpreted as “a space occupied by the item” and the item is understood as not extending into the handlebar when stored as claimed).
PNG
image5.png
100
100
image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Esquibel as modified above discloses [the cover is configured to be detachably and reattachably attached to the main body] (Yin – Figs. 6 & 7; col. 5, lines 50 – 60) [to at least partially cover the item storage] (Yin –Fig. 1a, the cover at least partially covers the item storage when the cover is attached to the base part as in Fig. 1a).
Regarding Claim 18, Esquibel as modified above discloses the electrical device, wherein
Yin further discloses [a tool part provided to the main body and configured to be engaged with a tool engagement part 24a of an additional device of the human-powered vehicle] (Yin – Figs. 1a & 12, the additional device of the human-powered vehicle is shown in Fig. 12 wherein the tool engagement part 24a is understood as being coupled to the item holder 94 of the item storage 10 in a similar manner as numbered element 28. The base part 36 is designated as the tool part when the additional device of the human-powered vehicle is attached. The tool part 36 is thus provided to the main body, as disclosed in the Claim 1 rejection, and understood as being configured to be engaged with the tool engagement part 24a in a similar manner as shown in Fig. 1a),
[the tool part is provided adjacent to the item storage] (Yin – Fig. 1a illustrates the tool part is provided adjacent to numbered element 28, which is attached to the item holder of the item storage as described in the Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 20, Esquibel as modified above discloses the electrical device, wherein Yin further discloses [the item is operational with respect to the electrical device or an additional electrical device] (Yin – Fig. 12; col. 4, lines 11 – 12, the item is operational with respect to an additional electrical device (24a)) [in a state where the item is arranged outside the item storage] (e.g., the item being arranged outside the item storage and powering the additional electrical device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response directed toward the 35 USC over Esquibel in view of Meli and Yin have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See Response pp 8 – 11.
In response to applicant's argument on page 8 of the Response that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant states on pp. 8 – 10 that Esquibel, Meli, and Yin do not disclose or suggest the limitation “the item storage being provided outside a handlebar without storing the handlebar”; however this limitation is addressed in the rejection of amended claim 1, above.
In response to applicant's arguments on pp. 8 – 10 against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims being allowable on page 11 are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
For at least the above reasons Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 Tyler Ferguson whose telephone number is (571)272-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/Tyler Ferguson/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights