DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Knitt et al. (US. 20200231241 A1; hereinafter “Knitt”).
Regarding claim 1, Knitt discloses: a method for operating an electric bike (“systems and methods for operating an electric motor of a two-wheeled vehicle”; ‘Abstract’ and figs. 1-8) that includes a braking system (“regenerative brake control” ; ‘Abstract’) and a drive unit (“drive torque control”; ‘Abstract’) which is actuable in a controlled manner (via 600 or 72; fig. 6 and [0021]), wherein the braking system (“regenerative brake control”) includes an actuator (“actuator”; [0022]) which is configured to be actuable in a controlled manner (via 72) for generating a braking torque in a controlled manner ([0021 and 0022]), said method comprising:
(a) generating a braking torque (“braking torque”; [0026]) in a controlled manner (via 72; [0026]) by way of the braking system (“regenerative brake control” system; [0026]; and
(b) generating a driving torque (“driving torque”; fig. 5 and [0005]) in a controlled manner (via torque command; [0005]) by way of the drive unit (via electric motor 58, drive member 62 (e.g., belt or chain) and “a multi-speed transmission”, [0020]),
wherein step (a) and step (b) occur simultaneously (fig. 5) and depend upon each other in order to decelerate the electric bike at a predetermined total braking torque (fig. 5), or to accelerate the electric bike at a predetermined total driving torque [see fig. 5 flow diagram where map position of twist grip to requested driving torque and map position of regenerative brake control to requested braking torque results in “determine torque command based on requested driving torque and requested braking torque”; it should be understood that regenerative braking reduces driving torque during deceleration whereas predetermined driving torque via chain , sprocket, motor and transmission accelerate the electric bike; thus, step (a) and step (b) occur simultaneously.
Regarding claim 2, Knitt further discloses that in a first operating mode (“saturation”, fig. 7), a predetermined constant braking torque is generated by way of the braking system [as depicted in annotated fig. 7 below; when the max. brake torque Nm is reached, the torque value is recorded and a gain reduction of -1 is applied. However, under a first operating condition – such as when the system is saturated- the braking system produces a constant brake torque.]
PNG
media_image1.png
348
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 7 of Knitt
Regarding claim 4, Knitt further discloses that the generation of the predetermined constant braking torque is performed independently of a brake lever force on a brake lever of the electric bike [para. 0039 teaches that the amount of torque applied according to the torque command 810 is determined independent of the twist grip 74 position; thus, predetermined constant braking torque is performed independently of a brake lever force on a brake lever of the electric bike.]
Regarding claim 5, Knitt further discloses that detecting a wheel slip ((“traction control” [0028]); [it should be understood that traction control is designed to prevent loss of traction (wheel slip) of the driven wheel]), wherein step (b) is performed depending on the detected wheel slip [ para. 0028 teaches that to keep the torque command transmitted to the motor controller (equivalent to generating a driving torque of step (b) within operating limits of the electric powertrain, to provide traction control), or the like, the motor controller or other components included the vehicle 20 may further process the torque request (equivalent to step (b) above) before the torque request is implemented via the electric motor 58.]
Regarding claim 12, Knitt further discloses that an electric bike (“an electric motor of a two-wheeled vehicle”; ‘Abstract’ and figs. 1-8), comprising: a braking system (“regenerative brake control”, ‘Abstract’); a drive unit (“a drive torque control included in the vehicle”, ‘Abstract’); and a control unit (“electronic control unit” 600 or 72, fig. 6 and [0021]) configured to perform a method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Knitt further discloses that detecting a wheel slip ((“traction control” [0028]); [it should be understood that traction control is designed to prevent loss of traction (wheel slip) of the driven wheel]), wherein: step (b) is performed depending on the detected wheel slip [ para. 0028 teaches that to keep the torque command transmitted to the motor controller (equivalent to generating a driving torque of step (b) within operating limits of the electric powertrain, to provide traction control), or the like, the motor controller or other components included the vehicle 20 may further process the torque request (equivalent to step (b) above) before the torque request is implemented via the electric motor 58.], and the driving torque is reduced ( via “advanced braking functionality” [0028]) if the detected wheel slip exceeds a predetermined wheel slip limit value (“”when exceeds operating limits” [0028]) [ para 0028 teaches that a torque command based on the sum to the motor controller, such as to keep the torque command transmitted to the motor controller within operating limits of the electric powertrain, to provide advanced braking functionality, such as traction control (wheel slip) or anti-lock braking, or the like and the motor controller or other components included the vehicle 20 may further process the torque request before the torque request is implemented via the electric motor 58.; thus, detecting a wheel slip, wherein: step (b) is performed depending on the detected wheel slip, and the driving torque is reduced via advanced braking functionality if the detected wheel slip (traction control) exceeds a predetermined wheel slip limit value (above operating limit)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Knitt, and in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt.
Regarding claim 3, Knitt further discloses that the predetermined constant braking torque (“Requested brake torque”, fig. 7) that corresponds to at least 10% of a maximum driving torque which can be generated by way of the drive unit [para 0031 teaches that the twist grip 74, which may represent a value between 0% and 100% of a maximum driving torque available, therefore anticipating torque values as claimed; note that para. 0023 teaches the amount of regenerative braking applied to the rear wheel 24 may be controlled based on a combination of inputs, including an input received through the control 72 as well as an input received through a rotational twist grip 74 also coupled to the handlebar 40; thus, the predetermined constant braking torque (“Requested brake torque”, fig. 7) that corresponds to at least 10% of a maximum driving torque which can be generated by way of the drive unit.
Therefore, Knitt anticipates the claimed invention.
Additionally, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the predetermined constant braking torque (“Requested brake torque”, fig. 7) that corresponds to or must be at least 10% of a maximum driving torque which can be generated by way of the drive unit which Knitt’s electric bike might not meet, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed mathematical value where the predetermined constant braking torque (“Requested brake torque”, fig. 7 of Knitt) that corresponds to at least 10% of a maximum driving torque (equivalent to the teaching of Knitt which falls between 0% to 100% [0031of Knitt]) would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed mathematical value, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at the mathematical value of at least 10% of a maximum driving torque, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Knitt further discloses that the predetermined constant braking torque (“Requested brake torque”, fig. 7) that corresponds to at most 60% of a maximum driving torque which can be generated by way of the drive unit [para 0031 teaches that the twist grip 74, which may represent a value between 0% and 100% of a maximum driving torque available; note that para. 0023 teaches the amount of regenerative braking applied to the rear wheel 24 may be controlled based on a combination of inputs, including an input received through the control 72 as well as an input received through a rotational twist grip 74 also coupled to the handlebar 40; thus, the predetermined constant braking torque (“Requested brake torque”, fig. 7) that corresponds to at most 60% of a maximum driving torque which can be generated by way of the drive unit.
Therefore, Knitt anticipates the claimed invention.
Additionally, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the predetermined constant braking torque (“Requested brake torque”, fig. 7) that corresponds to or must be at most 60% of a maximum driving torque which can be generated by way of the drive unit which Knitt’s electric bike might not meet, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed mathematical value where the predetermined constant braking torque (“Requested brake torque”, fig. 7 of Knitt) that corresponds to at most 60% of a maximum driving torque (equivalent to the teaching of Knitt which falls between 0% to 100% [0031of Knitt]) would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed mathematical value, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at the mathematical value of at most 60% of a maximum driving torque, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt in view of Baumgaertner et al. (US PUB. 20210171154 A1; hereinafter “Baumgaertner”).
Regarding claim 6, Knitt does not appear to explicitly disclose that detecting a pitch angle of the electric bike, wherein step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle; however,
Baumgaertner in another electric bicycle similar to Knitt teaches that detecting a pitch angle of the electric bike, wherein step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle [para. 0015 teaches that the absolute value of the motor torque is generated in a steadily increasing manner with increasing pitch angle. As a result of this embodiment of the present invention, the electric bicycle also accelerates in the desired or customary manner, or at least essentially consistently and comprehensibly for the user; note that: accelerates in the desired or customary manner as taught by Baumgaertner is equivalent to the step (b) limitations above; also see claim 19 of Baumgaertner wherein the generation of the motor torque additionally taking place as a function of the detected pitch angle.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Knitt to integrate the teaching of Baumgaertner and thereby incorporate a known driving torque of Baumgaertner into a the electric bike of Knitt in order to advantageously optimize the system where the system detects a positive pitch angle (bike tilting upward on a hill), increasing the driving torque provides stronger propulsion to compensate for the added uphill load, improving climbing performance and the pushing aid during an upwardly directed trip of the electric bicycle on an uphill grade of the route [ 0015 of Baumgaertner]. The claimed configuration doesn’t yield unexpected results but reflects routing engineering design choices based on known principles of driving torque and terrain adaptability.
Regarding claim 7, Knitt does not appear to explicitly disclose that in a second mode of operation, step (a) and step (b) are performed such that the electric bike is kept stationary; however,
Baumgaertner teaches in a second mode of operation (para 0009 teaches that “the instantaneous total mass of the electric bicycle (equivalent to second mode of operation “based on a total weight of the electric bike 100” as described in para. 0030 of the specification)), step (a) and step (b) are performed such that the electric bike is kept stationary [ para. 0024 teaches that the motor torque being increased until the electric bicycle during the pushing aid (against braking torque), with the same pedaling force of the user and para. 0025 teaches that the detected brake actuation, the motor torque subsequently being generated or adapted as a function of the identified acceleration phase or the identified braking phase or the identified coasting phase (equivalent to step (b) operation); para. 0025 further teaches that a mass-independent and uphill grade-independent acceleration of the electric bicycle results in this embodiment of the present invention, due to the motor torque generated as a function of the pitch angle; thus, bike is kept stationary until preset acceleration is achieved; also see annotated fig. 3 below where bike at 0m/s2 acceleration, still adopt MF (torque value and braking relation); thus step(a) and step(b) are performed [ note that: acceleration 0m/s2 is considered to be in stationary position.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Knitt to integrate the teaching of Baumgaertner and thereby incorporate a known driving torque and braking torque configuration of Baumgaertner into a the electric bike of Knitt in order to advantageously optimize the system design where the driving torque can be applied immediately when the driver wants to start moving. This avoids delay, loss of balance and system transition from holding braking torque to driving torque seamlessly. The claimed configuration doesn’t yield unexpected results but reflects routing engineering design choices based on known principles of driving or braking torques and terrain adaptability.
PNG
media_image2.png
470
824
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3 of Baumgaertner
Regarding claim 8, Knitt does not appear to explicitly disclose that detecting an inclination of the electric bike, wherein: step (a) and step (b) are performed depending on the detected inclination; however,
Baumgaertner teaches that detecting an inclination (optional detection 280, fig. 2) of the electric bike, wherein: step (a) and step (b) are performed depending on the detected inclination [para. 0024 teaches that an optional detection 280 of the pitch angle (equivalent to detected inclination) of the electric bicycle may take place. The pitch angle represents a rotation of the electric bicycle about the transverse axis of the electric bicycle or an uphill grade of the route of the electric bicycle and a driving direction of the electric bicycle. Generation 290 of the motor torque is carried out with the aid of the electric motor as a function of the detected longitudinal acceleration of the electric bicycle; thus, step (a) and step (b) are performed depending on the detected inclination.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Knitt to integrate the teaching of Baumgaertner and thereby detecting an inclination of the electric bike, wherein: step (a) and step (b) are perform in order to advantageously optimize the system design where the generated motor torque is, in particular, adapted, in particular increased, until a predefined setpoint acceleration of the electric bicycle is reached or results or is exceeded [para. 0024 of Baumgaertner]. The claimed configuration doesn’t yield unexpected results but reflects routing engineering design choices based on known principles of driving or braking torques and terrain adaptability.
Regarding claim 9, Knitt does not appear to explicitly disclose that step (a) and step (b) are additionally performed depending on a total weight of the electric bike [0026]; however,
Baumgaertner teaches that step (a) and step (b) are additionally performed depending on a total weight of the electric bike [ para. 0026-0027 teach that in the case of an electric bicycle, driving force F is proportional to driver torque MF and motor torque MM generated with the aid of the electric motor; with constant driving force F, longitudinal acceleration a of the electric bicycle increases with decreasing total weight of the electric bicycle, and vice versa; claim 17 further teaches that detecting a pedaling frequency of a user of the bicycle and/or a detected brake actuation by the use; wherein the generation of the motor torque additionally takes place as a function of the detected pedaling frequency and/or the detected brake actuation.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Knitt to integrate the teaching of Baumgaertner and thereby incorporate braking and motor drive torque inputs to the step (a) and step (b) operations detecting an inclination of the electric bike, wherein: step (a) and step (b) operations depending on a total weight of the electric bike in order to advantageously optimize the system design where weight directly affects how much force is needed to hold, start, or stop the bike, so adopting torque to weight give several advantages, such as no roll back, no slipping and stable hill-hold with a heavy rider and thereby longitudinal acceleration a of the electric bicycle increases with decreasing total weight of the electric bicycle, and vice versa [ para. 0026 of Baumgaertner]. The claimed configuration doesn’t yield unexpected results but reflects routing engineering design choices based on known principles of driving or braking torques based on the weight input and terrain adaptability.
Regarding claim 10, Knitt does not appear to explicitly disclose that reducing a brake pressure generated by way of the braking system in a controlled manner in response to a pedal actuation such that the electric bike is accelerated by the driving torque; however,
Baumgaertner teaches that reducing a brake pressure generated by way of the braking system (via “pressure sensor”, [0023]) in a controlled manner in response to a pedal actuation such that the electric bike is accelerated by the driving torque [ para. 0023 teaches “the user of electric bicycle 101 generates a driver torque to pedaling axis 115, which represents the pedaling force or the pedaling forces of the user, the driver torque being transmitted to output pinion 113, which is connected to pedaling axis 115 or the crankshaft”; also para 0025 traches that it may furthermore optionally be provided that the motor torque is additionally generated or adapted as a function of the detected pedaling frequency and/or as a function of a detected brake actuation; thus, reducing a brake pressure generated by way of the braking system in a controlled manner in response to a pedal actuation such that the electric bike is accelerated by the driving torque.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the additional feature of “reducing a brake pressure generated by way of the braking system in a controlled manner in response to a pedal actuation such that the electric bike is accelerated by the driving torque” represents a routine control action that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as taught by Baumgaertner into the invention of Knitt with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously incorporate coordinated brake-and-drive control, including reducing braking force when propulsion is requested. It would have been an obvious design choice to reduce brake pressure upon pedal actuation to permit acceleration by the drive unit, thereby ensuring smooth transition from braking to driving. Accordingly, claim limitation does not include any feature that would have rendered the claim patently distinct from the combination of references.
Regarding claim 11, Knitt does not appear to explicitly disclose that detecting a pitch angle of the electric bike, wherein: step (a) and/or step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle.
Baumgaertner teaches that detecting a pitch angle of the electric bike, wherein step (a) (“braking phase”, [0025]) and step (b) (“accelerating phrase”; [0025]) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle [para. 0025 teaches that an acceleration phase or a braking phase or a coasting phase may be identified as a function of the detected pedaling frequency and/ or the detected brake actuation, the motor torque subsequently being generated or adapted as a function of the identified acceleration phase or the identified braking phase or the identified coasting phase. In step 290, it may furthermore optionally be provided that the motor torque is additionally generated or adapted as a function of the detected pitch angle; thus, detecting a pitch angle of the electric bike, wherein: step (a) and/or step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Knitt to integrate the teaching of Baumgaertner and thereby perform step (a) and/or step (b) based on the detected pitch angle would have been an obvious control refinement, as the cited reference already teach adjusting braking or driving functions based on vehicle inclination or load condition. Incorporating pitch -angle detection to conditionally execute known control steps represents a predictable use of known sensors and control logic, and therefore does not render the claim patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 15, Knitt does not appear to explicitly disclose that detecting a pitch angle of the electric bike, wherein: step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle, and the driving torque is reduced when the detected pitch angle exceeds a predetermined pitch angle limit value; however,
Baumgaertner teaches that detecting a pitch angle (280, fig. 2) of the electric bike, wherein step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle [para. 0015 teaches that the absolute value of the motor torque is generated in a steadily increasing manner with increasing pitch angle. As a result of this embodiment of the present invention, the electric bicycle also accelerates in the desired or customary manner, or at least essentially consistently and comprehensibly for the user; note that: accelerates in the desired or customary manner as taught by Baumgaertner is equivalent to the step (b) limitations above; also see claim 19 of Baumgaertner wherein the generation of the motor torque additionally taking place as a function of the detected pitch angle.] and the driving torque is reduced (via “predefine set point acceleration” [0015]) when the detected pitch angle exceeds a predetermined pitch angle limit value (“the selected assistance situation or the pushing aid during an upwardly directed trip of the electric bicycle on an uphill grade of the route”; [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Knitt to integrate the teaching of Baumgaertner and provide the additional feature of detecting a pitch angle and reducing the driving torque, such as the selected assistance situation or the pushing aid when a predetermined pitch-angle limit is exceeded, such as to overcome predefine set point acceleration for the control refinement, as the prior art already teaches adjusting propulsion output based on vehicle inclination or load conditions. Incorporating pitch-angle sensing to conditionally reduce torque represents a predictable use of known sensors and control logic and therefore does not render the claim patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 16, Knitt does not appear to explicitly disclose that a pitch angle of the electric bike, wherein: step (a) and/or step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle, and the driving torque is reduced and/or the braking torque is increased if the detected pitch angle exceeds a predetermined pitch angle limit value; however,
Baumgaertner teaches that detecting a pitch angle of the electric bike, wherein step (a) (“braking phase”, [0025]) and step (b) (“accelerating phrase”; [0025]) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle [para. 0025 teaches that an acceleration phase or a braking phase or a coasting phase may be identified as a function of the detected pedaling frequency and/ or the detected brake actuation, the motor torque subsequently being generated or adapted as a function of the identified acceleration phase or the identified braking phase or the identified coasting phase. In step 290, it may furthermore optionally be provided that the motor torque is additionally generated or adapted as a function of the detected pitch angle; thus, detecting a pitch angle of the electric bike, wherein: step (a) and/or step (b) is performed depending on the detected pitch angle.] and the driving torque is reduced (via “predefine set point acceleration” [0015]) and/or the braking torque is increased [claim 17 teaches that detecting a pedaling frequency of a user of the bicycle and/or a detected brake actuation by the use; wherein the generation of the motor torque additionally takes place as a function of the detected pedaling frequency and/or the detected brake actuation] if the detected pitch angle exceeds a predetermined pitch angle limit value (280, 285 and 290, fig. 2 and (“the selected assistance situation or the pushing aid during an upwardly directed trip of the electric bicycle on an uphill grade of the route”; [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Knitt to integrate the teaching of Baumgaertner and thereby perform step (a) and/or step (b) based on the detected pitch angle wherein the driving torque is reduced and/or the braking torque is increased if the detected pitch angle exceeds a predetermined pitch angle limit value would have been an obvious control refinement, as the cited reference already teach adjusting braking or driving functions based on vehicle inclination or load condition. Incorporating pitch -angle detection to conditionally execute known control steps represents a predictable use of known sensors and control logic, and therefore does not render the claim patentably distinct.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FR 3086634 A1 to Laurent discloses: The object of the invention relates to a device for modulating power supplied by a cyclist for training and measuring physical effort adapted to operate with a bicycle (1) characterized in that it comprises a motor device (2) fixable on the bicycle (1) to provide a motor torque, a braking device (3) fixable on the bicycle (1) to provide a braking torque, and a control and piloting device (8) of the motor devices (2) and braking devices (3) configured to provide a setpoint data.
US 20170247080 A1 to Hiroshi discloses: a bicycle controller and bicycle drive device that improves the stability of the behavior of a bicycle. The bicycle controller includes an electronic control unit that reduces the output of a motor, which is configured to assist in propulsion of the bicycle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Neacsu Valentin can be reached on (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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611