DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
Claims 1-17 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11/11/2023 and 04/10/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 16 recites, “determination of the speed signal is performed by way of a reed sensor and/or an anti-blocking sensor”. The phrase “A and/or B” encompasses all of:
A alone
B alone
A and B together
In other words, as presented, claim 16 would encompass determining the speed signal using a reed sensor and an anti-blocking sensor together. However, the specification does not describe how a reed sensor and an anti-blocking sensor can be used together to determine a speed signal. Furthermore, it is unclear if the applicant means that the reed sensor determines a speed signal, and separately, the anti-blocking sensor determines a speed signal, or if the applicant means that a single speed signal is determined by a combinatorial use of the two claimed sensors. Accordingly, a person skilled in the art seeking to use the claimed invention would be left to guess as to how the two sensors are intended to be employed.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 16 is interpreted by the examiner to require only one of the claimed sensors.
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.
Claim 1-2, 4, 6, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jensen (WO 2016096454 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Jensen discloses: A\a method for determining a pedaling frequency of a bicycle, comprising: determining a movement signal (see "acceleration" Fig. 2) representing a chronological progression (see "time index", Fig. 2) of a locomotion of the bicycle; determining a frequency spectrum of the movement signal ("Data from all three axes undergo Fourier analysis", pg. 16, LL. 16-17); and determining a pedaling frequency ("finding the cadence", pg. 16, LL. 21-22) based on the determined frequency spectrum.
With respect to claim 2, Jensen discloses: the method according to claim 1, further comprising determining a characteristic frequency (see "peak frequency", pg. 18, L. 8) of the frequency spectrum of the movement signal, wherein determining the pedaling frequency (“the cadence determined by…”, pg. 18, L. 8) is based on the determined characteristic frequency.
With respect to claim 4, Jensen discloses: the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the frequency spectrum is performed by way of a fast Fourier transformation (see "fast fourier transform", pg. 8, LL. 4-5).
With respect to claim 6, Jensen discloses: the method according to claim 1, wherein: the movement signal comprises an acceleration signal (see “acceleration”, Fig. 2), and the determination of the acceleration signal is performed by way of an acceleration sensor (see “accelerometers”, pg. 15, L. 18).
With respect to claim 17, Jensen discloses: the method according to claim 1, wherein: the movement signal comprises an acceleration signal (see “acceleration”, Fig. 2), and the determination of the acceleration signal is performed by way of an inertial sensor (see “accelerometers”, pg. 15, L. 18).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (WO 2016096454 A1) in view of Veltman (EP 2532576 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Jensen discloses: the method according to claim 2, but is silent in teaching that the pedaling frequency is determined as half of the frequency of the characteristic frequency.
Veltman discloses a similar method of determining a pedaling frequency and further discloses:
“The torque exerted by a cyclist on the bottom bracket axle by means of the pedals varies continuously and at a frequency of twice the cadence (cadence is defined as the frequency of the axle and pedals). In other words, the cyclist exerts a downward force twice per revolution and, as a result, the speed of the cycle (and cyclist) varies at this same frequency.” (paragraph [0010]).
In other words, it is known from Veltman that the cadence of a bicycle is half of a characteristic frequency of a speed signal of a bicycle. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify Jensen in view of Veltman to arrive at the claimed invention and to ensure that the determined cadence is not incorrect by a factor of two.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (WO 2016096454 A1) in view of Corno (US 20180259546 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Jensen discloses: the method according to claim 1 but is silent in teaching that the movement signal comprises a speed signal, and the determination of the speed signal is performed by way of a speed sensor.
Corno discloses a similar method for determining a pedaling frequency (“cadence”, paragraph [0042]) of a bicycle, comprising: determining a movement signal (“optimized signal”, paragraph [0042]), determining a frequency spectrum of the movement signal (see “frequency analysis”, paragraph [0043]); and determining a pedaling frequency based on the determined frequency spectrum (see “determine such pedaling cadence”, paragraph [0043]), wherein the movement signal comprises a speed signal (see “the optimized signal representing the speed…”, paragraph [0042]), and the determination of the speed signal is performed by way of a speed sensor (2, Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jensen in view of Corno to arrive at the claimed invention by substituting the acceleration signal disclosed by Jensen for the speed signal disclosed by Corno to achieve predictable results. Since both the speed and acceleration of the bicycle are cyclic in nature and correspond to a pedaling frequency of the bicycle, such a person would expect that the substitution would result in a substantially similar device capable of determining a pedaling frequency of a bicycle. Furthermore, such a person may have been motivated to apply the pedaling frequency determination method disclosed by Corno to the bicycle disclosed by Jensen without removing the pedaling frequency determination method disclosed by Jensen to provide a redundant method of calculating cadence to provide a cadence determination in the event that one of the methods fails.
With respect to claim 14, Jensen in view of Corno as modified above discloses: A bicycle, comprising: a speed sensor (Corno; 2, Fig. 1) and/or an inertial sensor (Jensen; see “accelerometers”, pg. 15, L. 18) means for generating a movement signal representing a chronological progression of a locomotion of the bicycle; and a control unit (Jensen; “communications device”, see pg. 5, LL. 29-34) configured to perform a method according to claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (WO 2016096454 A1) in view of Baechler (WO 2012019654 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Jensen discloses: The method according to claim 1 but is silent in teaching: determining a sensor pedaling frequency by way of a pedaling frequency sensor; and validating the pedaling frequency sensor based on a comparison between the determined pedaling frequency and the determined sensor pedaling frequency.
Baechler discloses a method for determining a pedaling frequency of a bicycle and an alternative method of determining a pedaling frequency by way of a pedaling frequency sensor (1, Fig. 1). Baechler further discloses that employing multiple methods of determining pedaling frequency is useful because redundant measurements can be used to provide a cadence value in the event that a sensor fails (see pg. 8, LL. 19-28).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jensen in view of Baechler to arrive at the claimed invention and to ensure that the pedaling frequency is being accurately determined by comparing pedaling frequency results from different methods.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (WO 2016096454 A1) in view of Greiner (DE 102014212760 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Jensen discloses: the method according to claim 1 but is silent in teaching: performing a plausibility check for the determined movement signal by way of the determined pedaling frequency based on a previously known gear ratio of a drive of the bicycle.
Greiner discloses a method of performing a plausibility check on a determined movement signal (“verifying the plausibility of speed data”, paragraph [006]) by way of a determined pedaling frequency (pedaling cadence “, paragraph [0012]) based on a previously known gear ratio (“the selected gear”, paragraph [0012]) of a drive of the bicycle.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jensen in view of Greiner to arrive at the claimed invention and to ensure that the data from the determined movement signal is accurate.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (WO 2016096454 A1) in view of Hahn (US 20200262516 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Jensen discloses: determining a pedaling frequency of a bicycle by way of a method according to claim 1 but is silent in actuating a drive unit on the basis of the determined pedaling frequency.
Hahn discloses a bicycle (100, Fig. 1) comprising a drive unit (140), wherein the drive unit is actuated on the basis of a determined pedaling frequency (see paragraph [0129]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jensen in view of Hahn to arrive at the claimed invention and to improve rider comfort by keeping the rider’s cadence within a predefined range as disclosed by Hahn (Hahn; see paragraph [0129]).
With respect to claim 15, Jensen in view of Hahn discloses: the method according to claim 1, wherein the bicycle is an e-bike.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (WO 2016096454 A1) in view of Hahn (US 20200262516 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Efken (EP 4032795 A1).
With respect to claim 13, Jensen in view of Hahn discloses: the method according to claim 12 but is silent in teaching: deactivating the drive unit in response to a determined manipulation of the movement signal.
Efken discloses a bicycle comprising a drive unit and deactivating the drive unit in response to a determined manipulation of a movement signal (see paragraph [0024]). Efken further discloses that switching off the traction motor in response to a manipulated speed signal can reduce the risk of injury to the rider (see paragraph [0024]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jensen in view of Hahn in further view of Efken to arrive at the claimed invention and to reduce the risk of injury to a rider of the bicycle.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (WO 2016096454 A1) in view of Corno (US 20180259546 A1) and Veltman (EP 2532576 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Jensen discloses: the method according to claim 1 but is silent in teaching that the movement signal comprises a speed signal, and the determination of the acceleration signal is performed by way of a speed sensor, wherein the speed sensor is a reed sensor and/or an anti-blocking sensor.
Corno discloses a similar method for determining a pedaling frequency (“cadence”, paragraph [0042]) of a bicycle, comprising: determining a movement signal (“optimized signal”, paragraph [0042]), determining a frequency spectrum of the movement signal (see “frequency analysis”, paragraph [0043]); and determining a pedaling frequency based on the determined frequency spectrum (see “determine such pedaling cadence”, paragraph [0043]), wherein the movement signal comprises a speed signal (see “the optimized signal representing the speed…”, paragraph [0042]), and the determination of the speed signal is performed by way of a speed sensor (2, Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jensen in view of Corno to arrive at the claimed invention by substituting the acceleration signal disclosed by Jensen for the speed signal disclosed by Corno to achieve predictable results. Since both the speed and acceleration of the bicycle are cyclic in nature and correspond to a pedaling frequency of the bicycle, such a person would expect that the substitution would result in a substantially similar device capable of determining a pedaling frequency of a bicycle. Furthermore, such a person may have been motivated to apply the pedaling frequency determination method disclosed by Corno to the bicycle disclosed by Jensen without removing the pedaling frequency determination method disclosed by Jensen to provide a redundant method of calculating cadence to provide a cadence determination in the event that one of the methods fails.
Veltman discloses using a reed sensor to determine a speed signal of a bicycle (see paragraph [0017]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jensen in view of Corno in view of Veltman by substituting the speed sensor disclosed by Corno for the reed sensor disclosed by Veltman. Since both sensors are used for determining a speed signal of a bicycle, such a person would predict that the modification would result in a device substantially similar to the original and capable of performing the same functions of the original.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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.
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art of record is Efken (EP 4032795 A1). Efken discloses a bicycle and a method of controlling the bicycle comprising: detecting a manipulation of a speed signal (see paragraph [0044]) in response to a comparison between a target drive power and an actual drive power. Efken thus differs from the claimed invention because the manipulation of the speed signal is detected rather than determined and because the detection is not in response to a determined implausibility of a movement signal. Suggestions to modify Efken to arrive at the claimed invention were not reasonably found in the prior art.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the prior art made of record does not disclose nor render obvious the method steps: determining a phase offset between the movement signal and a torque signal, which offset represents an instantaneous rider torque or a total torque; and performing the plausibility check based on the determined phase offset
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and discloses methods for determining the pedaling frequency of bicycles in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6087. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (7:30 - 5:00 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, Paul Dickson can be reached at (571) 272-7742. 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.
/MATTHEW D LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/PAUL N DICKSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614