DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-22 are presented for examination on the merits.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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.
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanderZanden (US 2019/0324446 A1) in view of Rösch (DE 102019208868 B4).
As to claim 1, VanderZanden discloses in remotely controlling use of an on-demand electric vehicle having claimed:
a. a vehicle comprising: a motor to generate torques that are applied to one or more drive wheels to cause the one or more drive wheels to rotate and propel the vehicle read on ¶ 0029, (aspects of the vehicle that may need be controlled herein include without limitation any type of: lights, speakers, wheels, steering apparatuses, brakes, motors, power systems, or any other system or component that is part of an electric vehicle system);
b. one or more sensors to provide a sensed input that indicates rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels; and processing circuitry to at least: receive an indication of unauthorized use of the vehicle; receive the sensed input from the one or more sensors; and based on the indication of unauthorized use of the vehicle read on ¶ 0186, (the lock is locked or unlocked automatically, semi-automatically, or completely manually by the user. In various embodiments, the lock automatically locks if a user ends a ride (e.g., wheel or steering mechanism lock), if it senses that it is near a structure it can be locked onto (e.g., based on geo-location, contact sensor, computer vision, RF tag on rack or pole), if it senses that it is being stolen (e.g., movement detected when vehicle is not in an authorized use state), etc. In some embodiments, the lock automatically unlocks if it senses that a rider is within a pre-defined GPS locational area);
c. command the motor to generate a torque that is opposite the indicated rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels, the generated torque applied to the one or more drive wheels to counteract the indicated rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels read on ¶ 0172, (the motor controller 1006 is configured when in the “locked” mode to use an opposite-acting motor to apply a torque in an opposite direction of rotation to the direction in which an unauthorized user is attempting to push or ride the vehicle). VanderZanden does not explicitly disclose to measure axial rotation of the one or more drive wheels and to provide a sensed input that indicates rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels caused by the motor in either the forward direction or the reverse direction.
However, Rösch in preventing unauthorized driving away cures the deficiency by teaching that it may be beneficial:
d. to measure axial rotation of the one or more drive wheels and to provide a sensed input that indicates rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels caused by the motor in either the forward direction or the reverse direction read on Page 4, Para 4, (the method according to the invention for preventing unauthorized driving away with an electric bicycle that includes a drive motor has several steps: One step of the method includes receiving sensor data from an actuation sensor that is queried cyclically within a cycle time of 50 ms and 1000 ms, with which actuation of the drive crank of the e-bike is detected. A further step consists of receiving sensor data from an authorization sensor for recognizing an authorization of a user of the electric bicycle as soon as there is sensor data from the actuation sensor which indicates actuation of a drive crank of the electric bicycle. Further steps of the method provide for the evaluation of the sensor data from the authorization sensor and the sensor data from the actuation sensor. One step includes detecting unauthorized use of the electric bicycle. In a further step, a control signal for the drive motor is generated, which is output to the drive motor in another step in order to prevent the electric bicycle from moving away. The control signal controls the motor in the opposite direction, so that a force is exerted that is directed counter to the force measured by the actuation sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was filed to incorporate the device and method for preventing unauthorized driving away of an electric bicycle of Rösch into VanderZanden in order to protect an electric bicycle with a drive motor against unauthorized departure of a user by pedaling, in that sensor data from an authorization sensor are received at a first input interface. .
As to claim 2, VanderZanden further discloses:
a. wherein the indicated rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels is caused by an external force that is applied to the vehicle and thereby the one or more drive wheels, and the generated torque is applied to the one or more drive wheels to counteract the external force read on ¶ 0172, ( the motor controller 1006 is configured when in the “locked” mode to use an opposite-acting motor to apply a torque in an opposite direction of rotation to the direction in which an unauthorized user is attempting to push or ride the vehicle).
As to claim 3, VanderZanden further discloses:
a. wherein the processing circuitry is to determine a direction of rotation of the one or more drive wheels from the sensed input, and the torque is generated based on the determined direction of rotation read on ¶ 0172, (the motor controller 1006 is configured when in the “locked” mode to use an opposite-acting motor to apply a torque in an opposite direction of rotation to the direction in which an unauthorized user is attempting to push or ride the vehicle).
As to claim 5, Rösch further teaches:
a. wherein the processing circuitry is to wait an amount of time after the sensed input is received read on Page 4, Para 4, (the method according to the invention for preventing unauthorized driving away with an electric bicycle that includes a drive motor has several steps: One step of the method includes receiving sensor data from an actuation sensor that is queried cyclically within a cycle time of 50 ms and 1000 ms, with which actuation of the drive crank of the e-bike is detected. A further step consists of receiving sensor data from an authorization sensor for recognizing an authorization of a user of the electric bicycle as soon as there is sensor data from the actuation sensor which indicates actuation of a drive crank of the electric bicycle. Further steps of the method provide for the evaluation of the sensor data from the authorization sensor and the sensor data from the actuation sensor. One step includes detecting unauthorized use of the electric bicycle. In a further step, a control signal for the drive motor is generated, which is output to the drive motor in another step in order to prevent the electric bicycle from moving away. The control signal controls the motor in the opposite direction, so that a force is exerted that is directed counter to the force measured by the actuation sensor).
As to claim 6, Rösch further teaches:
a. wherein the processing circuitry is to randomly select the amount of time from within a defined time frame read on Page 4, Para 4, (the method according to the invention for preventing unauthorized driving away with an electric bicycle that includes a drive motor has several steps: One step of the method includes receiving sensor data from an actuation sensor that is queried cyclically within a cycle time of 50 ms and 1000 ms, with which actuation of the drive crank of the e-bike is detected. A further step consists of receiving sensor data from an authorization sensor for recognizing an authorization of a user of the electric bicycle as soon as there is sensor data from the actuation sensor which indicates actuation of a drive crank of the electric bicycle. Further steps of the method provide for the evaluation of the sensor data from the authorization sensor and the sensor data from the actuation sensor. One step includes detecting unauthorized use of the electric bicycle. In a further step, a control signal for the drive motor is generated, which is output to the drive motor in another step in order to prevent the electric bicycle from moving away. The control signal controls the motor in the opposite direction, so that a force is exerted that is directed counter to the force measured by the actuation sensor).
As to claim 12, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 5.
As to claim 13, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 6.
As to claims 8 and 15, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 1. VanderZanden further discloses an apparatus comprising: a memory to store computer-readable program code; and processing circuitry to access the memory, and execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus read on ¶ 0025, (a computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or a processor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor. In this specification, these implementations, or any other form that the invention may take, may be referred to as techniques. In general, the order of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within the scope of the invention. Unless stated otherwise, a component such as a processor or a memory described as being configured to perform a task may be implemented as a general component that is temporarily configured to perform the task at a given time or a specific component that is manufactured to perform the task).
As to claim 9, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 2.
As to claim 10, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 3.
As to claim 16, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 2.
As to claim 17, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 3.
As to claim 19, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 5.
As to claim 20, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 6.
6. Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanderZanden in view of Rösch and further in view of Hsu (EP 3492356 A1).
As to claim 4, VanderZanden in view of Rösch does not explicitly recite wherein the processing circuitry is to determine a rotational speed of the one or more drive wheels from the sensed input, and wherein the processing circuitry is to determine a magnitude of force based on the determined rotational speed, and command the motor to generate the torque that is opposite the indicated rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels having the determined magnitude of force.
However, Hsu in security mechanisms and associated systems for electric motors cures this deficiency by teaching that it may be beneficial wherein the processing circuitry is to determine a rotational speed of the one or more drive wheels from the sensed input, and wherein the processing circuitry is to determine a magnitude of force based on the determined rotational speed, and command the motor to generate the torque that is opposite the indicated rotational motion of the one or more drive wheels having the determined magnitude of force read on Page 3, Para. 1, (when an unauthorized action creates a greater magnetic field change (e.g., to rotate the motor faster), the present system can respond with a greater induced force/torque to impede or restrain the unauthorized action. For example, when an unauthorized user slowly rotates a wheel driven by the electric motor of the present system, the unauthorized user may still be able to rotate the wheel; however, he/she can "feel" an induced torque, in a direction opposite the moving direction, generated by the present system to "slow" him/her down. When the unauthorized user increases the rotational speed, the induced force/torque can escalate accordingly, which makes the unauthorized rotation more and more difficult. As a result, the "coil-based" or "motor-based" security mechanism or system that can effectively prevent, or at least impede, unauthorized activities of an electric motor having multiple sets of coils and to prevent an unauthorized use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to incorporate the security mechanisms for electric motors and associated systems of Hsu into VanderZanden in view of Rösch in order to provide a coil-based security mechanism or system that can generate a countering torque in response to unauthorized user actions.
As to claim 11 the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 4.
As to claim 18, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 4.
8. Claim 7, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanderZanden in view of Rösch and further in view of Weigel (DE 102018216340).
As to claim 7, VanderZanden in view of Rösch does not explicitly recite the motor is to cease generation of the torque after the amount of time.
However, Weigel cures this deficiency by teaching that it may be beneficial wherein the processing circuitry is to command the motor to generate the torque for an amount of time, and the motor is to cease generation of the torque after the amount of time read on Page 4, Para. 2, (the anti-theft device optionally includes a transmitter for sending a status signal to a (remote) mobile transmitter or another receiver, for example assigned to an authorized user, in order to provide wireless information about activation and / or deactivation of the anti-theft device. The theft protection device of the drive device can thus be configured, for example, to send a status signal to a smartphone of an authorized user in order to signal that the theft protection device has been successfully activated and / or successfully deactivated. In this way, an authorized user immediately receives information that his electric bicycle has been unlocked by deactivating the anti-theft device. If the authorized user is not on his electric bike at the time of receiving a corresponding message, this then suggests, for example, that an attempted theft is being made.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to incorporate the drive device for an electric bicycle with electronic anti-theft device and control method of Weigel into VanderZanden in view of Rösch in order to provide an authorized user can authenticate himself on a mobile transmission device, the mobile transmission device then being to wirelessly send a deactivation signal to the anti-theft device if an authorized user has been successfully authenticated variant, the anti-theft device consequently comprises, for example, a receiver for the wireless reception of a deactivation signal from the mobile Transmitting device, if an authorized user could be successfully authenticated.
As to claim 14, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 3.
As to claim 21, the claims are interpreted and rejected as to claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 22 is 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. However, an updated search will need to be performed after the next response from Applicant.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection that was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Citation of pertinent Prior Arts
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i. Yates (US 20230249644 A1) discloses in “the invention is directed to a method of responding to an unauthorized possession of a vehicle configured to transport at least one person. The device includes apparatus for: obtaining the vehicle with an associated safety system, the safety system configured to at least one of: a) generate at least one form of detectable signal; b) generate an electronic signal transmittable to a device; and c) generate at least one image of a person in/on the vehicle; and generating an input to cause the system to generate at least one of: i) the at least one form of detectable signal that can be sensed by persons in the vicinity of the vehicle; ii) the electronic signal may be delayed for a period after activation; and iii) the at least one image of a person in/on the vehicle. The system is configured so that at least one of the at least one form of detectable signal, the electronic signal, and the at least one image is generated after a time delay following the generation of the input to the safety system”,
ii. Hsu (US 20220281545 A1) discloses in A control circuit of the electric vehicle of the present embodiment controls the motor to generate a motor reverse resistance and/or motor vibration noise to enhance anti-theft effect, and there is no need to increase any hardware circuit. Refer to FIG. 1. The anti-theft method includes the following steps. In step S10, an electronic anti-theft function is activated. In step S20, whether the electric vehicle is moving is determined. In step S30, whether the temperature of the motor is greater than a critical value is determined. In step S40, when the temperature of the motor of the electric vehicle does not exceed a critical value, a short-circuit braker is provided by the motor according to the current speed. In step S42, when the temperature of the motor of the electric vehicle exceeds a critical value, the motor is reversed to generate a reverse resistance. On the other hand, in step S44, when the temperature of the motor of the electric vehicle exceeds a critical value, an asynchronous electronic angle is provided to the motor for enabling the motor to generate a vibration noise, and
iii. Wu (US 20130116892 A1) discloses in a controller; and at least one communications module coupled to the at least one controller, wherein the at least one controller is configured to: receive information indicating whether the vehicle is in a state to allow operation of the vehicle; and in response to receiving the information whether the vehicle is in a state to allow operation of the vehicle, make a determination of whether to allow one or more wheels of the vehicle to roll based on the received information indicating whether the vehicle is in a state to allow operation of the vehicle.
Conclusion
12. If the claimed invention is amended, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification, which dictate(s) the structure/description relied upon to assist the Examiner in proper interpretation of the amended language and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fekadeselassie Girma whose telephone number is (571) 270-5886. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday, 8:30 – 5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph H. Feild can be reached on (571) 272-4090. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fekadeselassie Girma/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights