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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 15, 2026, regarding the claim objections of claims 3, 5, 6, and 11 (page 6) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related objections have been withdrawn. See, however, new claim objections below raised in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections (pages 6-9) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, therefore the related rejections have been maintained:
Regarding the applicant’s argument (pages 6-8, sec. “35 U.S.C. 102”) that Ichida does not anticipate the claimed invention because Ichida’s control unit uses a table memory and not a command signal that directly corresponds to one operating action of one single electric device, the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that the command signals of Ichida are understood to correspond to distinct operating actions such as shifting the rear derailleur up one gear (see Table 2 at Para. [0020]); in fact it would be insensible for a command signal to not correspond to a distinct operating action, otherwise the operation of the control unit would be unpredictable. The examiner further notes that, as illustrated in Table 2, the command signals often act to operate only a single electric device (Front 82 and Rear 88 Derailleur Motors); the fact that they sometimes act to operate more than one device (i.e. at the 9th row of Table 2, corresponding to Front: 34, Rear: 11, and One Step Up, where both the Front 82 and Rear 88 Derailleur Motors are commanded to move) does not mean that the operation of a single device at a time is not taught. The examiner also notes that the applicant has indicated (page 8, line 4) that claims 9 and 13 are amended similarly to claim 1, but in the claim set filed July 15, 2026, claim 13 is not amended, except by its dependence on the amended claim 9.
Regarding the applicant’s argument (pages 8-9, sec. “35 U.S.C. 103”) that MASUDA does not cure the deficiencies Ichida because MASUDA does not teach the claimed command-generation logic, the examiner disagrees because the rejection is not based on the teachings of MASUDA alone but on what the teachings of both Ichida and MASUDA would suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art. 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) and MPEP 2145(IV). In this case MASUDA teaches the claimed manual control devices and their dedicated switches which Ichida was silent on.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the words “a the” should be replaced with the word “an” in the limitation “is based on both [[a the]] an actuated switch…” in line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ichida (US-20080108465-A1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 1, Ichida teaches a method for generating a plurality of different command signals for each of a plurality of electric devices of a bicycle electronic system (Fig. 2 illustrating a method for controlling a Front 82 and Rear 88 Derailleur Motor via Transmission Command Signals TC, Para. [0014]),
wherein each electrical device of the plurality of electric devices (82 and 88) is operable in a plurality of operating actions (Front 82 and Rear 88 Derailleur Motor understood to be capable of performing at least upshift and downshift operations based on a pulling or releasing of Control Cables 78 and 86, Para. [0013]), and
wherein each command signal (TC) corresponds to a distinct operating action (Para. [0019] teaches that Transmission Command Signals TC are generated according to Transmission Control Unit 90 to control Front and Rear Derailleurs 70 and 74 such that it is understood that any specific Transmission Command Signal TC corresponds to a distinct operating action of Front and Rear Derailleurs 70 and 74), the method comprising:
i) receiving a user input electric signal (Command Communication Path 102, Fig. 2), obtained from actuation of a single switch (either of Up 98A or Down 98B Switches, Fig. 2) of a user interface (Manually Operated Shift Command Unit 98, Fig. 2 and Para. [0014]) comprising a plurality of switches (Manually Operated Shift Command Unit 98 comprising Up 98A and Down 98B Switches, Fig. 2), and
ii) based on both the actuated switch (98A or 98B) and a comparison of an operating time (Time Intervals P, Q, and R, Fig. 3) with at least a first predetermined time threshold (Time Interval X, Time Interval Y, or alternatively a time of zero, Fig. 3A) and a second predetermined time threshold (Time Interval Y, a time of zero, or alternatively Time Interval X, Fig. 3A; see also Para. [0016]), generating a command signal (Command Communication Path 94, Fig. 2) for controlling a single electric device (82 or 88) of the plurality of electric devices (82 and 88) in one single operation (Table 2- Para. [0020]- illustrates a plurality of command signals which control a single one of Front and Rear Derailleurs 70 and 74, e.g. any of the signals corresponding to a Present Gear Position being Front: 46 and Rear: 11-29 output a signal to only one of the Front and Rear Derailleurs 70 and 74),
wherein the operating time (P, Q, or R) is associated with a duration of actuation of the single switch (as taught in Para. [0016]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ichida further teaches measuring an elapsed time (P, Q, and R) since a detection of the actuation of the single switch (Para. [0016]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ichida further teaches that
- the plurality of electric devices (82 and 88) comprises a first electric device (Front Derailleur Motor 82) and a second electric device (Rear Derailleur Motor 88), each actuatable in at least two operating actions (Front 82 and Rear 88 Derailleur Motor understood to capable of performing at least upshift and downshift operations based on a pulling or releasing of Control Cables 78 and 86, Para. [0013]) of the plurality of operating actions, and wherein
- the plurality of switches (98A and 98B) comprises a first switch (Up Switch 98A) and a second switch (Down Switch 98B), wherein
if the elapsed time until conclusion of the actuation of the switch (P, Q, or R) is less than or equal to the first time threshold (X), generating a first command signal (a signal “S1” associated with a time interval P, Fig. 3A and Paras. [0016]-[0017]) if the single switch is the first switch (98A), and generating a second command signal (“S2”) if the single switch is the second switch (Para. [0017] teaches that the techniques of Figs. 3A-3E and Paras. [0016]-[0017] are used for both Up 98A or Down 98B Switches), and
if the elapsed time (P, Q, or R) is not less than the second time threshold (Y), generating a third command signal (a signal “S3” associated with a time interval R, Fig. 3C and Paras. [0016]-[0017]) if the single switch is the first switch (98A), and generating a fourth command signal (“S4”) if the single switch is the second switch(98B),
wherein the second time threshold (Y) is greater than the first time threshold (X).
Regarding Claim 4, Ichida further teaches that the first command signal (S1) and the second command signal (S2) control the first electric device (82), and wherein the third command signal (S3) and the fourth command signal (S4) control the second electric device (88) (Para. [0015] teaches that shift signals cause Front and Rear Derailleurs 70 and 74, powered by Front 82 and Rear 88 Derailleur Motors as understood by Fig. 2, to move in combination, such that it is understood that each of signals S1-S4 at least partially control each of Front 82 and Rear 88 Derailleur Motors).
Regarding Claim 5, Ichida further teaches that no command signal is generated if the elapsed time until conclusion of the actuation of the actuated switch (P, Q, or R) is less than a third predetermined time threshold (Time Interval X), the third threshold (X) being less than the first time threshold (where the first time threshold is Time Interval Y and the second time threshold is a time of zero; Para. [0016] teaches that when a time interval P is less than a predetermined time interval X no shift operation is performed, which is understood to mean that the Transmission Control Unit 90 does not send a signal to the Front 82 or Rear 88 Derailleur Motors).
Regarding Claim 6, Ichida further teaches that no command signal is generated if the elapsed time until conclusion of the actuation of the actuated switch (P, Q, or R) is less than the second time threshold (Time Interval X) and greater than the first time threshold (where the first time threshold is a time of zero; Para. [0016] teaches that when a time interval P is less than a predetermined time interval X no shift operation is performed, which is understood to mean that the Transmission Control Unit 90 does not send a signal to the Front 82 or Rear 88 Derailleur Motors).
Regarding Claim 7, Ichida further teaches configuring the first switch (98A) to be actuated by a user’s right hand, and configuring the second switch (98B) to be actuated by a user’s left hand (Manually Operated Shift Command Unit 98 being disposed on Handlebar 50 such that Up 98A and Down 98B Switches are understood to be within reach of either of a user’s left and right hands).
Regarding Claim 8, Ichida further teaches that the plurality of electric devices comprises at least two among a front derailleur, a rear derailleur, a transmission internal to a hub of the rear wheel, a saddle setting adjuster, an illumination device, and a cycle computer (the electric devices being a Front 82 and Rear 88 Derailleur Motor).
Regarding Claim 9, Ichida teaches a user interface (Manually Operated Shift Command Unit 98, Fig. 2 and Para. [0014]) comprising a plurality of switches (Up 98A and Down 98B Switches, Fig. 2), the user interface (98) configured to issue a plurality of different command signals (Command Communication Path 94, Fig. 2 and Transmission Command Signals TC, Para. [0014]) to each of a plurality of different electric devices (Front 82 and Rear 88 Derailleur Motor, Fig. 2) of a bicycle electronic system, wherein each electrical device of the plurality of different electric devices (82 and 88) is operable in a plurality of operating actions (Front 82 and Rear 88 Derailleur Motor understood to be capable of performing at least upshift and downshift operations based on a pulling or releasing of Control Cables 78 and 86, Para. [0013]),
wherein each command signal (TC) corresponds to a distinct operating action (Para. [0019] teaches that Transmission Command Signals TC are generated according to Transmission Control Unit 90 to control Front and Rear Derailleurs 70 and 74 such that it is understood that any specific Transmission Command Signal TC corresponds to a distinct operating action of Front and Rear Derailleurs 70 and 74), and
wherein each of the plurality of different command signals (94) is configured to control a single electric device (82 or 88) and each of the plurality of different command signals is based on both {an} actuated switch (98A and 98B) and a comparison of an operating time (Time Intervals P, Q, and R, Fig. 3) with at least a first predetermined time threshold (Time Interval X, Time Interval Y, or alternatively a time of zero, Fig. 3A) and a second predetermined time threshold (Time Interval Y, a time of zero, or alternatively Time Interval X, Fig. 3A; see also Para. [0016]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ichida further teaches that the user interface (98) is configured to measure an elapsed time (Time Intervals P, Q, and R, Fig. 3 and Para. [0016]) since a detection of the actuation of the single switch (82 or 88).
Regarding Claim 11, Ichida further teaches that the plurality of switches (98A and 98B) comprises a first switch (Up Switch 98A) and a second switch (Down Switch 98B), and
wherein the user interface (98) is configured to issue the plurality of different command signals to (94), at least, a first electric device (Front Derailleur Motor 82, Fig. 2) of the plurality of electric devices (82 and 88) and a second electric device (Rear Derailleur Motor 88, Fig. 2) of the plurality of electric devices (Manually Operated Shift Command Unit 98 issuing commands along Command Communication Paths 94 and 102 to Front and Rear Derailleur Motors 82 and 88 as illustrated in Fig. 2),
wherein if the elapsed time until conclusion of the actuation of the switch (P, Q, or R) is less than or equal to the first time threshold (X), generating a first command signal (a signal “S1” associated with a time interval P, Fig. 3A and Paras. [0016]-[0017]) if the single switch is the first switch (98A), and generating a second command signal (“S2”) if the single switch is the second switch (Para. [0017] teaches that the techniques of Figs. 3A-3E and Paras. [0016]-[0017] are used for both Up 98A or Down 98B Switches), and if the elapsed time (P, Q, or R) is not less than the second time threshold (Y), generating a third command signal (a signal “S3” associated with a time interval R, Fig. 3C and Paras. [0016]-[0017]) if the single switch is the first switch (98A), and generating a fourth command signal (“S4”) if the single switch is the second switch(98B),
wherein the second time threshold (Y) is greater than the first time threshold (X).
Regarding Claim 13, Ichida teaches a bicycle electronic system (the electronic system illustrated in Fig. 2 of Bicycle 10, Fig. 1) comprising the user interface (Manually Operated Shift Command Unit 98, Fig. 2) according to claim 9 (see the USC 102 rejection of claim 9 above), each of the plurality of different electric devices (82 and 88) configured to receive a plurality of different command signals (Front 82 and Rear 88 Derailleur Motor understood to receive at least upshift and downshift commands, Para. [0014]) from the user interface.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichida in view of MASUDA (US-20190300092-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ichida does not teach a plurality of manual control devices each including a single switch.
MASUDA teaches, in another user interface comprising a plurality of switches (Fig. 2), a plurality of manual control devices (First and Second Operating Members 26, 28, 36, and 38, Fig. 2), each including only one of a plurality of switches (each of the Operating Members 26, 28, 36, and 38 being configured to operate a corresponding Switch SW1, SW2, SW3, and SW4 as taught in Fig. 2 and Paras. [0067]-[0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ichida and MASUDA in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ichida’s user interface to include a plurality of manual control devices each including a single switch as suggested by MASUDA. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing discrete operator controls that would beneficially make a more user-friendly user interface.
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 JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 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, Ph.D. 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 JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights