DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9, 11-19, 21-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9, 11-19, 21-23 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of “the at least one component selected from the group consisting of …” is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the alternatives defined comprise computer units, mechanical components, power supply units, and measurement units that do not share structural similarity and common use.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claims 2-9, 11-19, 21-23 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13-19, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fyfe et al. [US 20190363568] in view of Kato et al. [US 20170012455].
As to claim 1. Fyfe discloses A memory device for a human-powered vehicle, the memory device comprising:
a memory, [fig. 2, 0037] data hub 102 integrated with a bicycle 103 comprises a memory 222;
a first communicator configured to perform communication with at least one component provided on the human-powered vehicle, [0025, 0028] the data hub receives signals from data sources 120 integrated with the bicycle 103, including onboard sensors, which requires a communicator to receive the data from the sensors; and
an electronic controller, [fig. 2, 0037] processor 220, configured to control the memory, [fig. 5, 0070-0072] processor stores data from sensors into the memory data buffer 246, so that the memory stores log-related information, [0083, 0084] hub 102 stores information related to the bicycle in the memory 222, received from the at least one component, [0083] information received from sensors on the bicycle;
the electronic controller being configured to control a second communicator, [fig. 2, 0035] communicator 214, so that the second communicator transmits the log-related information stored in the memory to a component that is separate from the memory device, [0055, 0064, 0073] send stored information to a server,
the electronic controller being configured to control the at least one component to transmit the log-related information to the memory device upon determining that the at least one component has been operated, [0036] power meter on a crank of the bicycle sends sensed power applied to a pedal, the at least one component includes at least one selected from the group consisting of: a cycle computer, a drive unit, a transmission device, an adjustable seatpost, a suspension, a brake device, a lamp, a battery unit, a transmission operating device, and a power meter, [0025, 0026].
Fyfe fails to disclose wherein the first communicator communicates through a first communication line.
Kato teaches a bicycle system comprising local components 10, 20, [fig. 1], wherein the components communicate through a power line communication line 50, [fig. 1, 0069].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fyfe with that of Kato so that the system can communicate with onboard and local components reliably.
As to claim 2. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 1, further comprising a base, the memory being provided on the base and the base being configured to be arranged in a cavity of a frame of the human-powered vehicle, [fig. 13, 0090].
As to claim 3. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 2, wherein: the base includes an accommodation compartment that accommodates the memory and the electronic controller, [fig. 13, 0090].
As to claim 4. Fyfe fails to disclose The memory device according to claim 2, further comprising: a first communication line connector provided on the base and connected to the first communication line.
Kato teaches a bicycle control system comprising local components 10, 20, [fig. 1], communicating through a power line communication line 50, [fig. 1, 0069]; wherein a connector is required for the line to be able to connect to the component.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fyfe with that of Kato so that the system can communicate sensor data reliably.
As to claim 5. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 1, wherein:
the memory device is configured to be supplied with electric power from a battery, [0034], that is separate from the memory device, [0034].
Fyfe fails to disclose the memory device is configured to be supplied with electric power from the battery through the first communication line.
Kato teaches a bicycle control system comprising local components 10, 20, [fig. 1], communicating through a power line communication line 50, [fig. 1, 0069], to a battery that supplies power to the devices, [0067, 0068].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fyfe with that of Kato so that the system can communicate sensor data reliably using the same connection used for providing power.
As to claim 6. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 1,
wherein the memory device is configured to be supplied with electric power from a battery that is separate from the memory device, [0034].
Fyfe fails to disclose through a power line, the memory device further comprising: a power line connector connected to the power line.
Kato teaches a bicycle control system comprising local components 10, 20, [fig. 1], communicating through a power line communication line 50, [fig. 1, 0069]; wherein a connector is required for the line to be able to connect to the component.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fyfe with that of Kato so that the system can communicate sensor data reliably.
As to claim 7. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 1, wherein: the second communicator is configured to perform at least one of wired communication and wireless communication with the component that is separate from the memory device, [fig. 2, 0042, 0044, 0055] communicator 214 implemented as one or more wireless transceiver.
As to claim 8. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 2, further comprising: a display provided on the base, [fig. 2, 0040].
As to claim 9. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 2, further comprising: a first operating portion provided on the base, [fig. 2, 0040] user interface 260.
As to claim 11. Is rejected using the same prior art and reasoning as to that of claim 7.
As to claim 13. Fyfe discloses the memory device according to claim 1, wherein the memory device excludes an electric actuator and a display, [fig. 2] the memory 222 does not include the display and actuator.
As to claim 14. Fyfe discloses the memory device according to claim 13, the memory device differing from the cycle computer, the assist drive unit, the transmission device, the adjustable seatpost, the suspension, the brake device, the lamp, and the battery unit, [figs. 2, 12] the memory 222 is its own component.
As to claim 15. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 1, wherein the log-related information includes sensing information obtained from a sensor by the at least one component, [0036].
As to claim 16. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second operating portion, [fig. 2, 0041] display 228;
the electronic controller being configured to control the at least one component so that the at least one component transmits the log-related information to the memory device in a case where the second operating portion is operated, [0041].
As to claim 17. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic controller is configured to control the memory so that the memory stores the log-related information upon receipt of the log-related information, [0037, 0083, 0084].
As to claim 18. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic controller is configured to control the at least one component so that the at least one component transmits the log-related information to the memory device in a case where the at least one component provided on the human-powered vehicle is operated, [0037, 0042, 0083] processor 220 implements the functionality of the data hub 102 to store sensor information on the memory.
As to claim 19. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic controller is configured to control the at least one component so that the at least one component transmits the log-related information to the memory device upon receipt of an acquisition instruction of the log-related information, [0042] processor reads sensors.
As to claim 21. Fyfe discloses the memory device according to claim 1, wherein the memory device and the at least one component are both configured to be supplied with electric power from a battery, [0030, 0034] battery supplies power to the components of the hub 102, [0090] which includes the memory.
As to claim 22. Fyfe discloses the memory device according to claim 1, wherein the battery is separate from the memory device, [fig. 2].
As to claim 23. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 1, wherein the log-related information includes information regarding at least one selected from the group consisting of: a torque based on a human driving force, a power based on the human driving force, [0036] power applied to a pedal, a rotational speed of a crank axle, a traveling speed of the human-powered vehicle, an acceleration of the human-powered vehicle, an inclination angle of the human- powered vehicle, a second torque based on an assist force, a second power based on the assist force, an assist mode, a transmission ratio, a transmission operation signal, a braking force, an operated amount of a brake operating device, a height of the adjustable seatpost, an actuation time of the adjustable seatpost, an operation signal regarding the adjustable seatpost, a level of a battery, an internal temperature of the battery, an electric power consumption of the battery, a voltage of the battery, an internal temperature of the at least one component, an electric power consumption of at least one of an actuator and a substrate included in the at least one component, a voltage in a circuit of at least one of the actuator and the substrate included in the at least one component, and a time on a clock included in the at least one component.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fyfe in view of Kato as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Stephens et al. [US 20230202608].
As to claim 12. Fyfe discloses The memory device according to claim 1, wherein the memory device is configured to control the second communicator so that the second communicator transmits the log-related information to the component that is separate from the memory device, [0036].
The combination of Fyfe and Kato fails to disclose wherein the communication is via a component provided on the human-powered vehicle.
Stephens teaches an electric bicycle object detection system comprising a controller 215 mounted on a bicycle 200 with a memory to store object detection information, [0154]; wherein the controller sends data to a remote system through a communication device 230, [0065].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Fyfe and Kato with that of Stephens so that the communication device can be used to integrate other components in the bicycle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: The prior arts on file fail to teach the newly amended limitations.
Response 1: The Office Action is amended to address the newly amended limitations as detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688