DETAILED ACTION
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 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Drayna has been introduced to teach the amended limitations regarding wired connections. The examiner would like to note the claims do not require the electrical line to directly supply the first electric actuator and controller with electrical energy or to directly transmit control signals. Ogawa teaches at least an indirect connection between the control unit 15 and the controller 41 and/or 42 through the battery 8. That connection at least causes the battery to supply power to the first electric actuator and controller and supplying the controller with power causes the automatic transmission of control signals.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections are overcome by the present amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-2, 5-9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. CN 109424275 A (hereinafter Ogawa) in view of DE 102005041268 A1 (hereinafter DE ‘268) and Drayna US 10800378 B1 (hereinafter Drayna).
In regards to claim 1, Ogawa teaches a method for controlling a frame lock (30) of a vehicle (1) that comprises an electric drive motor (6), a control unit (15) , unlocking control part and control part of the electric bicycle; note para 83 and 112) for controlling the drive motor (paras 82-83) and a frame lock (30) attached to a frame of the vehicle (see fig 1), wherein the frame lock has a closing hoop (32B), which can be manually brought by a user (via 35) from an open position (see fig 6) into a closed position (see fig 7), and an electrically actuatable (para 86) locking element (36) that locks the closing hoop in the closed position and that can be moved by a first electric actuator (43) into an unlocking position releasing the closing hoop (paras 85-86),wherein the first electric actuator of the frame lock is connected to the control unit and receives an unlocking signal from the control unit for moving the locking element into the unlocking position releasing the closing hoop when the control unit is switched on (para 91) or off; wherein a controller (41 and/or 42) is associated with the first electric actuator of the frame lock (para 94 and fig 8), wherein the controller is connected (at least indirectly; such as through the battery) to the control unit (see para 91 and 106) via a first connection, wherein the first connection to supply the first electric actuator of the frame lock and the controller with electrical energy (paras 91-92; at least indirectly), and the first connection also serves to transmit control signals (at least indirectly see para 20 and note para 116).
However, Ogawa does not teach locking the hoop in the open position.
DE ‘268 teaches locking a closing hoop both in the open position (when engaged with 13) and in the closed position (when engaged with 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Ogawa with the means to lock in the open state in order to prevent a child from moving the frame lock to the closed state during movement, improving safety (DE ‘268 para 8).
Additionally, Ogawa does not teach the first electric actuator of the frame lock is connected to the control unit in a wired manner and the first connection is a wired connection via an electrical line. This is very common in the art.
Drayna teaches a similar wired connections via an electrical line (Col 17 lines 33-50).
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 first electric actuator of the frame lock is connected to the control unit in a wired manner and the first connection of Ogawa as a wired connection via an electrical line in order to provide a well-known, conventional way of communication between electrical components.
In regards to claim 2, and Drayna teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the control unit carries out an authentication of the user when switching on and only transmits an unlocking signal to the first electric actuator of the frame lock if the user has been positively authenticated (via identification information of 50, see paras 91-92).
In regards to claim 5, Ogawa in view of DE ‘268 and Drayna teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Ogawa is silent on wherein the first electric actuator of the frame lock, after receiving the unlocking signal, moves the locking element into the unlocking position releasing the closing hoop for a first predetermined time period.
DE ‘268 teaches the first electric actuator of the frame lock, after receiving the unlocking signal, moves the locking element into the unlocking position releasing the closing hoop for a first predetermined time period (para 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have the first electric actuator move the locking element into the unlocking position releasing the closing hoop for a first predetermined time period in order to improve security in the case the device was accidentally unlocked (also note DE ‘268 para 7).
In regards to claim 6, Ogawa in view of DE ‘268 and Drayna teaches the method according to claim 5.
However, Ogawa is silent on wherein the first predetermined time period is a period of up to several tens of seconds. DE ‘268 gives an example of a range of “about one second or several seconds”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first predetermined time period be a period of up to several tens of seconds, 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 7, Ogawa in view of DE ‘268 and Drayna teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the control unit is connected to a sensor (Ogawa “the locking position sensor” para 86) for detecting the open position and closed position of the closing hoop (Ogawa para 86) and the control unit confirms a locking of the frame lock to the user and then shuts down if the closing hoop was brought from the open position into the closed position within the first predetermined time period, or outputs an error message (Ogawa “output warning is unlocked (not locked) state” para 102) to the user and then shuts down if the closing hoop was not brought from the open position into the closed position within the first predetermined time period (DE ‘268 teaching the predetermined time period, para 102 of Ogawa teaching error if not locked).
In regards to claim 8, Ogawa in view of DE ‘268 and Drayna teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the control unit is connected to a sensor (Ogawa “the locking position sensor” para 86) for detecting the open position and closed position of the closing hoop (Ogawa para 86) and the control unit confirms an opening of the frame lock to the user (via the “the unlocking sound” Ogawa para 95) if the closing hoop was brought from the closed position into the open position within the first predetermined time period (Ogawa para 95), or outputs an error message to the user if the closing hoop was not brought from the closed position into the open position within the first predetermined time period.
In regards to claim 9, Ogawa in view of DE ‘268 and Drayna teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the closing hoop can be brought from the open position into the closed position against the spring force of a return spring (34, para 86 and see fig 12).
In regards to claim 18, Ogawa teaches a vehicle (1) comprising an electric drive motor (6), a control unit (15, unlocking control part and control part of the electric bicycle; note para 83 and 112) for controlling the drive motor, a frame (see fig 1) and a frame lock (30) attached to the frame (see fig 1), wherein the frame lock has a closing hoop (32B), which can be manually brought by a user (via 35) from an open position (see fig 6) into a closed position (see fig 7), and an electrically actuatable (para 86) locking element (36) that locks the closing hoop in the closed position and that can be moved by an electric actuator (43) of the frame lock into an unlocking position releasing the closing hoop, wherein the electric actuator of the frame lock is connected to the control unit (see fig 8), and wherein the control unit is configured such that, when switching on (para 91) and off (see para 95), said control unit transmits a respective unlocking signal to the electric actuator of the frame lock for moving the locking element into the unlocking position releasing the closing hoop (see paras 91 and 95); wherein a controller (41 and/or 42) is associated with the first electric actuator of the frame lock (para 94 and fig 8), wherein the controller is connected to the control unit (see para 91 and 106) via a first connection, wherein the first connection to supply the first electric actuator of the frame lock and the controller with electrical energy (paras 91-92; at least indirectly), and the first connection also serves to transmit control signals (at least indirectly see para 20 and note para 116).
However, Ogawa does not teach locking the hoop in the open position.
DE ‘268 teaches locking a closing hoop both in the open position (when engaged with 13) and in the closed position (when engaged with 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Ogawa with the means to lock in the open state in order to prevent a child from moving the frame lock to the closed state during movement, improving safety (DE ‘268 para 8)
Additionally, Ogawa does not teach the electric actuator of the frame lock is connected to the control unit in a wired manner and the first connection is a wired connection via an electrical line. This is very common in the art.
Drayna teaches a simila wired connections via an electrical line (Col 17 lines 33-50).
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 electric actuator of the frame lock is connected to the control unit in a wired manner and the first connection of Ogawa as a wired connection via an electrical line in order to provide a well-known, conventional way of communication between electrical components.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of DE ‘268 and Drayna as applied to claims 1-2, 5-9, and 18 above, and further in view of Nishihara et al. DE 102019206546 A1 (hereinafter Nishihara).
In regards to claim 10, Ogawa in view of DE ‘268 and Drayna teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Ogawa does not teach wherein the control unit is connected to an electric actuator of a battery compartment lock by which the battery compartment lock can be unlocked to enable a removal of a battery received in the battery compartment.
Nishihara wherein the control unit (32) is connected to an electric actuator (26) of a battery compartment lock (see figs 1, 6, and para 67) by which the battery compartment lock can be unlocked to enable a removal of a battery (40) received in the battery compartment (see fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Ogawa with a battery compartment lock such as in Nishihara in order to allow swapping of the battery while improving comfort (Nishihara paras 4 and 71).
In regards to claim 11, Ogawa in view of DE ‘268, Drayna and Nishihara teaches the method according to claim 10.
However, Ogawa does not teach wherein the control unit is connected in a wired manner to the electric actuator of the battery compartment lock.
Nishihara teaches connection using electrical wires (see para 81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have the control unit is connected in a wired manner to the electric actuator in order to provide a well-known, simple and cost effective means of electrically connecting the control unit to the actuator.
In regards to claim 12, Ogawa in view of DE ‘268 and Drayna and Nishihara teaches the method according to claim 10 wherein the control unit transmits an unlocking signal for unlocking the battery compartment lock to the electric actuator of the battery compartment lock in response to a manual user input at the control unit (Ogawa para 89 describes unlocking in response to the power button; this would logically flow to include the battery unlocking as well).
In regards to claim 15, Ogawa in view of DE ‘268, Drayna and Nishihara teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein the electric actuator of the battery compartment lock, after receiving the unlocking signal, unlocks the battery compartment lock for a second predetermined time period (Nishihara paras 90-91, first example; also note para 88).
In regards to claim 16, Ogawa in view of DE ‘268, Drayna and Nishihara teaches the method according to any one of the claims 15.
However, Ogawa does not teach wherein the second predetermined time period is a period of up to several tens of seconds.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second predetermined time period be a period of up to several tens of seconds, 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 17, Ogawa in view of DE ‘268, Drayna and Nishihara teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein the actuator of the battery compartment lock locks the battery compartment lock again after the second predetermined time period has elapsed and the battery has not been removed (Nishihara para 91, the battery would not need to be removed for this to occur) and, in the event of a switching off of the control unit, the control unit shuts down (as the power supply is electrically removed from it; see Ogawa paras 17 and 103; also note paras 90 and 112).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 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.
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 PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights