DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 18/778997 filed 7/21/2024.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/28/24 has been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-In paragraph [0055], line 2, the term “switching” should be changed to the term “shifting”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-In claim 6, line 2, the term “switching” should be changed to the term “shifting”.
-In claim 8, line 2, the term “of” should be inserted after the term “ascertainment”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-“a control unit (generic placeholder) configured to operate the gear shifting mechanism (function)” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claim 1 recites the limitation "the current travel situation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 3 recites the limitation "the number of gear changes" in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention lacks patentable utility. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. The "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid…..nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Currently, the claims as written, especially using the limitation “ascertaining and ascertainment” and the limitation “given a gear change” in claim 2 is being considered a “metal process” that can in part, be performed mentally without the use of a physical aid (i.e., computer). Examiner suggest applicant amend the claims to incorporate what is being used to operate and control the invented method as recited.
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(s) 1-3, 7, 9, 11-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caillaud et al 20250282447 (corresponding to IDS cited WO 2022112504) in view of EP 3127799. As to claim 1, Caillaud discloses a method for controlling a gear shifting mechanism of a bicycle, comprising: ascertaining a reference shifting point (as shown in Figure 11); ascertaining the current travel situation of the bicycle (as described in [0199]); and ascertaining a target shifting point by adjusting the reference shifting point (as shown in Figure 11 via E1-E3). However, Caillaud doesn’t disclose determining a shifting hysteresis based on the current travel situation ascertained; and adjusting the reference shifting point by way of the shifting hysteresis determined to ascertain the target shifting point.
EP discloses a method for controlling a gear shifting mechanism of a bicycle, and shows that it is well known in the art to determine a shifting hysteresis ([0069] and claim 4) based on a current travel situation ascertained ([0046]); and adjusting a reference shifting point (available gear ratios) by way of the shifting hysteresis determined.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Caillaud with a shifting hysteresis determination in view of EP to improve efficiency, performance and comfort for driver during high and low power operation of bicycle.
As to claim 2, Caillaud discloses wherein the reference shifting point is ascertained such that, given a gear change at the reference shifting point, a change in pedaling cadence caused by the gear change is symmetrical to a reference pedaling cadence (Figure 11 shows that the shifting points across top of graph match R1-R7 cadence widths).
As to claim 3, Caillaud in view of EP discloses wherein: in a first travel situation (high power; [0069] in EP), a reduction of the shifting hysteresis is performed in order to reduce a deviation of an actual pedaling cadence from the reference pedaling cadence, and/or in a second travel situation (low power; [0069] in EP), an increase of the shifting hysteresis is performed in order to reduce the number of gear changes.
As to claim 7, Caillaud in view of EP discloses further comprising: ascertaining a constant rate of travel as the current travel situation; and decreasing the shifting hysteresis in response to the ascertainment of the constant rate of travel (maintain high power during acceleration; [0069] in EP).
As to claim 9, Caillaud in view of EP discloses further comprising: ascertaining an ascent as the current travel situation; and increasing the shifting hysteresis in response to the ascertainment of the ascent ([0082] in EP).
As to claim 11, Caillaud in view of EP discloses wherein the ascertainment of the current travel situation of the bicycle is performed by way of sensor data from a sensor of the bicycle which comprises one or more of the following sensor data: slope, acceleration, speed, pedal torque, and pedaling cadence ([0046] in EP).
As to claim 12, Caillaud discloses further comprising: ascertaining a shifting speed at the target shifting point based on a gear ratio of the bicycle ([0172]); sensing a speed ([0072]); and actuating a gear change when the sensed speed reaches the shifting speed ([0172]).
As to claim 13, Caillaud discloses wherein: the gear shifting mechanism of the bicycle comprises multiple gear steps, and a separate target shifting point is ascertained for each gear change between all of the gear steps (as shown in Figure 11).
As to claim 14, Caillaud in view of EP discloses a shifting system of a bicycle, comprising: a gear shifting mechanism (700 in Caillaud and 214 in EP); and a control unit (800 in Caillaud and 318 in EP) configured to operate the gear shifting mechanism, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the method according to claim 1.
As to claim 15, Caillaud discloses an electric bicycle (via 400), comprising the gear shifting system according to claim 14.
As to claim 17, Caillaud in view of EP discloses wherein the ascertainment of the current travel situation of the bicycle is performed by way of sensor data from a sensor of the bicycle ([0046] in EP).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8, 10 and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record doesn’t disclose or render obvious a motivation to provide for:
-(as to claim 4 in combination with the limitations in claim 1 exactly as written)…... wherein a target upshifting point and a target downshifting point are ascertained for each reference shifting point, respectively, by adjusting the reference shifting point by way of the shifting hysteresis.
-per applicant’s response to the 101 rejection above, reasons for allowability of claim 8 will not be indicated at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Hahn 12005994 (column 5, lines 17-67) and Jordan 20220094906 ([0042]) show that it is well known in the art to adjust shifts by way of shifting hysteresis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights