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 .
Examiner Aniss Chad is the new examiner of record in this application.
This action is in response to the amendments filed 2/2/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments previous prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily argues that the description of "modes" in Sonderegger is not expressly or inherently tied in any way to the motor of the bicycle. (See Sonderegger, throughout). Other than a display mode or dark mode (Sonderegger, col. 5, lines 52-58), Sonderegger only vaguely mentions that the "second user interface element 222 can, for instance, be used to receive a user input to switch modes for the bicycle 100 or one or more other components associated with the bicycle 100." (Sonderegger, Col. 7, lines 24-26). This disclosure does not explicitly or inherently tie the alleged third control signal to a control of the e-bike motor in any. Therefore, Sonderegger does not disclose "control an e-bike motor of the bicycle via the first communication interface based on the first control signal and the received third control signal."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claimed limitation “control an e-bike motor of the bicycle via the first communication interface based on the first control signal and the received third control signal” does not require that the mode-switching input (second user interface element 222) be the signal that controls the motor. Sonderegger expressly discloses that the electronic device controls the motor of the bicycle via the wired connector (the first communication interface). Specifically, Sonderegger teaches: “The electronic device 112 may communicate with the motor controller 312 so that the electronic device 112 can monitor operations or properties of the motor controller 312 or provide control commands to adjust operations by the motor controller 312.” (col. 8, ln. 1–4.). This communication occurs “via a medium, such as a Controller Area Network (CAN bus) or other channel” (col. 6, ln. 51–56), which constitutes the wired first communication interface (connector 210). Sonderegger is expressly directed to electric bicycles and their monitoring/control (col. 1, ln. 11–14; col. 4, ln. 37–41).
Sonderegger teaches an input in communication with the processor and supported by the housing, the input being configured to generate a first control signal based on a first user input and a second control signal based on a second user input. Specifically, Sonderegger discloses a first user interface element (220) and a second user interface element (222) supported by the housing (upper portion 201; FIG. 2A) and forming part of a user interface (334) in communication with the processor (330) (col. 7, nl. 14–22). The first user interface element (220) generates a first control signal responsive to a first user input (e.g., an input to activate or deactivate the bicycle) (col. 6, ln. 19–23), and the second user interface element (222) generates a second control signal responsive to a second user input (e.g., an input to switch modes of the bicycle) (col. 6, ln. 23–26). Additionally, Sonderegger teaches a single input element configured to generate a first (ordinary) control signal upon normal selection and a distinct second (reset) control signal when held for a period of time during startup (col. 4, ln. 47–52; col. 8, ln. 27–37), thereby teaching the generation of both a first and a second control signal from an input based on two different user inputs.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sonderegger et al. (US 10,472,015).
Regarding claim 1, Sonderegger discloses:
An interface comprising:
a housing attachable to a first frame part of a bicycle (Fig. 1B:112; col. 5., ln. 32-33);
a processor supported by the housing (Fig. 3A:112; col. 8, ln. 12-13);
a first communication interface and a second communication interface in communication with the processor (col. 7, ln. 19-20; col. 5, ln. 22--24), and
an input in communication with the processor and supported by the housing (Fig. 2A), the input being configured to generate a first control signal based on a first user input (col. 7, ln. 20-23) and a second control signal based on a second user input (col. 5, ln. 22-26: other devices; col. 7, ln. ln. 59-63: smartphone),
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a third control signal via the second communication interface (col. 7, ln. 24-26) and
control an e-bike motor of the bicycle via the first communication interface based on the first control signal (col. 7, ln. 20-23: activate/deactivate motor of bicycle) and the received third control signal (col. 7, ln. 24-26: switch modes for the bicycle),
wherein the second control signal executes a program (col. 5, ln. 22-26: other devices; col. 7, ln. ln. 59-63: smartphone- enables execution of programs such as updating the electronic device).
As per claims 2-4, as above whereby the input is a physical user interface (buttons as shown in Fig. 2A; col. 1, ln. 41-46; touchscreen of conventional smartphone (col. 7, ln. 59-62)). The length of time of the press would at least be long enough to register an input. Also see col. 6, ln. 18–26; col. 4, ln. 44–45.
As per claims 7, 14 and 15, as above whereby the second control signal from the smartphone would have initially required pairing since Bluetooth protocols required that device be paired to enable communication (col. 5, ln. 22-26). Sonderegger further discloses that the various communication interfaces may be either wired or wireless (col. 7, ln. 59-63; col. 8, ln. 23-37). Also see col. 2, ln. 29–33; col. 5, ln. 55–61; col. 7, ln. 19–22
As per claims 8 and 9, as above whereby the third control signal may be generated by a control device attached to the handlebars of the bicycle (Fig. 1A:130; col. 8, ln. 30-44) whereas the first control signal is generated by a control device attached to the top tube of the frame (Fig. 1A:112).
As per claims 10, 11 and 13, as above whereby a display may be provided (Fig. 3A:324) which may display at least one characteristic of the bicycle such as battery power (col. 5, ln. 59-61). Also see col. 6, ln. 63–67; col. 6, ln. 56–58; FIG. 1A–1B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 12, 16 and 17 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANISS CHAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00pm EST.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/ANISS CHAD/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights