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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on November 26, 2025.
Claims 19 and 20 have been canceled.
Claim 21 has been newly added.
Claims 7-18 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-6 and 21 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-6 in the reply filed on November 26, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination can be done without serious burden regardless of whether the claim set includes independent or distinct inventions. This is not found persuasive because Group I, claims 1-6, are directed to a control device capable of altering a component of a bicycle via an actuator; while Group II and Group III are related as subcombinations and can be used together in a single combination. However, Group Il, claims 7-18 are directed to generating user notifications based on data obtained from a machine learning engine. Additionally, Group IlI, claims 19-20 (now canceled) are directed to a training system including one or more training devices and configured to enable virtual experiences, making them distinct inventions.
The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made final.
Examiner’s note: since newly added claim 21 appears to recite similar features as claim 1, said claim has been examined under Group I.
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, 4-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shami, US-PGPub. No. 20180222473.
As per claims 1 and 21, Shami teaches a monitoring system (Paragraph(s) [0022-0025]) comprising:
one or more sensors operably coupled with a bicycle (Fig. 1, Paragraph(s) [0035]);
an energy source operably coupled with the bicycle (Paragraph(s) [0016], [0023]; i.e. electrically-assisted bicycle);
an actuator operably coupled with the energy source (Paragraph(s) [0023]) and configured to alter a component of the bicycle (Paragraph(s) [0041]; the electronic instruction signals may include instructions pertaining to the operation of the personal mobility device as to avoid a potential future collision or mitigate potential harm or damage caused by the potential future collision. For example, the device 14 may execute a collision avoidance application that, based on input received via a camera, can determine when a braking device or electric assist mechanism should be actuated such that the personal mobility device 12 can safely avoid such collision);
a control device operably coupled with the energy source and configured to provide energy from the energy source to the component (Fig. 1, Paragraph(s) [0003], [0027]; the electric assist may be any type of powered system or component that can assist the operator in providing propulsion. Device 12 may include an internal combustion engine system in place or in addition to an electric assist mechanism. The electric assist can be controlled by the controller and may be actuated by an operator via one or more interfacing means, such as a throttle device attached to a handle bar of the device 12); and
a controller operably coupled with the one or more sensors and the control device (Fig. 1 – controller 84, Paragraph(s) [0024-0025]), the controller configured to:
receive data from the one or more sensors (Paragraph(s) [0041]; device 14 may execute a collision avoidance application that, based on input received via a camera, can determine when a braking device or electric assist mechanism should be actuated such that the personal mobility device 12 can safely avoid such collision. Shami further discloses the collision avoidance application can capture images using one or more cameras of the handheld mobile device to determine at least one collision risk factor that is indicative of the magnitude of risk of a potential collision between the personal mobility device and one or more nearby objects (see Paragraph [0016]). Shami also teaches a stereo camera (or stereoscopic camera) or other camera with multiple lenses or separate image sensors may be used (see Paragraph [0035])); and
provide an instruction to the control device based on the data from the one or more sensors to alter or provide energy from the energy source to the actuator to alter a component of the bicycle (Paragraph(s) [0016], ]0041], [0056]; the electronic instruction signals may include instructions pertaining to the operation of the personal mobility device as to avoid a potential future collision or mitigate potential harm or damage caused by the potential future collision. For example, the device 14 may execute a collision avoidance application that, based on input received via a camera, can determine when a braking device or electric assist mechanism should be actuated such that the personal mobility device 12 can safely avoid such collision).
As per claim 2, Shami teaches wherein the one or more sensors is an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that measures a specific force, angular rate, or an orientation of a portion of the bicycle (Paragraph(s) [0002], [0011], [0037], [0039]).
As per claim 4, Shami teaches a regenerative system configured to generate electric power during operation of the bicycle, the electric power supplied to the energy source, wherein the regenerative system operates in a power running state to drive the bicycle and a regenerative running state as to generate the electric power during deceleration of the bicycle (Paragraph(s) [0023], [0025], [0027]).
As per claim 5, Shami teaches wherein the regenerative system is actuated between the power running state and the regenerative running state based on a manual input (Paragraph(s) [0023]).
As per claim 6, Shami teaches wherein the regenerative system is actuated between the power running state and the regenerative running state on previously captured or current sensor data from the one or more s
ensors (Paragraph(s) [0027-0028]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shami, US-PGPub. No. 20180222473 in view of Yamane et al “Yamane”, US-PGPub. No. 20210001490.
As per claim 2, Shami fails to expressly teach but Yamane teaches wherein the one or more sensors is an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that measures a specific force, angular rate, or an orientation of a portion of the bicycle (Paragraph(s) [0056]; the motion optimization controller 140 may compute the desired link angular velocities (ω)m from the operator's limb orientations measured by IMUs or sensors. Yamane further teaches that the term “vehicle” includes cars, trucks, vans, minivans, SUVs, motorcycles, scooters, boats, personal watercraft, and aircraft (Yamane - Paragraph(s) [0023])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to modify the teaching of Shami to include IMU as taught by Yamane in order to better optimize the motion of a moving vehicle.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shami, US-PGPub. No. 20180222473 in view of Greenblatt, US-PGPub. No. 20210094639.
As per claim 3, Shami teaches the monitoring system of claim 1, further comprising:
an electrical input operably coupled with the energy source (Paragraph(s) [0016], [0023], [0027]).
Shami fails to teach but Greenblatt teaches a bicycle rack configured to store the bicycle in a predefined boundary, the bicycle rack including a support arm coupled to a base structure, wherein the electrical input is electrically coupled with a rack contact while the bicycle is supported by the bicycle rack (Paragraph(s) [0029]; the rack 10 may include a charger or charging station that can be used to charge the scooters 66. The charger/charging station may include a power source, e.g. a battery, a generator, etc., and a plurality of plugs, each of which may be connected to a scooter once the scooter has been placed within one of the plurality of slots. Moreover, in some embodiments, the plugs may be excluded and the scooter may be charged by wireless charging).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to modify the teaching of Shami to have a rack that includes a charger or charging station that can be used to charge scooters/bikes when placed on the rack as taught by Greenblatt in order to provide more convenient way of charging electrically powered vehicles (i.e. scooters, e-bikes, etc.) (Greenblatt - (Paragraph(s) [0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454