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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were/was submitted on 06/02/2025. The information disclosure statement(s) have/has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
No claims are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1, 11, and 20, are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 will be examined.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Claims” dated 08/22/2024.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11, and 20, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 11, of U.S. Patent No. 11117635. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of Patent US 11117635 and claim 11 is anticipated by claim 11 of Patent US 11117635 .
Claim 1 of patent US 11117635 recites, “A system for adjusting a damping force on a suspension system of a bicycle, comprising: a front shock sensor coupled to a front shock of the bicycle to generate a vertical front shock deflection signal representative of vertical deflection of the front shock; a rear shock sensor coupled to a rear shock of the bicycle to generate a vertical rear shock deflection signal representative of vertical deflection of the rear shock; a processor coupled to the front shock sensor and the rear shock sensor, to: generate front shock velocity data representative of a vertical component of velocity of the front shock based upon the vertical front shock deflection signal, generate rear shock velocity data representative of a vertical component of velocity of the rear shock based upon the vertical rear shock deflection signal, generate zenith position data for the front shock representative of a vertical displacement based on the vertical front shock deflection signal, and generate a front shock regression curve fit analysis based upon the front shock velocity data and zenith position data and generate zenith position data for the rear shock representative of a vertical displacement based on the vertical rear shock deflection signal, and generate a rear shock regression curve fit analysis based upon the velocity and zenith position data; and a display coupled to the processor configured to simultaneously generate a visual representation of the velocity to zenith position data based upon the front shock regression curve fit analysis and the rear shock regression curve fit analysis computed for the front shock and the rear shock respectively, the visual representation comprising the front shock regression curve fit analysis and the rear shock regression curve fit analysis of the velocity data versus zenith position data for the front shock and the rear shock; wherein adjustments to the damping force of the front shock and rear shock are based upon a comparison of the front shock regression curve fit analysis relative to the rear shock regression curve fit analysis.” Furthermore, claim 22 of US 11117635 recites “approximation curve video signals”. Therefore Patent claims 1, and 22, of US 11117635 are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of this application claim 1. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 5 of patent US 11117635 recites, “A system for balancing a damping force on front and rear dampers of a full suspension bicycle, the system comprising: a front shock sensor coupled to a front shock of the bicycle to generate a vertical front shock deflection signal representative of vertical deflection of the front shock; a rear shock sensor coupled to a rear shock of the bicycle to generate a vertical rear shock deflection signal representative of vertical deflection of the rear shock; a processor coupled to the front shock sensor and the rear shock sensor, wherein the processor is coupled to the front shock to: generate front shock velocity data representative of a vertical component of velocity of the front shock based upon the vertical front shock deflection signal, generate zenith position data for the front shock representative of a vertical displacement based on the vertical front shock deflection signal, and generate a front shock regression line based upon the front shock velocity data and zenith position data; and the processor is coupled to the rear shock sensor to: generate rear shock velocity data representative of a vertical component of velocity of the rear shock based upon the rear shock deflection signal, generate zenith position data for the rear shock representative of a vertical displacement based on the vertical rear shock deflection signal, and generate a rear shock regression line based upon the rear shock velocity and zenith position data; wherein a front slope of the front shock regression line is compared to a rear slope of the rear shock regression line to establish recommended adjustments of the front shock and the rear shock, the recommended adjustments setting the front slope of the front shock regression line and the rear slope of the rear shock regression line within 15 of parallel..” Therefore Patent claim 5, of US 11117635 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of this application claim 5 “the processor computes the velocity and zenith position data for recorded events and generates front shock and rear shock regression lines of the velocity data versus zenith position data, wherein a slope of the front shock regression line is compared to a slope of the rear shock regression line to establish the recommended adjustments of the front shock and the rear shock, the recommended adjustments setting the front shock and rear shock regression line slopes within 15˚ of parallel.” It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 11 of patent US 11117635 recites, “A system for adjusting a damping force on a suspension system of a bicycle, comprising: a front shock sensor coupled to a front shock of the bicycle to generate a vertical fork acceleration signal representative of the vertical acceleration of the front shock; a rear shock sensor coupled to a rear shock of the bicycle to generate a vertical rear acceleration signal representative of the vertical acceleration of the rear shock; a processor coupled to the front shock sensor, to generate front shock velocity data representative of a vertical component of velocity of the front shock based upon the vertical fork acceleration signal, generate zenith position data for the front shock representative of a zenith position based on the acceleration signal of the front shock, wherein the front shock velocity data and the zenith position data for the front shock create a scatter-plot for the front shock, and wherein the processor generates a front shock regression line plot representative of the scatter- plot of the front shock; and the processor coupled to the rear shock sensor, to: generate rear shock velocity data representative of a vertical component of velocity of the rear shock based upon the vertical rear acceleration signal, generate zenith position data for the rear shock representative of a zenith position based on the acceleration signal of the rear shock,; wherein the rear shock velocity data and the zenith position data for the rear shock create a scatter-plot for the rear shock, and wherein the processor generates a rear shock regression line plot representative of the scatter-plot of the rear shock; and generate a balance of the front shock relative to the rear shock based on a comparison of the front shock regression line plot and the rear shock regression line plot.” Therefore Patent claim 11, of US 11117635 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of this application claim 11. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11117635. The claims at issue are identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 2 of Patent US 11117635.
Additionally claims 2-4, 6-10, and 12-19, are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over various claims of U.S. Patent No. 11117635. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the respective claims are anticipated by corresponding claims of Patent US 11117635 (see below table for said correspondence).
Instant Application claim
US 11117635 clam
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
N/A
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three-prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office reviewed the claims for terms containing limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f), and no terms are being interpreted as such.
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.
The claims are replete with terms which are not clear, concise, exact, and/or lack antecedent basis. The claims should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, indefinite, inexact or verbose terms used in the claims are listed below.
Claims 1-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the velocity data versus zenith position data” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim limitation in claim 1, line 21, has been interpreted as best understood by the Examiner as “velocity data versus zenith position data.”
The term “zenith position data” of claim 1, lines 19, and claim 2, line 4, is indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because the metes and bounds have not been established. Is “zenith position data”, referring to “zenith position data for the front shock” or “zenith position data for the rear shock”?
For the purpose of examination in this Office Action, claim 1, lines 19, and claim 2, line 4, has been interpreted as best understood by the Examiner as “the zenith position data for the front shock and the rear shock.”
The term “zenith position” of claim 4, line 2 is indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because the metes and bounds have not been established. Is “zenith position”, referring to the previously stated “zenith position” or a new “zenith position”?
For the purpose of examination in this Office Action, the limitation of claim 4, line 2 has been interpreted as best understood by the Examiner as “the zenith position, a velocity, and acceleration, a force, and work data”.
The terms “zenith position data,” “velocity data,” and “displacement signals” within claim 8,
are indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because the metes and bounds have not been established. Are “zenith position data,” “velocity data,” and “displacement signals,” within clam 8 referring to the same “zenith position data,” “velocity data,” and “displacement signals,” disclosed in claim 1?
For the purpose of examination in this Office Action, claim 8 terms “zenith position data,” “velocity data,” and “displacement signals,” have been interpreted as best understood by the Examiner as “the zenith position data,” “the velocity data,” and “the displacement signals,”
The term “series of deflection signals along a ride” of claim 9 is indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because the metes and bounds have not been established. Are “deflection signals” of claim 9 referring to “a vertical front shock deflection signal” of claim 1? Are “deflection signals” of claim 9 referring to “a vertical rear shock deflection signal” of claim 1? Are “deflection signals” of claim 9 referring to both “a vertical front shock deflection signal” and “a vertical rear shock deflection signal” of claim 1.
For the purpose of examination in this Office Action, the “series of deflection signals along a ride” of claim 9 has been interpreted as best understood by the Examiner as both “the vertical front shock deflection signal” and “the vertical rear shock deflection signal” of claim 1.
The term “a suspension system of the bicycle” in claim 20, lines 4-5 is indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because the metes and bounds have not been established. Is “a suspension system of the bicycle” within lines 4-5 referring to the same “suspension system for a bicycle” discloses in claim 20, line 1?
For the purpose of examination in this Office Action, claim 20, lines 4-5, have/has been interpreted as best understood by the Examiner as “the suspension system of the bicycle.”
Office Note: The previous paragraphs are a review of major issues of indefiniteness. However, the large number of indefiniteness errors in the claims may not be a complete list. Furthermore, once the cited errors are corrected, the corrections may very well bring up further questions of indefiniteness in the claims. Therefore, the Office recommends a complete review of the entirety of the presented claims 1 through 20.
The dependent claims 2-10, and 12-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to resolve the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate ¶¶ 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10-13, and 17-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WALTHERT et al., US 20160339989, herein further known as Walthert.
Regarding claim 1, Walthert discloses a system for adjusting a damping force on the suspension of a bicycle (claim 31, chassis controller for an at least partially human powered, two-wheeled vehicle (i.e. bicycle or motorcycle), comprising: a front shock sensor coupled to a front shock of a bicycle to generate a vertical front shock deflection signal representative of the vertical deflection of the front shock; a rear shock sensor coupled to a rear shock of a bicycle to generate a vertical rear deflection signal representative of the vertical deflection of the rear shock; a processor coupled to the sensors, to generate front shock velocity data representative of a vertical component of velocity of the front shock based upon the signals (¶¶ [0057-0063], [0068-0069], disclose shock absorber 100 for both front suspension fork 114 and rear wheel damper 115, each shock absorber 100 is provided a control device 46 in which the control devices 46 of the shock absorbers 100 are coordinated by controller 60, [0081], control devices 46 and 60 are connected to at least one sensor device 20 or to a plurality of sensors, [0085], each shock absorber 100 is preferably assigned at least one sensor device 20 in order to detect relative movements between the components or connecting units 101 and 102, [0088], control device 60 connected to terrain detection device 408 determining damper actuation as a function of velocity see also at least FIG. 1, FIG. 2, FIG. 3a, and FIG. 3b), generate rear shock velocity data representative of a vertical component of velocity of the rear shock based upon the signals, generate zenith position data for the front shock representative of a vertical displacement based on the front shock deflection signal, and generate an approximation curve video signal based upon the velocity data and zenith position data; and generate zenith position data for the rear shock representative of a vertical displacement based on the rear shock deflection signal, and generate an approximation curve video signal based upon the velocity and zenith position data (¶ [0156], shock absorber 100 experiences a spring compression in the event of shocks, and sensor device 20 operates primarily as a travel sensor and derives a corresponding signal profile of the sensor signals 27 (i.e. zenith position data) from the time profile of the position 19. In this context, the signal is digitized, see also at least FIG. 9); and a display coupled to the processor configured to simultaneously generate a visual representation of the velocity to zenith position data based upon the approximation curve video signal computed for the front shock and the rear shock, the visual representation comprising a curve fit analysis of the velocity data versus zenith position data for the front shock and the rear shock (¶¶ [0078], display 49 is embodied, in particular, as a graphic operator control unit or touchscreen 57, and the user can therefore touch, for example, a displayed damper characteristic curve 10 with his fingers and change it by dragging movements. As a result, on the basis of the continuous damper characteristic curve 10 which is displayed it is possible to generate the damper characteristic curve 50 which is also displayed and which is then used immediately for the vehicle controller 300. It is also possible to change the damper characteristic curves 10, 50 while traveling, [0071], central control device 60 is used here in the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 1 to control the chassis and controls here both the suspension fork 114 and the rear wheel shock absorber 115, in each case separately and here, in particular, synchronously or in such a way that they are coordinated with one another, see also at least FIG. 1, and FIG. 10a-10c), wherein adjustments to the damping force of the front shock and rear shock are based upon the curve fit analysis (¶ [0166], diagram 79 is described, and shown in FIG. 9, is a curve fit analysis, deviations between the curves are small as a result of the analysis (i.e. comparison of the curve fit) of the measured values).
Regarding claim 2, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 1 above.
Walthert discloses further processor filters data points of the vertical components of front shock and rear shock displacement data for events upon which the analysis is based, wherein the display outputs visual representations of the filtered data points for the front shock and rear shock as a curve fit of a rebound and damping velocity versus zenith position for each event (¶¶ [0165], filtering is carried out by forming average values, wherein different filter parameter sets can differ by virtue of the fact that the number of measured values taken into account is varied, see also t diagram 79 of FIG. 9 and FIG. 10a-10c, AND [0078], disclosed in claim 1, describing display 49).
Regarding claim 3, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 1 above.
Walthert discloses further the display is an application on a smartphone or a tablet (¶ [0095], detection device 408 also has an integrated memory device 418 here. It is therefore possible to store the detected difficulties in the terrain and the damper settings made in response thereto. These can then be retrieved later, e.g. by a user via a corresponding interface such as e.g. a smart phone 160, see also at least FIG. 1 and FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 1 above.
Walthert discloses further recorded waveforms of the vertical displacement signals generate zenith position, velocity, acceleration, force, and work data for each event at the front shock and the rear shock, wherein the recorded waveforms are presented in a time domain (¶¶ [0177-0178], real values which have been recorded with the shock absorber are plotted in FIGS. 10a to 10c. In this context, FIG. 10a shows the time sequence over somewhat more than one 10th of a second (i.e. presented in a time domain), sensor signals 27 (i.e. zenith position data) from the time profile of the position 19, device 408 determining damper actuation as a function of velocity are disclosed in claim 1 above, [0162], an acceleration signal 29 of a separate acceleration sensor 47 can also be fed to the filter device. Therefore, the acceleration of the two-wheeled vehicle can also be taken into account overall, [0086], determination of a characteristic value for the relative speed, the associated damping force and an appropriate spring force are set on the basis of the damper characteristic curve 10, stored in the memory device 45, of the shock absorber 100, AND ¶86, appropriate spring force can be determined by means of the rider's weight. For example, the rider's weight can be derived by automatically determining the spring compression position (sag) after a rider gets on. A suitable air pressure in the fluid spring or gas spring can be inferred from the spring compression travel, (herein work data can be determined mathematically using the spring force and spring compression travel. Furthermore, displacement signals can be displayed as seen in FIGS. 10a-10c).
Regarding claim 7, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 1 above.
Walthert further discloses a system further comprising a GPS recorder that correlates the deflection signals for the front shock and rear shock into events corresponding to a tracked GPS location (¶88, in reaction to a detected difficulty in the terrain (i.e. shock events), velocity can also be determined by means of a GPS signal, (wherein velocity is determined by location from GPS point A to GPS point B over time, therefore the GPS location must be tracked location)).
Regarding claim 8, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 1 above.
Walthert further discloses a system further comprising electronic storage to store the generated data, wherein the processor generates zenith position data and velocity data from displacement signals collected from a plurality of rides stored in electronic storage (¶88, discloses the processor generating data as defined in claim 1 above, AND ¶86, determination of a characteristic value for the relative speed, the associated damping force and an appropriate spring force are set on the basis of the damper characteristic curve 10 (i.e. zenith position data and velocity data), stored in the memory device 45 (i.e. electronic storage), of the shock absorber 100, see also at least FIG. 2 ).
Regarding claim 10, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 1 above.
Walthert further discloses a system further comprising a filter to identify event types that select displacement data for generating a velocity versus zenith position visual representation for the identified event types based on the selected displacement data ¶¶ 157-158, after the detection of the travel signal 27 (i.e. displacement data), the travel signal 27 of the speed signal 28 is differentiated in a computing unit 98 in order to obtain said speed signal 28. In addition, in a computing unit 99 for determining an acceleration signal 29 either the travel signal 27 can be derived twice or the speed signal 28 is derived once in order to obtain the acceleration signal 29, speed signal 28 and the acceleration signal 29 form together a measured value data set 90, or a measured value data set 91 at the next pass. The measured value data sets are fed to a filter device 80 and can be stored directly in a memory device 45. The measured value data sets 90, 91 are analyzed successively in the filter device 80, see also at least FIG. 9, AND ¶78 discloses a display generating a visual representation in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Walthert further discloses a system for adjusting a damping force on a suspension of a bicycle, comprising: a front shock sensor coupled to a front shock of a bicycle to generate a vertical fork acceleration signal representative of the vertical acceleration of the front shock; a rear shock sensor coupled to a rear shock of a bicycle to generate a vertical rear acceleration signal representative of the vertical acceleration of the rear shock; a processor coupled to the sensors, to generate front shock velocity data representative of a vertical component of velocity of the front shock based upon the signals, generate rear shock velocity data representative of a vertical component of velocity of the rear shock based upon the signals (¶¶ 68-69, disclose shock absorber 100 for both front suspension fork 114 and rear wheel damper 115, each shock absorber 100 is provided a control device 46 in which the control devices 46 of the shock absorbers 100 are coordinated by controller 60, AND ¶81, control devices 46 and 60 are connected to at least one sensor device 20 or to a plurality of sensors, AND ¶85, each shock absorber 100 is preferably assigned at least one sensor device 20 in order to detect relative movements between the components or connecting units 101 and 102, AND ¶88, discloses control device 60 connected to terrain detection device 408 determining damper actuation as a function of velocity see also at least FIG. 1, FIG. 3a, and FIG. 3b, AND ¶157, in a computing unit 99 for determining an acceleration signal 29 either the travel signal 27 can be derived twice or the speed signal 28 is derived once in order to obtain the acceleration signal 29, see at least FIG. 9), generate zenith position data for the front shock representative of a zenith position based on the acceleration signal of the front shock, and generating an approximation curve video signal based upon the velocity and zenith position data; and generate zenith position data for the rear shock representative of a zenith position based on the acceleration signal of the rear shock, and generating an approximation curve video signal based upon the velocity and zenith position data (¶156, shock absorber 100 experiences a spring compression in the event of shocks, and sensor device 20 operates primarily as a travel sensor and derives a corresponding signal profile of the sensor signals 27 (i.e. zenith position data) from the time profile of the position 19. In this context, the signal is digitized, see also at least FIG. 9, and FIG. 10a-10c); and a display coupled to the processor configured to simultaneously generate a visual representation of the velocity to zenith position based upon the approximation curve video signals computed for the front shock and rear shock, the visual representation comprising a curve fit analysis of the vertical component of velocity versus zenith position of the front shock and the rear shock (¶78, display 49 is embodied, in particular, as a graphic operator control unit or touchscreen 57, and the user can therefore touch, for example, a displayed damper characteristic curve 10 with his fingers and change it by dragging movements. As a result, on the basis of the continuous damper characteristic curve 10 which is displayed it is possible to generate the damper characteristic curve 50 which is also displayed and which is then used immediately for the vehicle controller 300. It is also possible to change the damper characteristic curves 10, 50 while traveling, AND ¶71, central control device 60 is used here in the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 1 to control the chassis and controls here both the suspension fork 114 and the rear wheel shock absorber 115, in each case separately and here, in particular, synchronously or in such a way that they are coordinated with one another, see also at least FIG. 1), wherein the display recommends adjustments to the damping force at the front shock and rear shock based upon the curve fit analysis (¶166, diagram 79 is described, and shown in FIG. 9, is a curve fit analysis AND ¶77, the adjustment device 152 provides considerably more and/or more easily comprehensible adjustment possibilities and can be used to adjust a displayed damper characteristic curve 10 in at least two or more regions 161, 162 etc. in order to set the desired damper properties).
Regarding claim 12 Walthert discloses all elements of claim 11 above.
Walthert further discloses a system wherein the processor generates vertical displacement data and calculates a vertical component of work as a function of the force and displacement of recorded events, wherein the vertical component of work at the front shock and rear shock generate recommended settings for the events at the front shock and rear shock based on a curve fit analysis of the vertical work components. (¶9, at least one sensor device is provided for acquiring measurement data at least relating to a relative movement (i.e. vertical displacement) of the connecting units with respect to one another, AND ¶166, diagram 79 is described, and shown in FIG. 9, is a curve fit analysis AND ¶77, the adjustment device 152 provides considerably more and/or more easily comprehensible adjustment possibilities and can be used to adjust a displayed damper characteristic curve 10 in at least two or more regions 161, 162 etc. in order to set the desired damper properties).
Regarding claim 13, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 11 above.
Walthert further discloses a system wherein the processor generates front shock and rear shock velocity data and zenith position data for two or more rides, and the display obtains results from the processor to generate the visual representation for the two or more rides (¶89, FIG. 2 is a schematic illustration of the control circuit 12 which is stored in the memory device 45 and stored or programmed in the control device 46 or 60. The control circuit 12 is carried out periodically (i.e. two or more rides) AND ¶77, the adjustment device 152 provides considerably more and/or more easily comprehensible adjustment possibilities and can be used to adjust a displayed damper characteristic curve 10 in at least two or more regions 161, 162 etc. in order to set the desired damper properties).
Regarding claim 17, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 11 above.
Walthert further discloses a system wherein the display is output to an application on a smartphone or tablet. (¶95, detection device 408 also has an integrated memory device 418 here. It is therefore possible to store the detected difficulties in the terrain and the damper settings made in response thereto. These can then be retrieved later, e.g. by a user via a corresponding interface such as e.g. a smart phone 160, see also at least FIG. 1 and FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 11 above.
Walthert further discloses a system further comprising a record module that records data at a fixed frequency and couples to the display to generate waveforms of the vertical component of the displacement, velocity, and acceleration of the front shock and rear shock in a time domain. (¶177-178, real values which have been recorded with the shock absorber are plotted in FIGS. 10a to 10c. In this context, FIG. 10a shows the time sequence over somewhat more than one 10th of a second (i.e. presented in a time domain), sensor signals 27 (i.e. zenith position data) from the time profile of the position 19, device 408 determining damper actuation as a function of velocity are disclosed in claim 1 above, AND ¶162, an acceleration signal 29 of a separate acceleration sensor 47 can also be fed to the filter device. Therefore, the acceleration of the two-wheeled vehicle can also be taken into account overall, AND ¶86, determination of a characteristic value for the relative speed, the associated damping force and an appropriate spring force are set on the basis of the damper characteristic curve 10, stored in the memory device 45, of the shock absorber 100, AND ¶86, appropriate spring force can be determined by means of the rider's weight. For example, the rider's weight can be derived by automatically determining the spring compression position (sag) after a rider gets on. A suitable air pressure in the fluid spring or gas spring can be inferred from the spring compression travel).
Regarding claim 19, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 11 above.
Walthert further discloses a system further comprising a filter that filters events according to user-defined inputs, the velocity data and zenith position data for the front shock and rear shock only including the events filtered according to the user-defined inputs, wherein the display generates a visual representation of the velocity to zenith position based on the filtered events (¶78, display 49 is embodied, in particular, as a graphic operator control unit or touchscreen 57, and the user can therefore touch, for example, a displayed damper characteristic curve 10 (i.e. events according to user-defined inputs)).
Regarding claim 20, Walthert discloses a device for displaying parameters of a suspension system for a bicycle (¶78, display 49 is embodied, in particular, as a graphic operator control unit or touchscreen 57, and the user can therefore touch, for example, a displayed damper characteristic curve 10 with his fingers and change it by dragging movements. As a result, on the basis of the continuous damper characteristic curve 10 which is displayed it is possible to generate the damper characteristic curve 50 which is also displayed and which is then used immediately for the vehicle controller 300. It is also possible to change the damper characteristic curves 10, 50 while traveling, AND ¶71, central control device 60 is used here in the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 1 to control the chassis and controls here both the suspension fork 114 and the rear wheel shock absorber 115, in each case separately and here, in particular, synchronously or in such a way that they are coordinated with one another, see also at least FIG. 1), the device comprising, electronic memory to store user inputs and result data for a front shock and a rear shock (¶95, detection device 408 also has an integrated memory device 418 here. It is therefore possible to store the detected difficulties in the terrain and the damper settings made in response thereto.; a setup module to obtain information related to the front shock and the rear shock on a suspension system of the bicycle, the setup module comprising: a front shock module to obtain a calibrated vertical displacement of the front shock; and a rear shock module to obtain a calibrated vertical displacement of the rear shock; a record module that records events during a ride, the record module obtaining the zenith position, vertical displacement, velocity, and acceleration of the front shock and rear shock for each event and storing the zenith position, vertical displacement, velocity, and acceleration of the front shock and the rear shock in electronic memory; a results module that accesses the results of the record module and setup module to calculate vertical zenith position versus vertical velocity components for each event at the front shock and rear shock, the results module generating a curve fit analysis of the vertical zenith position component versus velocity for the front shock and rear shock and generating a curve fit analysis of the vertical velocity component versus zenith position of the front shock and rear shock, the results module comparing the curve fit analysis for the zenith position and velocity components at the front shock with the curve fit analysis for the zenith position and velocity components at the rear shock (¶177-178, real values which have been recorded with the shock absorber are plotted in FIGS. 10a to 10c. In this context, FIG. 10a shows the time sequence over somewhat more than one 10th of a second (i.e. presented in a time domain), sensor signals 27 (i.e. zenith position data) from the time profile of the position 19, device 408 determining damper actuation as a function of velocity are disclosed in claim 1 above, AND ¶162, an acceleration signal 29 of a separate acceleration sensor 47 can also be fed to the filter device. Therefore, the acceleration of the two-wheeled vehicle can also be taken into account overall, AND ¶86, determination of a characteristic value for the relative speed, the associated damping force and an appropriate spring force are set on the basis of the damper characteristic curve 10, stored in the memory device 45, of the shock absorber 100, AND ¶86, appropriate spring force can be determined by means of the rider's weight. For example, the rider's weight can be derived by automatically determining the spring compression position (sag) after a rider gets on. A suitable air pressure in the fluid spring or gas spring can be inferred from the spring compression travel).; and a display to output recommended damper settings for the front shock and the rear shock based on the comparison of the curve fit analysis for zenith position and velocity components of the front shock and the rear shock (¶9, at least one sensor device is provided for acquiring measurement data at least relating to a relative movement (i.e. vertical displacement) of the connecting units with respect to one another, AND ¶166, diagram 79 is described, and shown in FIG. 9, is a curve fit analysis AND ¶77, the adjustment device 152 provides considerably more and/or more easily comprehensible adjustment possibilities and can be used to adjust a displayed damper characteristic curve 10 in at least two or more regions 161, 162 etc. in order to set the desired damper properties, see also at least FIG. 10a-10c).
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALTHERT et al., US 2016/0339989, herein further known as Walthert, in view of ANUBI, NPL - VARIABLE STIFFNESS SUSPENSION SYSTEM, herein further known as Anubi.
Regarding claim 5, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 1 above including the processor computes the velocity and zenith position data for recorded events (paragraph 9, at least one sensor device is provided for acquiring measurement data at least relating to a relative movement (i.e. vertical displacement) of the connecting units with respect to one another, AND paragraph 166, diagram 79 is described, and shown in FIG. 9, is a curve fit analysis AND paragraph 77, the adjustment device 152 provides considerably more and/or more easily comprehensible adjustment possibilities and can be used to adjust a displayed damper characteristic curve 10 in at least two or more regions 161, 162 etc. in order to set the desired damper properties).
However, Walthert does not disclose a system wherein the processor generates front shock and rear shock regression lines of the velocity data versus zenith position data, wherein a slope of the front shock regression line is compared to a slope of the rear shock regression line to establish the recommended adjustments of the front shock and the rear shock, the recommended adjustments setting the front shock and rear shock regression line slopes within 15 degrees of parallel.
Anubi teaches a system wherein the processor generates front shock and rear shock regression lines of the velocity data versus zenith position data, wherein a slope of the front shock regression line is compared to a slope of the rear shock regression line to establish the recommended adjustments of the front shock and the rear shock, the recommended adjustments setting the front shock and rear shock regression line slopes within 15 degrees of parallel (paragraph 5.3.4, lines 27-31, upper sub-figure shows that the parameters are not updated in the control of the horizontal MR damper. This is because the corresponding control current is bang-bang, switching from ic = 0 to ic = imax. As a result, the elements of the regression matrix given in (5–67) are zeros, which further implies, from (5–75), that ɵ = 0, see also at least FIG. 5-17).
Anubi discloses the claimed invention except for the regression line slopes within 15 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include regression line slopes within 15 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,265 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Walthert the processor generates front shock and rear shock regression lines of the velocity data versus zenith position data, wherein a slope of the front shock regression line is compared to a slope of the rear shock regression line to establish the recommended adjustments of the front shock and the rear shock, the recommended adjustments setting the front shock and rear shock regression line slopes within 15 degrees of parallel as taught by Anubi.
One would be motivated to modify Walthert in view of Anubi for the reasons stated in Anubi for more robust system and method with improved ride comfort and road holding while keeping good road contact for improved handling and mobility.
Regarding claim 6, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 1 above including wherein the processor computes total work for deflection and rebound of the front shock and rear shock, the total work being a function of the deflection data and force data (¶¶ [0177-0178], real values which have been recorded with the shock absorber are plotted in FIGS. 10a to 10c. In this context, FIG. 10a shows the time sequence over somewhat more than one 10th of a second (i.e. presented in a time domain), sensor signals 27 (i.e. zenith position data) from the time profile of the position 19, device 408 determining damper actuation as a function of velocity are disclosed in claim 1 above, [0162], an acceleration signal 29 of a separate acceleration sensor 47 can also be fed to the filter device. Therefore, the acceleration of the two-wheeled vehicle can also be taken into account overall, [0086], determination of a characteristic value for the relative speed, the associated damping force and an appropriate spring force are set on the basis of the damper characteristic curve 10, stored in the memory device 45, of the shock absorber 100, AND ¶86, appropriate spring force can be determined by means of the rider's weight. For example, the rider's weight can be derived by automatically determining the spring compression position (sag) after a rider gets on. A suitable air pressure in the fluid spring or gas spring can be inferred from the spring compression travel, (herein work data can be determined mathematically using the spring force and spring compression travel. Furthermore, displacement signals can be displayed as seen in FIGS. 10a-10c).
However, Walthert does not disclose a system wherein the processor generates front shock regression lines and rear shock regression lines of the total work versus velocity data and force data versus velocity data and calculates recommended adjustments of the front shock and the rear shock that sets a slope of the front shock regression lines and a slope of the rear shock regression lines within 15 degrees of parallel.
Anubi teaches a system wherein the processor generates front shock regression lines and rear shock regression lines of the total work versus velocity data and force data versus velocity data and calculates recommended adjustments of the front shock and the rear shock that sets a slope of the front shock regression lines and a slope of the rear shock regression lines within 15 degrees of parallel, (paragraph 5.3.4, lines 27-31, upper sub-figure shows that the parameters are not updated in the control of the horizontal MR damper. This is because the corresponding control current is bang-bang, switching from ic = 0 to ic = imax. As a result, the elements of the regression matrix given in (5–67) are zeros, which further implies, from (5–75), that ɵ = 0, see also at least FIG. 5-17).
Anubi discloses the claimed invention except for the regression line slopes within 15 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include regression line slopes within 15 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,265 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Walthert the processor generates front shock regression lines and rear shock regression lines of the total work versus velocity data and force data versus velocity data and calculates recommended adjustments of the front shock and the rear shock that sets a slope of the front shock regression lines and a slope of the rear shock regression lines within 15 degrees of parallel as taught by Anubi.
One would be motivated to modify Walthert in view of Anubi for the reasons stated in Anubi for more robust system and method with improved ride comfort and road holding while keeping good road contact for improved handling and mobility.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walthert in view of GRUNDEI et al., US 5615756, herein further known as Grundei.
Regarding claim 9, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 1 above.
Walthert further discloses a system further comprising a filter to identify a beginning time and end time of a series of deflection signals along a ride, the processor analyzing the filtered deflection signals for zenith position data, velocity data, acceleration data, force data, and work data analysis, and the display generating a visual representation of the velocity data versus zenith position data and velocity data versus work data (paragraph 181, dotted line 89 shows the speed profile which was determined with a second filter parameter set 83 with relatively strong filtering. At the start of the measuring time period, the curve 89 shows a considerably smoother profile than the curve 88 illustrated by a dashed line, see at least FIG. 10a-10c, AND paragraph 78, display 49 is embodied, in particular, as a graphic operator control unit or touchscreen 57, and the user can therefore touch, for example, a displayed damper characteristic curve 10 with his fingers and change it by dragging movements. As a result, on the basis of the continuous damper characteristic curve 10 which is displayed it is possible to generate the damper characteristic curve 50 which is also displayed and which is then used immediately for the vehicle controller 300. It is also possible to change the damper characteristic curves 10, 50 while traveling, AND paragraph 86, appropriate spring force can be determined by means of the rider's weight. For example, the rider's weight can be derived by automatically determining the spring compression position (sag) after a rider gets on. A suitable air pressure in the fluid spring or gas spring can be inferred from the spring compression travel, (wherein it is well known in the art that the work data can be determined mathematically using the spring force and spring compression travel. Furthermore, displacement signals can be displayed as seen in FIGS. 10a-10c).
However, Walthert does not explicitly disclose the system display generating a visual representation of the velocity data versus work data.
Grundei teaches the system velocity data versus work data, (column 15, lines 25-30, a three-dimensional performance-related graph illustrating a damping force family of characteristics 1 in accordance with the present invention showing the axis for displacement, velocity, and damping force (i.e. work data), see also at least FIG. 15).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Walthert the velocity data versus work data as taught by Grundei.
One would be motivated to modify Walthert in view of Grundei for the reasons stated in Grundei to provide a more robust damping system a significant cost advantage and no degradation to performance.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walthert in view of GALASSO et al., US 10537790, herein further known as Galasso.
Regarding claim 14, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 11 above.
However, Walthert does not explicitly disclose a system wherein the processor generates vertical velocity data versus elevation for ride events, and the display outputs a graph of the vertical component of velocity data versus elevation.
Galasso teaches a system wherein the processor generates vertical velocity data versus elevation for ride events, and the display outputs a graph of the vertical component of velocity data versus elevation (column 18, lines 15-25, an embodiment of the present technology may recommend, based on the Rider A's performance and stored data relating to gear positioning as well as elevation, velocity and distance, that Rider A should change up his/her gear positioning technique. Furthermore, a new gear, or suspension component, or tuning (e.g. adjustment) state may be recommended to Rider A as being easier to manipulate, thereby increasing Rider A's speed during ride time. Furthermore, embodiments of the present technology may recommend new shocks or related adjustments, based on Rider A's performance, see also at least FIG. 6 for graph (i.e. display output) of elevation versus speed (i.e. velocity).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Walthert the display is output in real-time, the processor generating velocity data and zenith position data during an event and the display generates a visual representation of the velocity to zenith position based upon the approximation video signal computed for the front shock and rear shock in real-time during the event as taught by Galasso.
One would be motivated to modify Walthert in view of Galasso for the reasons stated in Galasso more robust system and methods for generating a recommendation for a component operation for the improved performance of the activity.
Regarding claim 16, Walthert discloses all elements of claim 11 above.
However, Walthert does not explicitly disclose a system wherein the display is output in real-time, the processor generating velocity data and zenith position data during an event and the display generates a visual representation of the velocity to zenith position based upon the approximation video signal computed for the front shock and rear shock in real-time during the event.
Galasso teaches a system wherein the display is output in real-time, the processor generating velocity data and zenith position data during an event and the display generates a visual representation of the velocity to zenith position based upon the approximation video signal computed for the front shock and rear shock in real-time during the event (column 3, lines 20-25, networked digitally readable medium stores performance information corresponding to one or more of the following: shock absorption; cadence; velocity; gear positioning; suspension; AND column 3, lines 35-37, based on the correlating, generating a real time recreation of a performance of the activity from a camera perspective).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Walthert the display is output in real-time, the processor generating velocity data and zenith position data during an event and the display generates a visual representation of the velocity to zenith position based upon the approximation video signal computed for the front shock and rear shock in real-time during the event as taught by Galasso.
One would be motivated to modify Walthert in view of Galasso for the reasons stated in Galasso more robust system and methods for generating a recommendation for a component operation for the improved performance of the activity.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walthert in view of KRUGMAN et al., US 2018/0304952, herein further known as Krugman.
Regarding claim 15 Walthert discloses all elements of claim 11 above.
However, Walthert does not explicitly disclose a system wherein the processor generates histograms for events with an equal compression velocity and an equal rebound velocity, and the display generates a visual representation of a number of events with equal compression velocities and the number of events with equal rebound velocities.
Krugman teaches a system wherein the processor generates histograms for events with an equal compression velocity and an equal rebound velocity, and the display generates a visual representation of a number of events with equal compression velocities and the number of events with equal rebound velocities (paragraph 33, a suspension component analysis (SCA) device may be used to directly measure the position variable of a suspension component. Once the motion or position variable is measured, other information can be derived, such as velocity, acceleration, position histograms, etc. By extension, direct measurement of other variables, such as velocity or acceleration, can be used to derive the position of the suspension versus time).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Walthert the processor generates histograms for events with an equal compression velocity and an equal rebound velocity, and the display generates a visual representation of a number of events with equal compression velocities and the number of events with equal rebound velocities as taught by Krugman.
One would be motivated to modify Walthert in view of Krugman for the reasons stated in Krugman paragraph [0003], more robust method and system to improve vehicle ride and performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM 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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666