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
Claims 12-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II, and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 December 2025.
Claims 1-30 are pending in which Claims 1-11 are examined.
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 obviousness-type 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12103625 (B1), since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: “the electronic controller is configured to control the vehicle component in accordance with the output of at least one of the first detector and the second detector upon determining the output of the first detector is in the first state and the output of the second detector is in the second state, the electronic controller is configured to control the vehicle component in accordance with the output of the second detector irrelevant of the output of the first detector upon determining the output of the first detector is not in the first state and the output of the second detector is in the second state, and the electronic controller is configured to control the vehicle component in accordance with the output of the first detector irrelevant of the output of the second detector upon determining the output of the first detector is in the first state and the output of the second detector is not in the second state”. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim (claim 1 of instant application) is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) (claim 5 of patent) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.1968).
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 1-11 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected because claims 1-11 claims a “human-powered vehicle” which is clear that it refers to a bicycle in light of specification (Fig. 1). However, claims 1-11 are drafted in a way that claims 1-11 are directed to a motorized bicycle with an electronic controller. For examination purpose, the “human-powered vehicle” is examined as “a motorized bicycle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is rejected because claim 1 claims “the electronic controller being configured to control the vehicle component in accordance with the output of the second detector irrelevant of the output of the first detector upon determining the output of the first detector is not in the first state and the output of the second detector is in the second state ". The limitation is unclear what “irrelevant” means. The limitation is clear that the output of the first detector needs to be not in the first state, contrary to “output of the second detector irrelevant of the output of the first detector” as claimed. For examination purpose, the “the electronic controller being configured to control the vehicle component in accordance with the output of the second detector irrelevant of the output of the first detector upon determining the output of the first detector is not in the first state and the output of the second detector is in the second state " is examined as “the electronic controller being configured to control the vehicle component output of the second detector is in the second state ". Appropriate correction is required.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
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 1-11 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishikawa et al., US 2018/0162486 (A1).
As to claim 1, Nishikawa teaches a control device for a human-powered vehicle that includes a vehicle component and a plurality of detectors, the plurality of detectors includes a first detector configured to detect first information related to the human-powered vehicle and a second detector configured to detect second information related to the human-powered vehicle, and the first information is correlated with the second information (Fig. 23 and related text; “A bicycle control apparatus is basically provided with a controller. The controller includes a processor, a memory, and an I/O interface. The controller is arranged to communicate with an assist mechanism of a bicycle. The assist mechanism includes an assist motor arranged to impart a supplemental drive force to the bicycle to supplement a manual drive force of the bicycle. The controller is programmed to alternately set a first control state or a second control state. The controller controls the assist motor such that an output state of the assist motor with respect to a manual drive force of the bicycle is different in the first control state than in the second control state”, abs), the control device comprising:
an electronic controller configured to control the vehicle component in accordance with at least one of an output of the first detector and an output of the second detector upon determining the output of the first detector is in a first state and the output of the second detector is in a second state (Fig. 23 and 31 and related text; “In step S6, the controller 4 performs the second correction operation. The controller 4 corrects the base running assist force PA (the running assist force PX) that was corrected in step S4 or the base running assist force PA that has not been corrected using a time constant that corresponds to the control state that is set or that is selected and then proceeds to step S7. If a determination is made in step S5 that the manual drive force is not decreasing, the controller 4 proceeds to step S7”, ¶178),
the electronic controller being configured to control the vehicle component in
accordance with the output of the second detector irrelevant of the output of the first detector upon determining the output of the first detector is not in the first state and the output of the second detector is in the second state (Fig. 23 and related text; “In this case, in the second control state, variation of the torque is suppressed even in a high-speed range. Consequently, the discomfort that is caused by a fluctuation in the torque is less likely to be imparted on the rider, even in a high-speed range. Additionally, maintaining a constant traveling speed ZA even in a high-speed range becomes easier.”, ¶194), and
the electronic controller being configured to control the vehicle component in
accordance with the output of the first detector irrelevant of the output of the second detector upon determining the output of the first detector is in the first state and the output of the second detector is not in the second state (Fig. 23 and related text; “The controller 4 causes the assist motor 216 to execute the running of the assist when a prescribed condition has been met. For example, the controller 4 causes the assist motor 216 to execute the running of the assist when a determination is made that the manual drive force (the torque) that is detected by the first detector 2 is equal to or greater than a manual drive force reference value, which is set in advance. The controller 4 reduces or stops the output of the assist motor 216 when the traveling speed ZA detected by the third detector 6 becomes equal to or greater than a prescribed speed. The prescribed speed corresponds to, for example, 25 km per hour”, ¶132).
As to claim 2, Nishikawa teaches the control device wherein
the electronic controller is configured to control the vehicle component in accordance with at least one of a first parameter related to the first information and a second parameter related to the second information (Fig. 23 and related text; “A bicycle control apparatus is basically provided with a controller. The controller includes a processor, a memory, and an I/O interface. The controller is arranged to communicate with an assist mechanism of a bicycle. The assist mechanism includes an assist motor arranged to impart a supplemental drive force to the bicycle to supplement a manual drive force of the bicycle. The controller is programmed to alternately set a first control state or a second control state. The controller controls the assist motor such that an output state of the assist motor with respect to a manual drive force of the bicycle is different in the first control state than in the second control state”, abs).
As to claim 3, Nishikawa teaches the control device wherein
the electronic controller is configured to estimate the first parameter in accordance with the second parameter calculated from the second information upon determining the output of the first detector is not in the first state and the output of the second detector is in the second state and control the vehicle component in accordance with the estimated first parameter (Fig. 23 and related text; “In this case, in the second control state, variation of the torque is suppressed even in a high-speed range. Consequently, the discomfort that is caused by a fluctuation in the torque is less likely to be imparted on the rider, even in a high-speed range. Additionally, maintaining a constant traveling speed ZA even in a high-speed range becomes easier.”, ¶194).
As to claim 4, Nishikawa teaches the control device wherein
the electronic controller is configured to estimate the second parameter in accordance with the first parameter calculated from the first information upon determining the output of the first detector is in the first state and the output of the second detector is not in the second state and control the vehicle component in accordance with the estimated second parameter (Fig. 23 and related text; “The controller 4 causes the assist motor 216 to execute the running of the assist when a prescribed condition has been met. For example, the controller 4 causes the assist motor 216 to execute the running of the assist when a determination is made that the manual drive force (the torque) that is detected by the first detector 2 is equal to or greater than a manual drive force reference value, which is set in advance. The controller 4 reduces or stops the output of the assist motor 216 when the traveling speed ZA detected by the third detector 6 becomes equal to or greater than a prescribed speed. The prescribed speed corresponds to, for example, 25 km per hour”, ¶132).
As to claim 5, Nishikawa teaches the control device wherein
a signal output from the second detector includes a second predetermined signal in a case where the output of the second detector is not in the second state (Fig. 23 and related text; “The controller 4 causes the assist motor 216 to execute the running of the assist when a prescribed condition has been met. For example, the controller 4 causes the assist motor 216 to execute the running of the assist when a determination is made that the manual drive force (the torque) that is detected by the first detector 2 is equal to or greater than a manual drive force reference value, which is set in advance. The controller 4 reduces or stops the output of the assist motor 216 when the traveling speed ZA detected by the third detector 6 becomes equal to or greater than a prescribed speed. The prescribed speed corresponds to, for example, 25 km per hour”, ¶132).
As to claim 6, Nishikawa teaches the control device wherein
the plurality of detectors includes at least one of a vehicle speed sensor configured to detect information corresponding to a rotational speed of a wheel of the human-powered vehicle, a crank rotation sensor configured to detect information corresponding to a rotational speed of a crank of the human-powered vehicle, an acceleration sensor configured to detect information corresponding to acceleration of the human-powered vehicle, a position information detection sensor configured to detect information corresponding to a position of the human-powered vehicle, and a motor rotation sensor configured to detect information corresponding to a rotational speed of a motor applying a propulsion force to the human-powered vehicle (Fig. 23 and related text; first detector 2 is torque sensor, second detector 3 is crank sensor; third detector 6 is travelling speed sensor).
As to claim 7, Nishikawa teaches the control device wherein
a signal output from the first detector includes a first predetermined signal in a case where the output of the first detector is not in the first state (Fig. 23 and related text; “In this case, in the second control state, variation of the torque is suppressed even in a high-speed range. Consequently, the discomfort that is caused by a fluctuation in the torque is less likely to be imparted on the rider, even in a high-speed range. Additionally, maintaining a constant traveling speed ZA even in a high-speed range becomes easier.”, ¶194).
As to claim 8, Nishikawa teaches the control device wherein
the first signal includes a signal generated in at least one of cases where the first
detector is defective, a connection between the first detector and the electronic controller is anomalous, the first detector differs from a predetermined configuration, and the connection between the first detector and the electronic controller differs from a predetermined configuration.
As to claim 9, Nishikawa teaches the control device wherein
a signal is not output from the first detector in a case where the output of the first
detector is not in the first state ( “The increase/decrease of the output voltage V with respect to a reference voltage VA is reversed, depending on whether the distance between the sensor 88 and the first detector 90 becomes less than a prescribed distance or the distance between the sensor 88 and the second detector 92 becomes less than a prescribed distance.”, ¶109).
As to claim 10, Nishikawa teaches the control device wherein
the electronic controller issues predetermined notification information from a
notification unit in a case where the output of the first detector is not in the first state (sensor 88 detects change in magnetic flux when first detector is blocked”, ¶118).
As to claim 11, Nishikawa teaches the control device wherein
the vehicle component includes a motor configured to apply a propulsion force to the human-powered vehicle (Fig. 1 and related text; assist motor in abs).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Examiner’s Request
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313)446-4821. 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.
/YUEN WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667