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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 17 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first rotational speed sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While it appears the applicant is referring to the “a first speed sensor” of claim 16, claim 17 does not depend from claim 16. For purposes of examination, the “first rotational speed sensor” of claim 17 will be interpreted as the “first speed sensor” of claim 16.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the treadle shaft”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the “treadle shaft” of claim 20 will be interpreted as the “pedal crankshaft” of claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US 10000195) in view of Ackermann (US 20190393060).
Regarding claim 11, Fujita teaches a pedelec 101 comprising: an electric drive unit 116 for driving at least one wheel 107 of the pedelec 101 (Col. 4, lines 23-28, Claim 1);
a battery 117 for supplying the drive unit 116 with electrical drive energy (Col. 3, lines 56-58);
a torque sensor 2 for detecting a rider torque applied to a pedal crankshaft 112a by a rider (Col. 10, lines 43-45); and
a pedelec controller 1 having:
a motor control module 4 which controls the assistance power of the drive unit 115 as a function of the rider torque recorded by the torque sensor 2 (Col. 4, lines 29-44); and
a calibration module for calibrating the torque sensor (Col. 4, lines 51-54, Fig. 3) configured to start a calibration process when the driven wheel is stopped (Col. 2, lines 4-8, Col. 9, lines 53-61, Col. 12, lines 16-21), the pedal crankshaft is stopped (Col. 2, lines 4-8, Col. 7, line 66-Col. 8, lines 14, Fig. 6), and an deviation, related to an amplitude value, of the torque signal of the torque sensor is below a predefined maximum value over a predefined time period (Col. 7, lines 45-65).
Fujita does not teach wherein the calibration module starts a calibration process when an average deviation, related to a mean value, of the torque signal of the torque sensor is below a predefined maximum value over a predefined time period.
However, Ackermann teaches a torque sensor wherein an average value of torque variance can be used in place of an min-max amplitude value of torque variance when comparing measured torque data to ascertain a state of the equipment (Abstract, [0049] of Fujita).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an average value of torque for the amplitude value in the calibration module of Fujita and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and operated as before, with the calibration module ensuring that the sensed torque does not exceed a maximum. Additionally, this would advantageously protect against abnormally large or small erroneous torque readings significantly impacting the operation of the module.
Regarding claim 12, Fujita as modified teaches wherein the calibration process starts when the absolute torque signal of the torque sensor 2 exceeds a minimum value (Col. 7, lines 45-65; the maximum fluctuation range includes a lower and an upper limit; the lower limit is the minimum value).
Regarding claim 13, Fujita as modified teaches wherein the average deviation of the torque signal is a standard deviation or a variance (Col. 7, lines 45-65 of Fujita; [0049] of Ackermann).
Regarding claim 14, Fujita as modified teaches wherein a calibration process (Col. 4, lines 51-54, Fig. 3) checks whether the driven wheel is stopped, the pedal crankshaft is stopped, and an average deviation of the torque signal of the torque sensor related to a mean value is below a predefined maximum value over a predefined period of time, information for calibration is gathered over a period of time, and the calibration of the torque sensor is performed when the driven wheel continues to be stopped (Col. 2, lines 4-8, Col. 9, lines 53-61, Col. 12, lines 16-21), the pedal crankshaft continues to be stopped (Col. 2, lines 4-8, Col. 7, line 66-Col. 8, lines 14, Fig. 6), and the average deviation, based on a mean value ([0049] of Ackermann), of the torque signal of the torque sensor continues to be below the predefined maximum value over a predefined time period (Col. 11, lines 19-33).
Regarding claim 15, Fujita as modified teaches wherein a zero point is set during each calibration of the torque sensor 2 (Col. 2, lines 13-16).
Regarding claim 16, Fujita as modified teaches wherein a first speed sensor 3 is provided for recording the speed of the wheel (Col. 9, lines 53-61, Col. 12, lines 16-21; the state detector 3 measures rotation of the wheel to determine that it is not moving, which is a determination of a speed of zero).
Regarding claim 18, Fujita teaches wherein a second speed sensor 5 is provided for recording the speed of the pedal crankshaft 112 (Col. 7, line 66-Col. 8, lines 14, Fig. 6; the state detector 5 determines that the speed of the crankshaft is zero rotations per minute).
Regarding claim 19, Fujita as modified teaches wherein the calibration module is active during riding operation of the pedelec and the calibration process can be performed during riding operation (Col. 4, lines 45-58; the controller executes the calibration process when the bicycle operating unit is operated [the riding operation]).
Regarding claim 20, Fujita teaches a method of calibrating a torque sensor for recording a rider torque introduced into a pedal crankshaft 112 of a pedelec 101 comprising: determining wherein the rotational speed of the driven wheel (Col. 2, lines 4-8, Col. 9, lines 53-61, Col. 12, lines 16-21; the state detector 3 measures rotation of the wheel to determine that it is not moving, which is a determination of a speed of zero); determining the speed of the pedal crankshaft (Col. 7, line 66-Col. 8, lines 14, Fig. 6; the state detector 5 determines that the speed of the crankshaft is zero rotations per minute); and starting the calibration process when the rotational speed of the wheel is zero wheel (Col. 2, lines 4-8, Col. 9, lines 53-61, Col. 12, lines 16-21), the rotational speed of the treadle shaft (pedal crankshaft) is zero (Col. 7, line 66-Col. 8, lines 14, Fig. 6) and a deviation, related to an amplitude value, of the torque signal of the torque sensor is below a predefined maximum value (Col. 7, lines 45-65).
Fujita does not teach calculating an average deviation of the torque signal of the torque sensor relative to an average value and starting a calibration process when it is below a predefined maximum value.
However, Ackermann teaches a torque sensor wherein an average value of torque variance can be used in place of an min-max amplitude value of torque variance when comparing measured torque data to ascertain a state of the equipment (Abstract, [0049] of Fujita).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an average value of torque for the amplitude value in the calibration module of Fujita and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and operated as before, with the calibration module ensuring that the sensed torque does not exceed a maximum. Additionally, this would advantageously protect against abnormally large or small erroneous torque readings significantly impacting the operation of the module.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Ackermann, and further in view of Modolo (US 20160167732) and Zhu (US 20110121676).
Regarding claim 17, Fujita as modified merely teaches that the first speed sensor is a magnet sensor with one magnet provided on the sensed wheel (Col. 9, lines 53-61), but does not expressly teach the first speed sensor having a high-resolution rotational speed sensor as claimed.
However, Modolo teaches a bicycle wheel speed sensor wherein the sensor comprises a magnet sensor with a plurality of sensing points ([0023] of Modolo; the plurality of magnets are the plurality of sensing points).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the magnet sensor of the modified Pedelec of Fujita/Ackarmann to be a high-resolution rotational speed sensor that interacts with multiple sensing points on a wheel as Modolo teaches in order to advantageously provide rapid calculation of speed and acceleration of the wheel ([0023] of Modolo).
Fujita as modified discloses the claimed invention except for “a sensor disc having at least ten sensing points”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add at least ten sensing points, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Fujita as modified does not teach the sensing points being arranged on a sensor disc, wherein the sensor disc is arranged on the wheel.
However, Zhu teaches a magnet sensor which measures rotational speed wherein the magnets are mounted on a disk ([0002], Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Pedelec of Fujita/et.al. to mount the plurality of sensing points on a disk mounted on the wheel in order to advantageously provide a mounting surface for the plurality of magnets ([0008] of Zhu).
Zhu does not teach the disk being mounted on the wheel of the bike. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mount the disk to the bike wheel, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2015012182 teaches a control device for a pedelec which initiates a calibration mode for the torque sensor based on predetermined conditions being met.
US 20140039741 teaches a bicycle drive control apparatus with a calibration mode.
US 20170368871 teaches a bicycle which calibrates a torque sensor.
US 20170225742 teaches a bicycles which uses a torque sensor or a speed sensor to perform a calibration.
US 20210114679 teaches a calibration process for a torque sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 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, John Olszewski can be reached at 5712722706. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights