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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/848,648 and the preliminary amendment filled on 09/19/2024.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 28 and 31 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 19-20, 22, 24 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 cites “the bicycle comprises a lock”, wherein in claim 31 cites “A lock” for use in a bicycle. Claim 31 recites the limitation that is already cited in claim 31. Therefore, claim 31 should apparently be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 8, 19, the dashes (-) from the left of each of the features should apparently be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 cites the phrase “feedback via and app”. Does the applicant mean “feedback via an[[d]] application”? Further clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 cites “a receiving space”, where claim 22 depends on claim 1 and also cites “a receiving space”. Is this “receiving space” in claim 22 is different than the receiving space as cited in claim 1? Otherwise the phrase “a receiving space in claim 22 should apparently be “the [[a]] receiving space”. Claim 24 is objected for the reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 22. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 cites “a receiving space”, where in claim 24 cites “the at least one receiving space”, which means there might be more than one receiving space, however there is no more than one receiving space cited in the previous line of the claim 24.
Drawing/Specification Objections
The drawing is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In the drawing, Figs. 5A-5B, and Fig. 8, the acronym word, "ECU" and “mcu” should be presented in the specification for what they stand\s for.
b. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims (see 37 CFR 1.83(a)). Therefore, “processor” as cited in claim 6 and “feedback device” as cited in claim 20, and “central processing unit” as cited in claim 28 must be shown in the drawing(s) or the feature(s) to be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 28 and 31 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 1 cites “a lock control unit for controlling the lock and for communication with the central controlling computer”, where in the specification, pages 17, 20 cites “The lock 2 is controlled from the main controlling computer 51of the bicycle”, and in page 21 cites “the lock control unit 52 in communication with the central controlling computer 51”. Does the applicant refer the lock control unit as the main controlling computer/central control computer of the bicycle. In that case, there is a conflict of interest in drawing, Fig. 5A and 5B because ref. 51 and 52 are two different entities. Further clarification is required.
Claim 11 cites “the length of said latch actuator facing section exceeds the length bolt facing section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase “length”, “said latch actuator facing section”, “ the length bolt facing section” are not recited in the previous lines of the claim.
Claim 14 cites the phrase “the maximum rotational angle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase "maximum rotational angle” is not recited in the previous lines of the claim.
Claim 14 further cites the phrase “the hinge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase "hinge” is not recited in the previous lines of the claim.
Claim 15 cites the phrase “limitation cam”, which is vague because there is no particulars defined in the specification for limitation cam.
Claim 15 further cites the phrase “substantially directed”, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 22 cites the phrase “said locking plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase "locking plate” is not recited in the previous lines of the claim.
Claim 28 cites the phrase “substantially parallel”, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 28 and 31 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim(s).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “lock control unit” in Claims 1, 9 and 28; “feedback device” in claim 20, “central processing unit” in claim 28; have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “controlling the lock and for communication…, provide a release actuation signal…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification, in page 13 cites “feedback device for providing rider feedback based on sensor information, such as audible and/or visible feedback, feedback by a display or feedback via and app that is functional on a mobile device”. Therefore, the examiner interpreted feedback device as a display and/or application.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 28 and 31 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 elements “lock control unit” in claims 1, 9 and 28; “central processing unit” in claim 28; are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the corresponding claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claim function and the specification does not provide sufficient details such as one of ordinary skills in the art would understand which structures (software or hardware) perform(s) the claim function.
Therefore, the claim 1, 9, and 28 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of its dependency on the rejected claim(s).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above from the 112(f) interpretation and 112 (b) rejection, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure for lock control unit and central processing unit to perform the corresponding claimed function in claims 1, 9 and 28. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Therefore, the claims 1, 9 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 28 and 31 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because of its dependency on the rejected claim(s).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below 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. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety 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. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 28 and 31 would be allowable if rewritten written to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), and claims, drawing/specification objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Wu et al. (CN104973169, this reference is from IDS and the attached equivalent English translate of this foreign document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Wu) teaches a bicycle with a central controlling computer, such as a central board computer, for controlling subsystems of the bicycle, the bicycle comprising a lock (See Para. [0008], [0030], discloses “a bicycle comprising bicycle lock, central processing unit [i.e., a central controlling computer, such as a central board computer], and subsystem such as vibration sensor, horn drive circuit locking circuit”, same as claimed. Additionally, see Para. [0040], for additional subsystem, such as motor), the lock comprising:
- a housing (See Para. [0040], “the bicycle lock 100 of the present invention further includes an upper housing 13 and a lower housing 14”),
- a bolt having a blocking state and an unblocking state providing a blocking action in the blocking state with which the bicycle is locked (see Para. [0024]-[0026], [0037], [0041], discloses “schematic diagram of the locked state of the bicycle lock bolt”, and/or see Para. [0038], “the lock cylinder 11 can be smoothly inserted into the hole to restrict the rotation of the brake disc 200, thereby locking the entire wheel”, and see Para. [0044], “the bolt locking state of the bicycle lock shown in Figure 5”),
- a channel for therein arranging of the bolt (See Para. [0044], discloses “the sliding arc surface 163 of the bolt 16 slides along the inclined surface 123 until the locking plane 162 is locked by the buckle surface 122 under the bias of the bolt spring 17”, which constitutes a channel for the bolt as claimed),
- a latch having a latching state and an unlatching state for, in the latching state of the latch, keeping the bolt in the blocking state (See Para. [0042], “the bolt 16 has a locking plane 162, and the locking plane 162 is locked by the latching surface 122 under the bias of the bolt spring 17),
a latch actuator, said latch actuator having a blocking state, and a releasing state for releasing the latch (See Para. [0041], “The motor 15 can drive the bolt 16 to retract against the bias force of the bolt spring 17, so as to release the locking head 121 that is locked by the bolt 16”, and Para. [0045], “The motor 15 [i.e., actuator] drives the bolt 16 to retract against the bias pressure of the bolt spring 17 through the movement of the gear rack, and the locking plane 162 separates from the buckling surface 122”),
- wherein the bolt in the blocking state is in cooperation with a receiving space (See Para. [0038], “the extended lock cylinder 11 is blocked by the spokes of the brake disc 200 during the locking process, the wheel can be slightly rotated to allow the brake disc 200 to rotate to a position where the hole can be exposed, so that the lock cylinder 11 can be smoothly inserted into the hole to restrict the rotation of the brake disc 200, thereby locking the entire wheel”),
- a defining a state of cooperation in which the bolt and the receiving space locks the bicycle (See Para. [0038], discloses “the bicycle lock 100 of the present invention has a lock cylinder 11 (FIG. 4) that can be extended by being pressed and inserted into the gap between the brake disc 200 to restrict the rotation of the brake disc 200. The lock cylinder 11 can be smoothly inserted into the hole to restrict the rotation of the brake disc 200, thereby locking the entire wheel”),
-lock control unit for controlling the lock and for communication with the central controlling computer (See Para. [0046], “the control system 300 sends an unlocking signal to the vehicle lock drive circuit 303 through the central processing unit 300, thereby controlling the motor 15 to open the vehicle lock, and see Para. [0047], “send a, locking signal to the central processing unit 301”),
Wu further teaches in Para. [0046], “the control system 300 sends an unlocking signal to the vehicle lock drive circuit 303 through the central processing unit 300, thereby controlling the motor 15 to open the vehicle lock”, and in Para. [0042], “the locking latch 121 has a latching surface 122 that matches the shape of the locking plane 162 and an inclined surface 123 that corresponds to the sliding arc surface 163; when the push-button switch 12 is pressed, the sliding arc surface 163 can slide along the inclined surface 123 until the locking plane 162 is locked by the latching surface 122 under the bias of the bolt spring 17”.
Another prior art, Carlier (US 2021/0237817A1) teaches, in Para. [0022], “the bicycle comprises a latch unblocking assembly for moving the latch out of the latching position. Such a latch unblocking assembly according to this preferred embodiment functions preferably in combination with a cantilever latch in order to tipped latch relative to the releasing of the bolt.”, and see para. [0048], “The latch is under bias from a spring 14 in order to urge the bolt in the blocking state when under this bias.”
However, the cited prior arts above fails to suggest, disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitations of “at least one bolt spring, constantly co-acting with the bolt for urging the bolt towards the unblocking state, and wherein the lock control unit is configured to, based on an action and/or a status of a rider of the bicycle, provide a release actuation signal for releasing the latch to allow urging the bolt towards the unblocking state by means of said at least one bolt spring” and in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 5-11, 13-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 28 and 31 depends on claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-3, 5-11, 13-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 28 and 31 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency if claims are rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), and claims, drawing/specification objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657