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 Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: An article is missing before the limitations “first auxiliary driving force”, “human driving force”, “pedal stepping force”, “second auxiliary driving force”, “pushing force”, and “auxiliary driving force” (in Claim 3) in the second and third paragraphs of the claims. Appropriate correction, while ensuring proper antecedent basis for these limitations, is required.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “immediately before” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “immediately before” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what process or event, e.g., the beginning of the second braking condition, the passing of the predetermined time since an operation of the second mode operation unit ends, or the climbing of a slope, is referred to by the phrase “immediately before”, especially as the limitations listed in Claim 12 are a Markush grouping, with only one condition necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2020 2015 215 222 A1 to Reisige et al., hereinafter Reisige.
Regarding Claim 2, Reisige teaches an electric assist bicycle (100, Fig. 1, [0020]) comprising an electric motor (111, Fig. 1, [0020]), the electric assist bicycle further comprising:
a control unit (120, Fig. 1, [0020]) configured to execute, in a switching manner, a first mode (“deactivation of a push-assist operating mode” 210, Fig. 2, [0022]) in which first auxiliary driving force from the electric motor (111) is added to human driving force based on pedal stepping force for traveling (via “…pedaling force of the user on pedals 115…”, [0020]), and a second mode (activation of “push-assist operating mode” in an alternative step 210, Fig. 2, [0022]) in which second auxiliary driving force from the electric motor (111) is added to pushing force on a vehicle body for push-walking (“…power assistance when pushing the electric bicycle by means of the electric motor 111…” – [0021]) or the second auxiliary driving force is added for self-propelling the electric assist bicycle (as activated by “first switch” 130 which allows for motor torque without human pedal input, [0021]);
a second mode operation unit (130, Fig. 1, [0021-0022]) configured to transmit a signal (detection of operating mode change in 210, Fig. 2, [0022]) for executing the second mode (activation of “push-assist operating mode”) to the control unit (120); and
a braking device (“motor torque” M when counteracting wheel rotation, e.g. in step 270, Fig. 2, [0022]) configured to apply braking force (270) to prevent backward movement of the electric assist bicycle (identification of backward movement determined in step 260, Fig. 2, [0022]) in a case where a braking condition is met (the process of Fig. 2), wherein
the braking condition includes at least one of a first braking condition where an upslope is detected (step 230, Fig. 2, [0022]) after an operation of the second mode operation unit ends (proceeding after 210, Fig. 2) and a second braking condition where backward movement of the electric assist bicycle is detected (step 260, Fig. 2, [0022]) after an operation of the second mode operation unit ends (proceeding after 210, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Reisige teaches an electric assist bicycle (100, Fig. 1, [0020]) comprising an electric motor (111, Fig. 1, [0020]), the electric assist bicycle further comprising:
a control unit (120, Fig. 1, [0020]) configured to execute, in a switching manner, a first mode (“deactivation of a push-assist operating mode” 210, Fig. 2, [0022]) in which first auxiliary driving force from the electric motor (111) is added to human driving force based on pedal stepping force for traveling (via “…pedaling force of the user on pedals 115…”, [0020]), and
a braking device (“motor torque” M when counteracting wheel rotation, e.g. in step 270, Fig. 2, [0022]) configured to apply braking force (270) to prevent backward movement of the electric assist bicycle (identification of backward movement determined in step 260, Fig. 2, [0022]) in a case where a braking condition is met (the process of Fig. 2), wherein
the braking condition includes at least one of a first braking condition where an upslope is detected in a case of stopping after traveling at or above a predetermined speed (in step 250, Fig. 2, [0022]), and a second braking condition where backward movement of the electric assist bicycle is detected (step 270, Fig. 2, [0022]) within a predetermined time (in intermediate step 245, Fig. 2, [0022]) in a case of stopping after traveling at or above a predetermined speed (measured in step 260, Fig. 2, [0022]).
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 1, 4-8, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisige in view of US Pub. 2021/0086859 A1 to Van Houten et al., hereinafter Van Houten.
Regarding Claim 1, Reisige teaches an electric assist bicycle (100, Fig. 1, [0020]) and an electric motor (111, Fig. 1, [0020]), the electric assist bicycle further comprising:
a control unit (120, Fig. 1, [0020]) configured to execute, in a switching manner, a first mode (“deactivation of a push-assist operating mode” 210, Fig. 2, [0022]) in which first auxiliary driving force from the electric motor (111) is added to human driving force based on pedal stepping force for traveling (via “…pedaling force of the user on pedals 115…”, [0020]), and a second mode (activation of “push-assist operating mode” in an alternative step 210, Fig. 2, [0022]) in which second auxiliary driving force from the electric motor (111) is added to pushing force on a vehicle body for push-walking (“…power assistance when pushing the electric bicycle by means of the electric motor 111…” – [0021]) or the second auxiliary driving force is added for self-propelling the electric assist bicycle (as activated by “first switch” 130, which allows for motor torque without human pedal input, [0021]);
a second mode operation unit (130, Fig. 1, [0021-0022]) configured to transmit a signal (detection of operating mode change in 210, Fig. 2, [0022]) for executing the second mode (activation of “push-assist operating mode”) to the control unit (120); and
a braking device (“motor torque” M when counteracting wheel rotation, e.g. in step 270, Fig. 2, [0022]) configured to apply braking force (270) to prevent backward movement of the electric assist bicycle (identification of backward movement determined in step 260, Fig. 2, [0022]) in a case where a braking condition is met (the process of Fig. 2), and
the braking condition (the process of Fig. 2) includes at least one of a first braking condition where an upslope is detected (step 230, Fig. 2, [0022]) and a second braking condition where backward movement of the electric assist bicycle is detected (step 270, Fig. 2, [0022]).
Reisige does not teach a riding device, a riding device state detection unit configured to detect a state of the riding device being rideable or unrideable, or that the control unit executes the second mode based on the state of the riding device.
In the same field of endeavor of electrically assisted two-wheeled vehicle controls, Van Houten teaches a riding device (“…force sensors read in act 406…” – [0071], Fig. 4) and a riding device state detection unit (the controller at “decision block” 410, Fig. 4, [0069, 0071]), the state including a first state in which the riding device is ridable (act 408, i.e., when a rider is detected, Fig. 4, [0069]) and a second state in which the riding device is not rideable (act 406, i.e., when a rider is not detected on board and the walk-assist mode (analogous to Reisige – “push-assist operating mode”) is implemented, Fig. 4, [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the electric assist bicycle of Reisige with the riding device/switch, and its control logic, of Van Houten, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to render an electrically powered two-wheeled vehicle into an unrideable “walk-assist mode” to prevent undesired motor torque above a threshold value when a user is walking beside the vehicle (Van Houten – [0029]).
Regarding Claim 4, Reisige in view of Van Houten further teaches wherein the braking device (Reisige – “motor torque” M when counteracting wheel rotation) applies the braking force (270) in a case where the braking condition is met (the process of Fig. 2) after an operation of the second mode operation unit ends (proceeding after 210, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Reisige in view of Van Houten further teaches wherein the braking device (Reisige – “motor torque” M when counteracting wheel rotation) applies the braking force (270) in a case where the second braking condition (step 270, Fig. 2, [0022]) is met within a predetermined time (in intermediate step 245, Fig. 2, [0022]) after an operation of the second mode operation unit ends (proceeding after 210, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Reisige in view of Van Houten further teaches wherein the braking device (Reisige – “motor torque” M when counteracting wheel rotation) applies the braking force (270) in a case where the braking condition is met after traveling at or above a predetermined speed (in step 250, Fig. 2, [0022]) in the second mode (activation of “push-assist operating mode” in an alternative step 210, Fig. 2, [0022]).
Regarding Claim 7, Reisige in view of Van Houten further teaches an inclination sensing device (Reisige – “sensor unit” 112, Fig. 1, [0020]), wherein the braking device (“motor torque” M when counteracting wheel rotation) applies the braking force (270) in a case where an upward inclination degree greater than or equal to a predetermined degree (recorded as pitch angle α in step 230, Fig. 2, [0022]) is sensed by the inclination sensing device (in step 240, Fig. 2, [0022]).
Regarding Claim 8, Reisige in view of Van Houten further teaches wherein the braking device (Reisige – “motor torque” M when counteracting wheel rotation) continues application of the braking force for a predetermined time or longer (in intermediate step 245, Fig. 2, [0022]).
Regarding Claim 11, Reisige in view of Van Houten further teaches wherein the control unit (Reisige – 120) determines that the braking condition is met in a case where reverse rotation of the electric motor is detected (step 260, Fig. 2, [0022]).
Regarding Claim 12, Reisige in view of Van Houten further teaches wherein the control unit (Reisige – 120) determines that the second braking condition is met (step 270, Fig. 2, [0022]) in a case where reverse rotation of the electric motor (111) is detected (step 260) and at least one condition, selected from among a condition where a predetermined time or shorter has passed since an operation of the second mode operation unit ended (step 245), a condition where the electric assist bicycle is climbing a slope (step 240), a condition where an output level of the electric motor immediately before is greater than or equal to a predetermined value, a condition where vehicle speed immediately before is less than or equal to a predetermined value, and a condition where acceleration immediately before is less than or equal to a predetermined value, is met.
Regarding Claim 13, Reisige in view of Van Houten further teaches wherein the second mode (“push-assist operating mode”, [0022]) includes a drive mode (“push-assist operating mode”, [0022]) in which the second auxiliary driving force (“…power assistance when pushing the electric bicycle by means of the electric motor 111…” – [0021]) is applied, a stay mode in which the braking force (reverse torque M) is applied by the braking device (in “supportive holding mode”, operated by “second switch” 131, [0022]), and a free mode (a state when neither the “first switch” 130 or “second switch” 131 is activated, [0022]) in which the second auxiliary driving force (“power assistance” of 111) and the braking force (reverse torque M) are not applied (in a state when neither “push-assist operating mode” or the “holding function” are activated, that is, “Advantageously, the motor torque in step 270 is only generated if the push assist is deactivated or the holding function is activated.” – [0022]) and
the control unit (120) transitions the drive mode (“push-assist operating mode”) to the stay mode (“supportive holding mode”) via the free mode (“…a motor torque is generated… depending on the detected deactivation of the push assist or the detected activation of the holding function.” – [0022], that is, no motor torque is generated when neither switch is activated).
Regarding Claim 14, Reisige in view of Van Houten further teaches wherein the control unit (Reisige – 120) transitions the free mode (the state when neither mode is activated via switches 130 or 131) to the drive mode (“push-assist operating mode”) and the stay mode (“supportive holding mode”) on a condition where the riding device is in the second state (Van Houten – act 406).
Regarding Claim 15, Reisige in view of Van Houten further teaches wherein the control unit (Reisige – 120) transitions the stay mode (“supportive holding mode”) to the drive mode (“push-assist operating mode”) in a case where the second mode operation unit (130) is operated in the stay mode (that is, the activation of 130 and 131 is mutually exclusive, [0022]).
Regarding Claim 16, Reisige in view of Van Houten further teaches wherein the braking device (Reisige – “motor torque” M when counteracting wheel rotation) stops application of the braking force in a case where at least one condition, selected from among a condition where the electric motor has been stopped for a predetermined time, a condition where vehicle speed has exceeded a predetermined value, a condition where acceleration has exceeded a predetermined value, and a condition where the electric assist bicycle is positioned on flat ground or a downslope (“…motor torque M is generated in step 270 only if the determined gradient of the travel distance 150 is greater than or equal to the gradient threshold value.” – [0022]), is met.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisige in view of Van Houten as applied to Claims 1, 4-8, and 11-16 above, and further in view of US Pub. 2019/0315433 A1 to Hasumi.
Regarding Claim 9, Reisige in view of Van Houten teaches the electric assist bicycle according to Claim 8 but does not teach that it further comprises a notification device that notifies that the braking force is being applied.
In the same field of endeavor as electric assist bicycles and their controls, Hasumi teaches a notification device (“display panel” 61, including “assist mode display area” 61d, Fig. 3, [0108, 0110]), wherein the notification device notifies that the braking force (“assist power” of “electric motor” 53, [0105]) is applied (in 61d, [0114]).
Hasumi further teaches wherein the notification device (61 including 61d) notifies of the predetermined time (calculated during “gradient calculation circuit” 182 (analogous to Reisige – step 245), [0224]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the electric assist bicycle of Reisige/Van Houten with the notification device/display and displayed information of Hasumi, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would appreciate the utility of an electronic display on an electrically assisted bicycle to inform the rider/user of the state of assistance they are receiving, beneficially increasing usability (Hasumi – [0224]).
Regarding Claim 9, Reisige/Van Houten in further view of Hasumi already teaches wherein the notification device (Hasumi – 61 including 61d) notifies of the predetermined time (calculated during “gradient calculation circuit” 182 (analogous to Reisige – step 245), [0224]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Pub. 2020/0216141 A1 to Murthy discloses an electric bicycle (200, [0031]) having a hill hold/start assist function ([0032-0036]) via an electric assist motor (245, [0037]) and a plurality of sensors (210, 215, 220, 225, Fig. 2) in operative communication with the motor via control logic (Figs. 4-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 Eastern.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/Mitchell James Price/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights