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 .Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art teaches dynamic fitting bike machines that change bike configurations based on sensor data; however, the prior art does not teach a updating a first bike specification based on force sensor from a first bike and second force data from a second bike that utilizes the first bike specification. The prior art also does not teach generating a plurality of bicycle specifications based on image data, first force sensor from a first bike, and second force data from a second bike that utilizes the first bike specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental-process evaluation and mathematical derivation of a specification) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) generic sensing and computing parts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generic sensing and computing equipment do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computing and senor items do not add significantly more to the claimed abstract ideas. The claims, implemented with generic sensing and computing components, fail to integrate the exception into a practical application, and do not amount to “significantly more.”
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer readable storage medium. Computer readable storage medium includes transitory signals which are ineligible subject matter.
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, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kristiansen et al. (US Pub No. 2014/0379135).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 14, Kristiansen teaches a system for bike fitting (See abstract), comprising:
an image capture device, capturing an image of a user riding a first bicycle (See [0044] and [0091]);
a first force sensor, disposed on the first bicycle to detect a first force (See [0073]); and
a processor, communicatively connected to the image capture device and the first force sensor (See [0074]),
wherein the processor is configured to execute:
determining a first riding position of the user according to the image (See [0060] and Fig. 6, step 102-104);
generating a first bicycle specification according to the first riding position and the first force (See [0060], [0093]-[0094], and Fig. 6, step 106); and
outputting the first bicycle specification (See [0094] and Fig. 6, step 106).
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.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kristiansen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nangeroni et al. (US Pub No. 2019/0383627).
Regarding claim 10, Kristiansen does not teach the first force sensor comprises a strain gauge disposed on at least one of a saddle, a handlebar, a pedal, and a crankset of the first bicycle
Nangeroni teaches the first force sensor comprises a strain gauge disposed on at least one of a saddle, a handlebar, a pedal, and a crankset of the first bicycle (See [0035]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Kristiansen to include Nangeroni’s teachings in order to help “maintain smooth vehicle operations” ([0027]). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 11, Kristiansen does not teach the first force sensor comprises an inertial measurement unit disposed on a crankset or a pedal of the first bicycle.
Nangeroni teaches the first force sensor comprises an inertial measurement unit disposed on a any suitable location of the bicycle (See [0035]).
Regarding claim 12, Kristiansen does not teach the first force sensor comprises a piezoelectric film, a resistive sensor, or a capacitive sensor disposed on at least one of a handlebar and a saddle of the first bicycle.
Nangeroni teaches the first force sensor comprises a piezoelectric film, a resistive sensor, or a capacitive sensor disposed on at least one of a handlebar and a saddle of the first bicycle (See [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS S MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)272-0841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS S MCCORMACK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686