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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 12-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al. (USPN 10,414,463) in view of Shipman et al. (US 2015/0284049).
Komatsu discloses an operating device for a human-powered vehicle, comprising: circuity including a circuit board (CC1 considered a circuit board, Fig. 6 depicts CC1 as a board containing a processor and memory) a base member (12) including a first end portion (12A) [configured to be coupled to a handlebar] (via 18), a second end portion (12B) opposite to the first end portion, a base body (12G) [configured to accommodate a hydraulic unit] (12g accommodates 25), and an accommodating structure (12p) [configured to accommodate a power supply (PS1)], the circuit board (CC1) is accommodated within the accommodating structure, the accommodating structure being provided at the second end portion (see Fig. 4); and an operating member (14) pivotally coupled to the base member about a pivot axis (A1). wherein the operating member is operatively coupled to a brake device (Column 8 lines 33-34).
Komatsu does not disclose a connector attached to the base body, the connector being connected to the circuitry via an electric cable, the connector being configured to be detachably connected to at least one electric control cable different from the electric cable, or wherein the connector includes a first connection port and a second connection port, or wherein the first connection port and the second connection port face opposite side with respect to the accommodating structure as viewed from a direction parallel to the pivot axis, or wherein the first connection port and the second connection ports are aligned in a direction non-parallel to the pivot axis.
Shipman discloses a connector (55) attached to a base body (32), the connector being connected to circuitry (113) via an electric cable (96), the connector being [configured to be detachably connected to at least one electrical control cable different from the electric cable] (each of 55 capable of being detachably connected to one of 146, see Fig. 21, Paragraph [0071]), wherein the connector includes a first connection port (55A) and a second connection port (55B), wherein the first connection port and the second connection port face opposite side (as best understood, the connection ports 55A/B are on an opposite side of pivot axis 44 with respect to where 50 is located, considered the equivalent to the accommodating structure of Komatsu) with respect to the accommodating structure as viewed from a direction (see Fig. 6) parallel to the pivot axis, or wherein the first connection port and the second connection port are aligned in a direction (55A/B are aligned vertically in Fig. 6, which is perpendicular to the pivot axis of 44) non-parallel to the pivot axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the operating device of Komatsu to have a connector with a plurality of connection ports attached to the base body opposite of the accommodation structure relative to the pivot axis, and aligned vertically, electrically connected to circuitry, and allowing control cables to be detachably connected, in order to provide power and/or control over optional electrical accessories with convenient access to the ports.
Specifically, regarding claim 6, the combination of Komatsu and Shipman disclose wherein the connector is at least partially overlapped (see Fig. 1 of Komatsu, and Figs. 6 and 17 of Shipman, the connectors would necessarily overlap the hydraulic unit when viewed along the pivot axis) with the hydraulic unit as viewed from a direction parallel to the pivot axis.
Specifically regarding claim 13, the combination of Komatsu and Shipman disclose wherein the connector includes a first connection port (55A of Shipman modifying Komatsu) directed away (the port 55a provided by Shipman can be considered to be directed away from the circuit board CC1 of Komatsu in the combination, as the port is not directed toward the front of the operating device where the circuit board is located) from the circuit board as viewed from a direction parallel (as viewed in Fig. 1 of Komatsu and Fig. 6 of Shipman) to the pivot axis.
Specifically regarding claim 14, the combination of Komatsu and Shipman disclose wherein the connector and the circuitry are separate components (the circuitry CC1 of Komatsu is separate from the connector 55A provided by Shipman in the modification above).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu and Shipman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujii (USPN 7,703,350).
The combination of Komatsu and Shipman disclose the claimed invention, except for wherein the base body includes a groove accommodating the electric cable.
Fujii discloses a groove (64) in a base body (41) for accommodating an electrical cable (99/100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the operating device of Komatsu and Shipman to have a groove in the base body for accommodating the electrical cable, in order to protect the electrical cable from being snagged, abraded or otherwise damaged during operating of the human-powered vehicle.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu and Shipman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miki et al. (US 2010/0083786).
The combination of Komatsu and Shipman disclose the claimed invention, except for wherein the accommodating structure is a separate member from the base body, and the accommodating structure is detachably attached to the base body at the second end portion.
Miki discloses an accommodating structure (46) detachably attached (see Fig. 2) to a base body (30) at a second end portion (see Fig. 2),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the operating device of Komatsu and Shipman to have the accommodating structure be a separate, removable part, in order to provide easy access to the power supply and circuitry in the accommodating structure for maintenance and repair purposes.
Claim(s) 8-11, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu and Shipman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miki et al. (US 2010/0083786).
The combination of Komatsu and Shipman disclose the claimed invention, wherein the accommodating part is provided to the main body (see Fig. 1 of Komatsu), and an accommodating part (portion of Komatsu forming the space in which the power supply is provided)includes an accommodating space in which the power supply is to be provided (as best understood, see Fig. 1 of Komatsu), wherein the electrical cable (96 -Shipman) is coupled to (by at least 94, however can be considered coupled through connection to 113 and/or 114 and any intervening components) the main body.
Komatsu and Shipman do not disclose wherein the accommodating structure includes a main body and an attachment member, and the attachment member is configured to be attached to the main body, or wherein the accommodating part includes an insertion opening, and the power supply passes through the insertion opening when the power supply is inserted into or removed from the accommodating space.
Miki discloses an accommodating structure includes a main body (46) and an attachment member (48), and the attachment member is configured to be attached to the main body and wherein the accommodating part includes an insertion opening (opening covered by 46), and the power supply (66) passes through the insertion opening when the power supply is inserted into or removed from the accommodating space.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the operating device of Komatsu and Shipman to have the accommodating structure be a separate, removable part with an attachment member covering an opening, in order to provide easy access to the power supply and circuitry in the accommodating structure for maintenance and repair purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the combination of features recited in the amended claims. This was not found to be persuasive, as detailed in the rejection above, the combination of Komatsu and Shipman disclose the features defined by the claim. More specifically, the circuitry CC1 is shown in Figure 6 of Komatsu as a board having a processor and memory.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKE COOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
JAKE COOK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/Jake Cook/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618