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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 11, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Puntarich (US 2017/0203812).
In re claim 1, Puntarich discloses a micromobility vehicle (bicycle) comprising: one or more onboard sensors (GPS 28); a first wheel and a second wheel (as shown in Figure 4); an immobilization lock (10) to immobilize at least the first wheel of the micromobility vehicle; and a controller (18), wherein the controller is configured to: collect sensor data from the one or more onboard sensors of the micromobility vehicle; analyze the sensor data to determine whether a condition of the micromobility vehicle corresponds to a compromise or misuse (vehicle moving too far away; as shown in Figure 4) of the micromobility vehicle; and responsive to determining that the condition of the micromobility vehicle corresponds to a compromise or misuse of the micromobility vehicle, activate the immobilization lock on the micromobility vehicle to immobilize the first wheel of the micromobility vehicle (see [0014]-[0015]).
In re claim 2, Puntarich further discloses wherein the immobilization lock comprises: a rim brake (12) associated with the first wheel of the micromobility vehicle; a brake cable, (42) wherein a first end of the brake cable is connected to the rim brake and a second end of the brake cable is connected to a spooling device (40); and the spooling device comprising a spool coupled to the brake cable and a motor coupled to the spool (as shown in Figures 1 and 2).
In re claim 3, Puntarich further discloses wherein to activate the immobilization lock, the controller is further configured to: activate the motor to rotate the spool, wherein rotation of the spool tightens the brake cable to clamp the rim brake against a rim of the first wheel to immobilize the first wheel of the micromobility vehicle (see [0013]-[0015]).
In re claim 4, Puntarich further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to deactivate the immobilization lock responsive to receiving an unlock signal, wherein deactivating the immobilization lock comprises: deactivating the motor to release tension in the brake cable so as to allow the rim brake to disengage the rim of the first wheel (manual override; see [0014]).
In re claim 11, Puntarich further discloses wherein the immobilization lock is remotely activated by a server (transmitting unit 46 can be considered a small server since it provides a service) .
In re claim 15, Puntarich further discloses wherein: the first wheel is a rear wheel of the micromobility vehicle; and the immobilization lock is a wheel lock that is configured to immobilize the rear wheel of the micromobility vehicle (as shown in Figure 4).
In re claim 16, Puntarich discloses a computer-implemented method (computer program; see [0014]), comprising, by a controller of a micromobility vehicle: collecting sensor data from one or more onboard sensors of the micromobility vehicle; analyzing the sensor data to determine whether a condition of the micromobility vehicle corresponds to a compromise or misuse of the micromobility vehicle; and responsive to determining that the condition of the micromobility vehicle corresponds to a compromise or misuse of the micromobility vehicle, activating an immobilization lock on the micromobility vehicle to immobilize a first wheel of the micromobility vehicle (as discussed above).
In re claim 18, Puntarich further discloses wherein: the first wheel is a rear wheel of the micromobility vehicle; and the immobilization lock is a wheel lock that is configured to immobilize the rear wheel of the micromobility vehicle (as shown in Figure 4).
In re claim 19, Puntarich discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (computer program including programmable software; see [0014]) that, when executed by one or more processors of a controller of a micromobility vehicle, cause the controller to: collect sensor data from one or more onboard sensors of the micromobility vehicle; analyze the sensor data to determine whether a condition of the micromobility vehicle corresponds to a compromise or misuse of the micromobility vehicle; and responsive to determining that the condition of the micromobility vehicle corresponds to a compromise or misuse of the micromobility vehicle, activate an immobilization lock on the micromobility vehicle to immobilize a first wheel of the micromobility vehicle (as discussed above).
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puntarich in view of Sharan (US 6,021,862).
In re claim 5, Puntarich further discloses wherein the immobilization lock comprises: a brake caliper (14) associated with a brake of the first wheel of the micromobility vehicle; a brake cable (42), wherein a first end of the brake cable is connected to the brake caliper and a second end of the brake cable is connected to an actuator (40); and the actuator, but does not disclose a brake rotor. Sharan, however, does disclose a bicycle with a brake caliper and rotor (83) as shown in Figure 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle of Puntarich such that it comprised the disc/rotor brake of Sharan to advantageously provide greater braking power.
In re claim 6, Puntarich further discloses wherein to activate the immobilization lock, the controller is further configured to: activate the actuator to increase tension in the brake cable, wherein increased tension in the brake cable actuates the brake caliper to clamp the brake to immobilize the first wheel of the micromobility vehicle (see [0013]-[0015]).
In re claim 7, Puntarich further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to deactivate the immobilization lock responsive to receiving an unlock signal, wherein deactivating the immobilization lock comprises: deactivating the actuator to release the tension in the brake cable so as to allow the brake caliper to disengage the brake of the first wheel (manual override; see [0014]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puntarich in view of Fahrner (US 9,194,955).
In re claim 8, Puntarich discloses the micromobility vehicle of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the compromise of the micromobility vehicle comprises one of: a detected theft of the micromobility vehicle; and a detected vandalism of the micromobility vehicle. Fahrner, however, does disclose applying the brakes when theft is detected (see column 5, lines 28-42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle of Puntarich such that it comprised the theft prevention of Fahrner to advantageously apply the brakes to prevent theft.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puntarich in view of Seagraves (US 2017/0021827).
In re claim 9, Puntarich discloses the micromobility vehicle of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the misuse of the micromobility vehicle comprises one of: the micromobility vehicle operating at an excessive speed; and the micromobility vehicle operating on an unsafe terrain. Seagraves, however, does disclose a bicycle that applies the brakes when operating at an excessive speed (see [0019]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle of Puntarich such that it comprised the automatic brake control of Seagraves to advantageously apply the brakes when operating at excessive speeds for increased safety.
Claims 10, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puntarich in view of Luke (US 2017/0039631).
In re claims 10, 17, and 20, Puntarich discloses the micromobility vehicle of Claims 1, 16, and 19, but does not disclose wherein: the sensor data comprises image data; and the one or more onboard sensors comprise one or more cameras on the micromobility vehicle. Luke, however, does disclose wherein: the sensor data comprises image data; and the one or more onboard sensors comprise one or more cameras on the micromobility vehicle (see [0066] and [0081]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle of Puntarich such that it comprised the GPS and image data of Luke to advantageously provide the user with both image and GPS data to activate the brake in a safe manner by allowing the user to see where the bicycle is before applying the brakes.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puntarich in view of Gao (US 2019/0304204).
In re claim 12, Puntarich discloses the micromobility vehicle of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: receive an unlock signal from a server; and deactivate the immobilization lock to enable use of the micromobility vehicle responsive to receiving the unlock signal. Gao, however, does disclose a bicycle (as shown in Figure 3) having an ECU that engages and disengages a brake system to lock and unlock the vehicle (see [0062]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle of Puntarich such that it comprised the ECU locking and unlocking brakes of Gao to advantageously be able to unlock the bicycle remotely such that the user can return home safely.
In re claim 13, Puntarich discloses the micromobility vehicle of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the immobilization lock is configured to provide a backup braking assistance when a primary braking system of the micromobility vehicle fails. Gao, however, does disclose a bicycle having front and rear drum brakes (307; see [0066]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle of Puntarich such that it comprised drum brakes of Gao to advantageously provide additional braking power with no external wires. The Examiner notes that the combination of the externally controlled braking system of Puntarich and the drum brakes of Gao results in separate braking controls such that the immobilization lock could function as a backup brake in the event the bicycle is out of range of the device.
In re claim 14, Puntarich discloses the micromobility vehicle of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the immobilization lock is a braking system that is separate from a main or primary braking system of the micromobility vehicle. Gao, however, does disclose a bicycle having front and rear drum brakes (307; see [0066]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle of Puntarich such that it comprised drum brakes of Gao to advantageously provide additional braking power with no external wires. The Examiner notes that the combination of the externally controlled braking system of Puntarich and the drum brakes of Gao results in separate braking controls.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach micromobility vehicles of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
