DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 11 recites: “a motor drive controller included in the ETPS,” but claim 10 introduces a motor drive controller as part of “electronic components.” Furthermore, claim 7 introduces the electronic components as being inside the ETPS. The motor drive controller was first introduced as part of the electronic components, not as part of the ETPS. It is unclear whether the motor drive controller of claim 11 in the same motor drive controller of claim 10.
Therefore, the claim functional relationship cannot be understood with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the boundaries of the claim cannot be determined, and claim 11 is indefinite under 35 USC §112(b). For the sake of compact prosecution, it is recommended to amend claim 10 to: “…wherein the electronic components disposed within the ETPS comprise a motor drive controller…”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a spacer " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. "a spacer " is introduced in claim 4, but claim 8 depends from claim 5, not claim 4. It is recommended to change dependency to claim 4.
Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hahn et al. (US 20230202609; hereinafter, “Hahn”).
Regarding claim 1, Hahn teaches: a reconfigurable operator control assembly (98, figs. 1-10) configured to provide at least one configuration (fig. 1 or fig. 2 configuration, [0048-0049] comprising:
a first operator control (98; fig. 1 [0048]) and/or a second operator control (120 or second 98); para. 0048 teaches: “multiple control devices may be used with the bicycle 50,” the examiner considers second 98 or 120 being the second operator control as depicted in figs. 1-2)
a mounting structure (“control device coupler” 100; [0048]) with clamp [0054]); [0054 teaches: “the attachment member may be a clamp or may be otherwise attachable, for example, through threaded engagement with the handlebar 68]);
a post (“front post” as depicted in fig. 1) configured to secure the operator control (98 and 120) to the mounting structure (“control device coupler” 100; [0048]) with “clamp” [0054]);
wherein the configuration (figs. 1-2) comprises (a) the first operator control (98 or 120) or (b) the second operator control (second 98 or 120) or (c) the first operator control (120) above (fig. 1) the second operator control (98) or (d) the first operator control (first 98) below (fig. 1 configuration) the second operator control (second 98 or 120).
Regarding claim 2, Hahn further teaches that the first operator control (98) comprises a remote actuator assembly (“wireless communication device” of 98; [para. 0051 teaches: “the control device 98 may include a processor, a communication device (e.g., a wireless communication device), a memory, and one or more communication interfaces”]) and/or the second operator control (second 98 or 120) comprises a remote actuator assembly (“wireless control system”; [para. 0053 teaches: “each of figs. 1 and 2 depicts an embodiment of a wireless control system that includes a control assembly 120 for controlling components of the bicycle 50]).
Regarding claim 3, Hahn further teaches that the post (“front post, fig. 2) comprises (a) a short post (post is shorter in length as depicted in fig. 2) configured for mounting (via “control device coupler” 100; [0048]) a configuration comprising the first operator control (98) or the second operator control (second 98 among multiple 98 or 120) or (b) a long post (post is longer in length as depicted in fig. 1) configured for mounting (via “control device coupler” 100; [0048]) a configuration (fig. 1 configuration) comprising the first operator control (first 98) and the second operator control (second 98 or 120); wherein the long post (post from fig. 1) is longer than the short post (post from fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
916
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Hahn
PNG
media_image2.png
628
1253
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2 of Hahn
Regarding claim 5, Hahn further teaches that wherein the first operator control (98) comprises a seatpost dropper control (via a motor; [para. 0050 teaches: “in one example, the control device 98 is configured to control a motor within the seat post assembly 106 to adjust a height of the seat 64 relative to the frame 52”]) or a suspension damping adjuster control (via a motor; [para. 0049 teaches: “in one example, the control device 98 is configured to control a motor within the front suspension 102 or the rear suspension 104 to adjust a spring or damper of the front suspension 102 or the rear suspension 104]); wherein the second operator control (second 98 or 120) comprises a seatpost dropper control or a suspension damping adjuster control [ para. 0056 teaches that a second control device of the plurality of control devices 98 includes the control user interface and is attached to the handlebars 68, so that the user may interact with one or more device buttons to control or adjust the components. The first control device and the second control device are in communication with each other (e.g., wirelessly or via wired connection; thus, the second control device 98 or 120 performs the same functions: a seatpost dropper control or a suspension damping adjuster control].
Regarding claim 6, Hahn further teaches that a stack (120 above 98) comprising (a) the seatpost dropper control (second 98 or 120) above (fig. 2 configuration) the suspension damping adjuster control (first 98) or (b) the seatpost dropper control (via first 98) under below (fig. 1 configuration) the suspension damping adjuster control (second 98 or 120).
Regarding claim 7, Hahn further teaches that the at least one configuration (fig. 1 or fig. 2 configuration) comprises (a) the seatpost dropper control (via a motor by 98; [0050]) or (b) the suspension damping adjuster control (via a motor; [0049]) or (c) the seatpost dropper control (second 98 or 120) above (fig. 2 configuration where second 98 or 120 is position above the first 98) the suspension damping adjuster control (via first 98) or (d) the seatpost dropper control (first 98) below (fig. 1 configuration where first 98 is positioned below the second 98 or 120) the suspension damping adjuster control (second 98 or 120).
Regarding claim 8, Hahn further teaches that the at least one configuration (either fig. 1 or fig. 2) comprises (a) the seatpost dropper control (via 98) wherein the post (“front post”) comprises a short post (fig. 2 post shows short post) or (b) the suspension damping adjuster control (via second 98 or 120) wherein the post comprises a short post (as depicted in fig. 2) or (c) the seatpost dropper control (second 98 or 120) above (fig. 1) the suspension damping adjuster control (first 98) wherein the post comprises a long post (fig. 1 post is longer than fig. 2 post) secured through a spacer (hood portion 122 that is positioned in between 98 and 120 is equivalent and understood to be a spacer, fig. 1; [0054]) with a fastener (via “clamp”; [0054]) and a fastener (“threaded engagement”; [0054]) to secure to the mounting structure (via “control device coupler” 100; [0048]) or (d) the seatpost dropper control (first 98) below (fig. 1 configuration) the suspension damping adjuster control (second 98 or 120) wherein the post (fig. 1 post) comprises a long post (fig. 1 shows the longer post) secured through a spacer (hood portion 122 that is positioned in between 98 and 120 is equivalent and understood to be a spacer, fig. 1; [0054]) with a fastener (via “clamp” ; [0054]) and a fastener (“threaded engagement”; [0054]) to secure to the mounting structure (via “control device coupler” 100; [0048]).
Regarding claim 9, Hahn includes all the limitations of claim 1 and further comprising a lever (“lever” 70, fig.1 and [0042, lines 14-15]) and connection of a cable (“cable” as depicted in fig. 2 and [0041]).
Regarding claim 11, Hahn further teaches that the mounting structure (via “control device coupler” 100; [0048]) comprises a clamp assembly (“clamp”; [0054 teaches: “the attachment member may be a clamp or may be otherwise attachable, for example, through threaded engagement with the handlebar 68]).
Regarding claim 13, Hahn teaches: a reconfigurable operator control assembly (98 and 120; figs 1-10) and comprising:
(a) an operator control (98 and 120, fig. 1; [0048) comprising at least one operator control (98);
(b) a mounting structure (“control device coupler” 100; [0048]);
(c) a post (“front post in between 98 and 120, figs. 1-2) configured to secure the operator control (98 and 120) to the mounting structure (“control device coupler” 100; [0048] with clamp [0054]);
wherein the operator control (98 or 120) comprises a seatpost dropper control (via a motor; [para. 0050 teaches: “in one example, the control device 98 is configured to control a motor within the seat post assembly 106 to adjust a height of the seat 64 relative to the frame 52”]) and/or a suspension damping adjuster control (via a motor; [para. 0049 teaches: “in one example, the control device 98 is configured to control a motor within the front suspension 102 or the rear suspension 104 to adjust a spring or damper of the front suspension 102 or the rear suspension 104]).
Regarding claim 15, Hahn further teaches that the assembly of claim 13 further comprising a stack (as depicted in figs. 1-2, 98 and 120 is positioned in stack) comprising (a) the seatpost dropper control (second 98 or 120) above (fig. 2 configuration where second 98 or 120 is position above the first 98) the suspension damping adjuster control (98) or (b) the seatpost dropper control under below (fig. 1 configuration) the suspension damping adjuster control (second 98 or 120).
Regarding claim 16, Hahn further teaches that the at least one operator control (98 or 120) comprises (a) the seatpost dropper control (second 98 or 120) above the suspension damping adjuster control (first 98, fig. 2) or (b) the seatpost dropper control (first 98, fig. 2) below (fig. 1 configuration) the suspension damping adjuster control (second 98 or 120) or (c) the seatpost dropper control (first 98) or (d) the suspension damping adjuster control (second 98 or 120).
Regarding claim 17, Hahn includes all the limitation of claim 13 configured to provide multiple arrangements (fig. 1 and fig. 2 arrangement; [0048-0049) ; wherein the post (“front post”) comprises a short post (fig. 2 post shows short post) or a long post (fig. 1 post - a long post); wherein the long post is longer than the short post ( see figs. 1 and 2 where post from fig. 1 is longer than another post from fig. 2); wherein the short post is configured for mounting an arrangement comprising the seatpost dropper control (via first 98; [0050]) or the suspension damping adjuster control ([ 0049]); wherein the long post (fig. 1) is configured for mounting an arrangement comprising the seatpost dropper control (via second 98 or 120 and [0050]) and the suspension damping adjuster control ([0049]).
Regarding claim 18, Hahn teaches: a reconfigurable operator control assembly (98 and 120) comprising:
(a) a first operator control (98, fig. 1);
(b) a second operator control (120, fig. 1);
(c) a mounting structure (“control device coupler” 100; [0048]) with clamp [0054]);
(d) a post (“front post”, figs. 1-2) configured to secure the operator control (via clamp; [0054]) to the mounting structure (“control device coupler” 100; [0048]);
wherein the operator control assembly (98 and 120) comprises (a) the first operator control (second 98 or 120, fig. 2) above the second operator control (98) or (b) the first operator control (first 98) below (fig. 1 configuration) the second operator control (120) or (c) the first operator control (98) or (d) the second operator control (120).
Regarding claim 19, Hahn further teaches that the first operator control (98, figs. 1-2) comprises a seatpost dropper control (via a motor; [para. 0050 teaches: “in one example, the control device 98 is configured to control a motor within the seat post assembly 106 to adjust a height of the seat 64 relative to the frame 52”]) and the second operator control (second 98 or 120) comprises a suspension damping adjuster control (via a motor; [para. 0049 teaches: “in one example, the control device 98 is configured to control a motor within the front suspension 102 or the rear suspension 104 to adjust a spring or damper of the front suspension 102 or the rear suspension 104]).
Regarding claim 20, Hahn further teaches that the post (front post between 98 and 120) comprises a short post (fig. 2 configuration) configured for mounting the first operator control (first 98, fig. 2) or a long post (fig. 1 configuration) configured for mounting of the first operator control (98) and the second operator control (second 98 or 120); wherein the long post is longer than the short post (as depicted in figs. 1-2, the post from fig. 1 is longer than post in fig. 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or no obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Bockman (US Pub. 20190315432 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hahn includes all the limitations of claim 1 and further comprising a stack (as depicted in figs. 1-2, 98 and 120 is positioned in stack) comprising the first operator control (first 98) and the second operator control (second 98 or 120, figs. 1-2); and a spacer (hood portion 122 that is positioned in between 98 and 120 is equivalent and understood to be a spacer, fig. 1; [0054]) between the first operator control (98) and the second operator control (second 98 or 120);
Hahn teaches the first operator control and the second operator control, including spacer in between but fails to explicitly teach that the post is configured to fit within the spacer; however,
Bockman in another “bicycle, bicycle assembly and method” similar to Hahn teaches that the post is configured to fit within the spacer [see annotated fig. 1 of Bockman where post is configured to fit within the spacer between the stacked - first operator control 152 and second operator control 60 and is depicted in rectangular shape with a noncircular cross-section.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the modified Hahn to include the teaching of Bockman and provide the noncircular cross-section post that is configured to fit within the spacer in order to advantageously improve the structural integrity into the fastening means. The motivation to combine the teaching of Bockman into the invention of Hahn arises from the shared objective of enabling controller’s secure attachment into the bicycle frame geometry in a wide range of dynamic driving environments.
PNG
media_image3.png
911
1083
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Bockman
Regarding claim 10, Hahn does not appear to explicitly teach that the post comprises a noncircular cross-section; however,
Bockman teaches that the post comprises a noncircular cross-section [see annotated fig. 1 of Bockman above where it is depicted as being rectangular shaped post in the vicinity of fastening means, so called as being a noncircular cross-section.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the modified Hahn to include the teaching of Bockman and provide the post that comprises a noncircular cross-section, configured to fit within the spacer in order to advantageously improve the structural integrity into the fastening means. The motivation to combine the teaching of Bockman into the invention of Hahn arises from the shared objective of enabling controller’s secure attachment into the bicycle frame geometry by enhancing more grip, enabled by the noncircular cross-section in a wide range of dynamic driving environments.
Moreover, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make and obtain the different shape of the body of a secure means, such as post that fastens to the multiple controllers with noncircular cross-section or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 14, Hahn teaches the post but fails to explicitly teach that the post comprises a body; wherein the body comprises a non-circular cross-section; however,
Bockman teaches that the post (see annotated fig. 1 above) comprises a body (body of the post); wherein the body comprises a non-circular cross-section (fig. 1 shows rectangular shape which is called as being noncircular cross-section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the modified Hahn to include the teaching of Bockman and provide the post that constitutes a body, and the body comprises a noncircular cross-section in order to advantageously improve the structural rigidity to the fastening means. The motivation to combine the teaching of Bockman into the invention of Hahn arises from the shared objective of enabling controller’s secure attachment into the bicycle frame geometry by enhancing rigid construction, avoid unnecessary vibration and noise, enabled by the noncircular cross-section in a wide range of dynamic driving environments.
Moreover, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make and obtain the different shape of the body of a secure means, such as ‘post’s body’ that fastens to the multiple controllers with noncircular cross-section or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 20180285807 A1; hereinafter, “Miyazaki”).
Regarding claim 12, Hahn does not appear to explicitly teach that a base plate configured to be secured to the mounting structure; wherein the base plate comprises a key; however,
Miyazaki in another “bicycle component operating device” similar to Hahn teaches that a base plate (base 28 of second actuation unit 22, fig. 1) configured to be secured to the mounting structure (mounting member 24, fig. 1; [0067]); wherein the base plate (28) comprises a key (operating member 32, fig. 1; [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the modified Hahn to include the teaching of Miyazaki and provide a base plate configured to be secured to the mounting structure; wherein the base plate comprises a key in order to advantageously configure a rigid command executing structure to operate one of the suspension as the second bicycle component BC2 as depicted in fig. 1 of Miyazaki, equivalent to the second operator control device of the claimed invention. The motivation to combine the teaching of Miyazaki into the invention of Hahn arises from the shared objective of enabling controller’s secure execution system along with a rigid base, integrated into the bicycle frame geometry; hence, thereby improving rigid construction, avoid unnecessary vibration and noise, while enabling key to execute the required command prompt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180115860 A1 to Masuda discloses: A bicycle communication device includes a communicator and a memory. The communicator is communicable with a bicycle electric component and a bicycle operation unit.
CN 105197146 A to Du discloses: base plate 17 is arranged in the rear top of crossbeam 6, stretch the top of drawing electrical generator 19 to be arranged in base plate 17, the two ends of lifting bar 20 respectively with vehicle seat 21, stretch and draw electrical generator 19 to be connected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
September 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights