DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
2. In response to the amendments filed 06/04/2026, claims 1 and 3-10 were amended, claim 2 was canceled and no new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-10 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 8 limitation “an emergency signal generator for generating an emergency signal if the hand of the bicyclist is determined not to be on the handle when the impact sensor senses an impact that could be indicative of an accident or a fall” is not supported by the original disclosure and thus in considered to be new matter.
Claims 9-10 depend on claim 8. Claims 9-10 are also rejected because they depend on a base claim that is rejected.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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 1 recites the limitation "the driver" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-4 depend on claim 1. Claims 3-4 are also indefinite because they depend on a base claim that is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
9. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nose et al. (Nose; US 2022/0169239) in view of Jin (CN 108100144; machine translation is used).
For claim 1, Nose discloses a monitoring device (9) for monitoring a bicyclist of a bicycle (1) [E.g. 0007: a first aspect of the present invention is a drive assistance device for a saddle type vehicle including: a ride sensor (37) configured to detect a ride attitude of a rider (J); a vehicle body behavior generating part (25) configured to generate a behavior on a vehicle body by a prescribed output; and a controller (27) configured to control driving of a plurality of devices (BR, EN, ST) included in the vehicle body behavior generating part (25), wherein, when at least one of the plurality of devices (BR, EN, ST) is actuated regardless of the operation of the rider (J), the controller (27) determines which of the plurality of devices (BR, EN, ST) is to be actuated according to the ride attitude of the rider (J) detected by the ride sensor (37), 0163: the automatic control is turned ON/OFF or the actuation level is adjusted according to the gripped state of the handle grips 20a by the rider J. Accordingly, when the rider J is at a driving attitude that is not regular and it is expected that the attitude of the rider J is greatly disturbed by the vehicle body behavior due to automatic control, 0196: a motorized bicycle…],
the bicycle comprising a steering device (5) for steering the bicycle (1), a handle (6) enabling the driver to hold the steering device (5) of the bicycle (1) with one hand [E.g. 0009: a handle (20) to which the rider (J) performs a steering operation is provided, the ride sensor (37) includes a grip sensor (20c) that is disposed on a grip (20a) of the handle (20) and that is configured to detect a gripped state of the rider (J), and the controller (27) detects a ride attitude of the rider (J) according to the gripped state of the rider (J) detected by the grip sensor (20c), 0011: the handle (20) includes a pair of left and right grips (20a), the ride sensor (37) includes a pair of left and right grip sensors (20c) disposed on the pair of left and right grips (20a), respectively, and the controller (27) detects a ride attitude of the rider (J) according to a crosswise difference between the gripped states of the rider (J) detected by the pair of left and right grip sensors (20c), 0048], a brake (7) for braking the bicycle (1), and a brake-actuating lever for actuating the brake (7) of the bicycle (1) [E.g. 0081: the motorcycle 1 includes a front wheel brake main body 2B, a rear wheel brake main body 7B, and a brake actuator 42 (see FIG. 5). Each of the front wheel brake main body 2B and the rear wheel brake main body 7B is a hydraulic disc brake. The motorcycle 1 constitutes a by-wire type brake system configured to electrically link the front wheel brake main body 2B and the rear wheel brake main body 7B to a brake operator ba such as a brake lever 2a, a brake pedal 7a (see FIG. 9), and the like, operated by the rider J. In the drawings, reference sign BR indicates a brake device including the front and rear brake main bodies 2B and 7B and the brake actuator 42, 0082: the brake device BR constitutes an interlocking front/rear brake system (a combined brake system (CBS)) configured to generate braking forces of front and rear wheels by linking the front and rear brake main bodies 2B and 7B upon operation of one of the brake lever 2a and the brake pedal 7a. In addition, the brake device BR constitutes an antilock brake system (ABS) configured to appropriately control slip ratios of front and rear wheels by depressurizing a brake pressure according to slip states of the front and rear wheels upon operations of the front and rear brake main bodies 2B and 7B; Figs. 4-5],
wherein the monitoring device (9) comprises a monitoring sensor (10) [E.g. 0009: the ride sensor (37) includes a grip sensor (20c) that is disposed on a grip (20a) of the handle (20) and that is configured to detect a gripped state of the rider (J), and the controller (27) detects a ride attitude of the rider (J) according to the gripped state of the rider (J) detected by the grip sensor (20c), 0011, 0163-0165] and monitoring whether the handle (6) is gripped by a hand of the bicyclist [E.g. 0009-0011, 0095-0096, 0099,0102, 0166-0169].
Nose fails to expressly disclose that the monitoring sensor is an optical monitoring sensor provided in or on the brake-actuating lever.
However, as shown by Jin, it was well known in the art of bicycles to include a monitoring sensor that is an optical monitoring sensor provided in or on the brake-actuating lever [E.g. Pages 2-3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycles before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Nose with the teaching of Jin in order to provide a real-time and unobstructed hand-off detection and thereby improve the overall monitoring accuracy, also it is merely combining prior art according to known methods to yield predicable results.
For claim 4, Nose discloses wherein the steering device (5) is a steering rod having two handles (6) [E.g. 0111, 0076, 0048. 0164] and the brake-actuating element (8) is a brake lever on at least one of the handles [E.g. 0060, 0081, 0089; Fig. 9].
10. Claims 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nose in view of Jin and further in view of Anthony et al. (Anthony; US 2016/0067547).
For claim 3, Nose in view of Jin fails to expressly disclose an impact sensor for detecting whether the bicycle is subjected to an impact indicative of an accident or fall.
However, as shown by Anthony, it was well known in the art of bicycles to include an impact sensor for detecting whether the bicycle is subjected to an impact indicative of an accident or fall [E.g. 0051-0055, 0065-0066, 0070, 0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of bicycles before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Nose in view of Jin with the teaching of Anthony in order to provide real-time crash detection, improve rider safety, and enable rapid emergency response by automatically alerting contacts and services when a significant impact is detected.
For claim 5, is interpreted and rejected as discussed respect to claims 1 and 3.
For claim 6, Nose discloses wherein the steering device (6) has two handles (6) for being held respectively by two hands of the bicyclist [E.g. 0164], and the steering device (5) of the bicycle (1) further comprising at least two brake-actuating elements (8) for actuating the at least one brake (7) of the bicycle (1) [E.g. 0089, Fig. 9].
For claim 7, Nose discloses wherein the bicycle (1) is a two-wheeler, a three-wheeler or a four-wheeler [E.g. 0048], an electric bicycle, a pedelec, an S-pedelec, or an e-bike.
Response to Remarks
11. The Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
