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 .
Claims 1-18 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-11, 13-14, and 17-18 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 12 and 15-16 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.
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.
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) 1-2, 7, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu (US 20200010149 A1), in view of Nagata (US 20190103825 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shimazu discloses a human-powered vehicle control device comprising:
[0099] “The human-powered vehicle A is provided with a main body A1, a handlebar A2, a front wheel A3, a rear wheel A4, a front fork A5, a saddle A6 and a derailleur hanger A7. The human-powered vehicle A includes a driving mechanism B, an assist mechanism C, a plurality of user operable input devices D (only one shown in FIG. 1), a transmission E, an electric seat post F, an electric suspension G, a battery unit H and a controller 100 (i.e., control device).”
a processor configured to read information from a memory and execute processing, the processor being further configured to execute processing [0116] “The controller 100 is formed of one or more semiconductor chips that are mounted on a printed circuit board. The terms “controller” and “electronic controller” as used herein refer to hardware that executes a software program, and does not include a human. The controller 100 includes a processor 10, a storage 12 and an input-output interface 14.” of:
acquiring input information related to traveling of a human-powered vehicle [0143] “The processor 10 acquires input information concerning traveling of the human-powered vehicle A through the input-output interface 14 (step S205).”[0083] “The control unit 10 provides the learning model 1M with input information related to traveling of the human-powered vehicle acquired by the input-output unit 14”;
performing automatic control on a controlled device provided to the human- powered vehicle by control data of the controlled device, the control data being decided based on the input information acquired [0162] “the controller 100 switches between the learning mode and the automatic control mode based on operation performed on the user operated part D1 of the user operable input device D” [0146] “The processor 10 specifies output information concerning control of the component to be controlled that is to be output by inputting the acquired input information to the selected one of the learning models 1Ma, 1Mb, (step S215). The processor 10 specifies, for example, a result of discrimination as to any one of the gear stage and the gear ratio for the transmission E as output information at step S215.”, [0148] “the processor 10 outputs a control signal for controlling a component based on the specified output information to the component to be controlled (step S221), and ends the control processing performed in one control period. the processor 10 can specify the result of a discrimination between a gear stage and a gear ratio for the transmission E, for example, as output information at step S215, and can output to the component to be controlled a control signal based on the specified output information concerning control without referring to the state of the component to be controlled based on the specified output information”;
changing, based on the input information, a parameter related to automatic control of the controlled device through learning an intervening operation performed on the automatic control by a rider [0162] “the controller 100 switches (i.e., changing) between the learning mode and the automatic control mode based on operation performed on the user operated part D1 of the user operable input device D. The processor 10 updates a learning model 1M based on the operation performed on the user operated part D1 in the learning mode. FIG. 12 and FIG. 13 are each a flowchart depicting one example of a processing procedure performed by the processor 10 in the third embodiment.” [0137] “the processor 10 determines whether the rider is in a basic posture, a forwardly-tilted posture or is standing on pedals by performing a predetermined computation and inputs the discrimination result to the input layer 131” See also [0163-0173];
Shimazu does not appear to expressly teach “resetting the parameter related to the automatic control, which is changed through learning, to predetermined data in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied”
However, Nagata teaches resetting the parameter related to the automatic control, which is changed through learning, to predetermined data in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied, Nagata discloses in [0052] “an initialization process for returning a control state of the motor 12 to an initial state (that is, a state at the time of system startup) is executed. In the initialization process, for example, the target range is reset to the initial value (for example, the P range), and a learning value of a reference position for controlling the rotation position of the motor 12 is reset to an initial value” (i.e., resetting a learned control parameter to stored predetermined baseline data). Nagata further discloses in [0055-0060] that initialization is performed when programmed abnormality conditions are satisfied, including detection of an abnormal power-supply state and an encoder abnormality, and [0061] “Upon returning to the pre-learning waiting state through the initialization process, a learning command is generated and the reference position learning is executed. In the reference position learning, an abutment control for rotating the motor 12 is performed until abutting against a limit position of a movable range of the range switching mechanism 11” (i.e., the reset occurs upon satisfaction of a predetermined reliability condition and permits subsequent relearning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Shimazu and Nagata to modify Shimazu’s adaptive bicycle component controller so that, when a predetermined condition indicates that the previously learned control data may no longer be reliable, the learned parameter is restored to stored initial or default data. Shimazu teaches a bicycle controller whose automatic-control behavior is changed by updating a learning model in response to rider intervention. Nagata teaches the conventional safeguarding technique of returning a learned control parameter to a known initial or previously stored value when a detected condition indicates that the existing learned value or associated sensor information may be unreliable.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shimazu and Nagata because Nagata shows that initialization refreshes information before diagnosis or learning is performed again and thereby improves and reduces the possibility of another erroneous determination [0062] “The reason for performing the initialization process is because other information is not also appropriate due to the abnormality, and therefore it is considered that the diagnosis should be performed again after refreshing. It is conceivable that the detection of abnormality from information again acquired in a state of probably returning to normal makes it hard to lead to another erroneous detection.”
Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Shimazu and Nagata discloses the human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 1,
Shimazu discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute processing of: deciding the control data in accordance with a predetermined control algorithm based on the input information [0118-0119] “The storage 12 stores a learning program 1P and a control program 2P. The learning program 1P can be included in the control program 2P. The learning program 1P can be obtained by reading out a learning program 8P stored in a recording medium 18 and copying it in the storage 12.” [0132] “By repetitively executing the training processing illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 3 for each of the selected modes, the NN 13 is changed to each of the learning models 1Ma, 1Mb, that outputs output information concerning control of the components of the human-powered vehicle A based on the input information concerning traveling of the human-powered vehicle A” [0148] “the processor 10 outputs a control signal for controlling a component based on the specified output information to the component to be controlled (step S221), and ends the control processing performed in one control period.” (i.e., the stored learning model and associated control program constitute a predetermined control algorithm that decides transmission control data from bicycle-travel inputs); and
Shimazu does not appear to expressly teach “resetting a parameter of the predetermined control algorithm as the parameter related to the automatic control to the predetermined data in a case where the predetermined condition is satisfied”
However, Nagata teaches resetting a parameter of the predetermined control algorithm as the parameter related to the automatic control to the predetermined data in a case where the predetermined condition is satisfied [0052] “an initialization process for returning a control state of the motor 12 to an initial state (that is, a state at the time of system startup) is executed. In the initialization process, for example, the target range is reset to the initial value (for example, the P range), and a learning value of a reference position for controlling the rotation position of the motor 12 is reset to an initial value” (i.e., resetting a learned control parameter to stored predetermined baseline data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimazu’s stored learning-model algorithm so that one or more learned weights, biases, thresholds, or reference values are restored to corresponding initial values using Nagata’s initialization process. Both Shimazu’s learning-model parameters and Nagata’s learned reference-position value are stored control values that affect future automatic operation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shimazu and Nagata because Nagata shows that initialization refreshes information before diagnosis or learning is performed again and thereby improves and reduces the possibility of another erroneous determination [0062] “The reason for performing the initialization process is because other information is not also appropriate due to the abnormality, and therefore it is considered that the diagnosis should be performed again after refreshing. It is conceivable that the detection of abnormality from information again acquired in a state of probably returning to normal makes it hard to lead to another erroneous detection.”
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Shimazu and Nagata discloses the human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 1,
Shimazu does not appear to expressly teach “wherein the processor is further configured to report resetting to a rider in a case where the processor executes a reset.”
However, Nagata teaches wherein the processor is further configured to report resetting to a rider in a case where the processor executes a reset [0053] “the process proceeds to Step 113, and the abnormality of the encoder 46 is determined. Thereafter, the process proceeds to Step 114, in which an abnormality notification lamp 57 installed in an instrument panel of a driver's seat is turned on or blinked to notify the abnormality of the encoder 46. In addition, and abnormality information (for example, abnormality code, or the like) on the encoder 46 is stored in a backup RAM 48 of the microcomputer 41.” (i.e., communicating to the rider the condition associated with the reset process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Shimazu and Nagata to make the system wherein the processor is further configured to report resetting to a rider in a case where the processor executes a reset.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shimazu and Nagata because Nagata shows that initialization refreshes information before diagnosis or learning is performed again and thereby improves and reduces the possibility of another erroneous determination [0062] “The reason for performing the initialization process is because other information is not also appropriate due to the abnormality, and therefore it is considered that the diagnosis should be performed again after refreshing. It is conceivable that the detection of abnormality from information again acquired in a state of probably returning to normal makes it hard to lead to another erroneous detection.”
Regarding Claim 17, The claim recites a method of the parallel limitations in claim 1, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Regarding Claim 18, The claim recites a computer program disposed upon a non-transitory computer readable storage medium of the parallel limitations in claim 1, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning.
Claim(s) 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu (US 20200010149 A1), in view of Nagata (US 20190103825 A1), and further in view of Uno (US 20030160686 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, The combination of Shimazu and Nagata discloses the human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 1,
Shimazu and Nagata do not appear to expressly teach “wherein the processor is further configured to use a specific operation performed to an operation device of the human-powered vehicle as the predetermined condition and reset the parameter in a case where the specific operation is performed.”
However, Uno teaches wherein the processor is further configured to use a specific operation performed to an operation device of the human-powered vehicle as the predetermined condition and reset the parameter in a case where the specific operation is performed [0025-0026] “The control apparatus 15 is disposed in a box-shaped control case 27, and the display unit 24 is disposed on the top surface thereof. The case 27 is detachably mounted to the bracket 29 that is mounted to the handlebar assembly 4 of the bicycle 1.” “Control apparatus 15 measures or calculates and then displays various types of information such as the speed of the bicycle, cadence, distance traveled, lap times, the gear positions of the external gear shift mechanisms and the like, and it displays the information on the liquid crystal display screen 25 of the display unit 24.” [0039] “When all initial settings have been entered, the right-hand mode button 20a and the left-hand mode button 20b are pressed simultaneously once more and the display apparatus 15 enters normal mode. If the right-hand mode button 20a and the left-hand mode button 20b are pressed simultaneously for three seconds or longer, the liquid crystal display 25 is initialized, and the CPU 21 can be reset as well”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further combine Uno with Shimazu and Nagata so that Nagata’s learned-parameter reset in Shimazu’s bicycle controller could be initiated by Uno’s designated rider button operation. Shimazu provides the adaptive bicycle controller, Nagata provides resetting the learned control value to predetermined initial data, and Uno provides a bicycle-specific manual reset input. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to permit the rider or service technician to intentionally initiate the reset rather than limiting initialization to automatically detected abnormalities.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Uno’s multi-button, duration-based operation because it distinguishes a deliberate reset request from ordinary short button operations and thereby reduces accidental erasure of learned settings [0039] “When all initial settings have been entered, the right-hand mode button 20a and the left-hand mode button 20b are pressed simultaneously once more and the display apparatus 15 enters normal mode. If the right-hand mode button 20a and the left-hand mode button 20b are pressed simultaneously for three seconds or longer, the liquid crystal display 25 is initialized, and the CPU 21 can be reset as well”
Regarding Claim 8, The combination of Shimazu and Nagata discloses the human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 7,
Shimazu and Nagata do not appear to expressly teach “wherein the resetting is reported to the rider by at least one of text, color or brightness displayed on a display unit.”
However, Uno teaches wherein the resetting is reported to the rider by at least one of text, color or brightness displayed on a display unit [0025-0026] a bicycle display, [0040] “When manual mode is selected, `MT` is displayed in the contents display 54, while `AT` is displayed if automatic mode is selected.” (i.e., text displayed to the rider), [0043] ”the hue, color saturation and brightness can be adjusted, enabling a full-color display to be achieved. An example of this type of display is shown in FIG. 10. In FIG. 10, the number of rear gears display 155 and the number of front gears display 156 are displayed in bar chart format. A full-color display can also be achieved if organic electroluminescent elements are used” (i.e., reporting by color or brightness), and [0044] “the segment method was used for the liquid crystal display screen, but the dot matrix or bit-mapped method may be used instead. In such a case, the various types of information become even easier to see.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use one or more of Uno’s established display techniques to implement the reset report. The reset could predictably be indicated by a short textual message, a changed display color, a blinking region, or altered brightness.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Uno’s multi-button, duration-based operation because it distinguishes a deliberate reset request from ordinary short button operations and thereby reduces accidental erasure of learned settings [0039] “When all initial settings have been entered, the right-hand mode button 20a and the left-hand mode button 20b are pressed simultaneously once more and the display apparatus 15 enters normal mode. If the right-hand mode button 20a and the left-hand mode button 20b are pressed simultaneously for three seconds or longer, the liquid crystal display 25 is initialized, and the CPU 21 can be reset as well”
Regarding Claim 9, The combination of Shimazu, Nagata, and Uno discloses the human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 8,
The combination of Shimazu and Nagata do not appear to teach “wherein the display unit is a display configured to be disposed at a handlebar of the human- powered vehicle.”
However, Uno teaches wherein the display unit is a display configured to be disposed at a handlebar of the human- powered vehicle [0025] “the display unit 24 is disposed on the top surface thereof. The case 27 is detachably mounted to the bracket 29 that is mounted to the handlebar assembly 4 of the bicycle 1”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display the reset report on Uno’s handlebar-mounted bicycle display because that display is within the rider’s field of view and already communicates automatic/manual mode and other bicycle operating information.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the existing handlebar display rather than add a separate indicator because doing so would make it easier to read and reduce component count and present the reset information at the same location as the bicycle’s other control-state information for the rider [0026] “Control apparatus 15 measures or calculates and then displays various types of information such as the speed of the bicycle, cadence, distance traveled, lap times, the gear positions of the external gear shift mechanisms and the like, and it displays the information on the liquid crystal display screen 25 of the display unit 24. The liquid crystal display screen 25 is disposed at a position that is easy for the rider to see, such as near the central reference plane of the bicycle, i.e., in the middle of the handlebar assembly 4.”
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu (US 20200010149 A1), in view of Nagata (US 20190103825 A1), and further in view of Uno (US 20030160686 A1), and further in view of Shimazu (US 20200012964 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Shimazu, Nagata, and Uno discloses the human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 8,
the combination of Shimazu, Nagata, and Uno do not appear to teach “wherein the display unit is a part of an information terminal device of a rider of the human- powered vehicle.”
However, Shimazu II teaches wherein the display unit is a part of an information terminal device of a rider of the human- powered vehicle [0128] “The terminal device 2 is a portable compact communication terminal device to be used by the user. The terminal device 2 is a smartphone in the first example. The terminal device 2 is a wearable device such as a so-called smartwatch or the like in the second example. For the smartphone, a smartphone holding member can be attached to the handlebar A2 of the human-powered vehicle A, and the smartphone can be used while being put on the holding member (see FIG. 10).” (i.e., the display unit is the integrated screen of the rider’s smartphone or smartwatch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combined system to present the reset report on the rider’s smartphone or smartwatch instead of, or in addition to, the dedicated bicycle display. Shimazu II already uses the rider terminal to perform bicycle-control processing and display changes in bicycle control.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the rider terminal because it provides an existing graphical display, communication interface, and processing capability and allows the reset information to be viewed without adding a separate display component [0128] “The terminal device 2 is a portable compact communication terminal device to be used by the user. The terminal device 2 is a smartphone in the first example. The terminal device 2 is a wearable device such as a so-called smartwatch or the like in the second example. For the smartphone, a smartphone holding member can be attached to the handlebar A2 of the human-powered vehicle A, and the smartphone can be used while being put on the holding member (see FIG. 10).” (i.e., the display unit is the integrated screen of the rider’s smartphone or smartwatch).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu (US 20200010149 A1), in view of Nagata (US 20190103825 A1), and further in view of Hahn (US 20220388602 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, The combination of Shimazu and Nagata discloses the human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 1,
Shimazu discloses wherein the controlled device is a transmission device of the human-powered vehicle, and the input information includes a cadence of a crank in a driving mechanism of the human- powered vehicle [0099] “a transmission E, an electric seat post F, an electric suspension G, a battery unit H and a controller 100. The human-powered vehicle A includes a speed sensor S1, a cadence sensor S2, a torque sensor S3, a gyro sensor S4, an image sensor S5 and posture sensors S61, S62 and S63. The main body A1 is provided with a frame A12.” [0133] “At least one of the traveling speed of the human-powered vehicle A and the cadence of the crank B1 of the driving mechanism B is input to the input layer 131” (i.e., crank rotations per minute measured in the bicycle driving mechanism). [0139] The output layer 132 outputs information being at least one of a gear stage and a gear ratio for the transmission E. More specifically, the output layer 132 outputs ratios respectively corresponding to the nodes of the gear stage and the gear ratio. This allows the processor 10 to select the gear stage with the highest probability.”, and
The combination of Shimazu and Nagata do not appear to teach “the processor is further configured to raise or lower a reference cadence as the parameter, the reference cadence being compared to the cadence for determining a gear ratio in the transmission device.”
However, Hahn teaches the processor is further configured to raise or lower a reference cadence as the parameter, the reference cadence being compared to the cadence for determining a gear ratio in the transmission device [0036] “automatic cadence band adjustment is provided based on a sensed riding scenario (e.g., a rider engagement status). The sensed riding scenario may be based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the bicycle. For example, a processor of the electric rear derailleur may receive data related to power input or torque at a crank arm of the bicycle, and the processor may increase a target cadence for the automatic shifting under high power or torque (e.g., greater than 35 Nm) and decrease the target cadence for the automatic shifting under low power or torque (e.g., less than 15 Nm).” (i.e., raising or lowering the reference cadence). [0069] “The cadence band may include an upper cadence limit and/or a lower cadence limit. The system may shift outboard (e.g., to a harder gear) when the measured cadence is higher than the upper cadence limit and may shift inboard (e.g., to an easier gear) when the measured cadence is lower than the lower cadence limit. A minimum target cadence is a target cadence for an easier ride (e.g., a casual ride), as defined by an input torque to a crank arm of the bicycle by the rider.”(i.e., comparing actual crank cadence with reference cadence to determine the transmission gear ratio).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Hahn with Shimazu and Nagata so that the parameter learned from the rider’s intervention in Shimazu is Hahn’s target cadence, upper cadence limit, or lower cadence limit.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hahn with Shimazu and Nagata to help prevent unwanted gear shifting and provides a better riding experience [0043] “Unlike automatic shifting of the prior art, in which automatic gear shifting is based only on cadence, in the present disclosure, the target cadence and the corresponding cadence hysteresis band may be changed based on any number of sensed riding scenarios. This helps prevent unwanted shifting of gears and provides for a better riding experience for the rider.”
Regarding Claim 13, The combination of Shimazu and Nagata discloses the human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 1,
Shimazu discloses wherein the controlled device is a transmission device of the human-powered vehicle, and the input information includes a torque of a crank in a driving mechanism of the human- powered vehicle [0099] “a transmission E, an electric seat post F, an electric suspension G, a battery unit H and a controller 100. The human-powered vehicle A includes a speed sensor S1, a cadence sensor S2, a torque sensor S3, a gyro sensor S4, an image sensor S5 and posture sensors S61, S62 and S63. The main body A1 is provided with a frame A12.” [0133] “At least one of the traveling speed of the human-powered vehicle A and the cadence of the crank B1 of the driving mechanism B is input to the input layer 131” (i.e., crank rotations per minute measured in the bicycle driving mechanism). [0139] The output layer 132 outputs information being at least one of a gear stage and a gear ratio for the transmission E. More specifically, the output layer 132 outputs ratios respectively corresponding to the nodes of the gear stage and the gear ratio. This allows the processor 10 to select the gear stage with the highest probability.”, and
The combination of Shimazu and Nagata do not appear to teach “the processor is further configured to raise or lower a reference torque as the parameter, the reference torque being compared to the torque for determining a gear ratio in the transmission device.”
However, Hahn teaches wherein the processor is further configured to raise or lower a reference torque as the parameter, the reference torque being compared to the torque for determining a gear ratio in the transmission device [0088] “the predetermined band is a predetermined torque band, and the system control device compares the identified torque to the predetermined torque band. The predetermined torque band, for example, has an upper limit (e.g., an upper torque limit) and a lower limit (e.g., a lower torque limit). The comparison of the identified torque to the predetermined torque band includes, for example, the system control device determining whether the identified torque is within the predetermined torque band or outside of the predetermined torque band.” identifying crank torque and comparing the measured torque with a “predetermined torque band” (i.e., comparing sensed crank torque against upper and lower reference-torque values). [0091–0099] also shows that the torque comparison to select a target cadence and automatic shift response (i.e., the torque comparison contributes to determining whether the gear ratio should be changed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimazu’s intervention-learning system so that, where automatic shifting is controlled using Hahn’s torque band, the parameter adjusted from the rider’s corrective shift may be an upper or lower torque threshold.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hahn with Shimazu and Nagata to help prevent unwanted gear shifting and provides a better riding experience [0043] “Unlike automatic shifting of the prior art, in which automatic gear shifting is based only on cadence, in the present disclosure, the target cadence and the corresponding cadence hysteresis band may be changed based on any number of sensed riding scenarios. This helps prevent unwanted shifting of gears and provides for a better riding experience for the rider.”
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazu (US 20200010149 A1), in view of Nagata (US 20190103825 A1), and further in view of Moening (US 20190389535 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Shimazu and Nagata discloses the human-powered vehicle control device according to claim 1,
Shimazu does not appear to teach “wherein the controlled device is an assist device of the human-powered vehicle, and the input information includes a cadence of a crank in a driving mechanism of the human- powered vehicle and the processor is further configured to raise or lower a reference cadence as the parameter, the reference cadence being compared to the cadence for determining an output of the assist device”
However, Nagata teaches that the processor is further configured to raise or lower a reference cadence as the parameter, the reference cadence being compared to the cadence for determining an output … [0036] “automatic cadence band adjustment is provided based on a sensed riding scenario (e.g., a rider engagement status). The sensed riding scenario may be based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the bicycle. For example, a processor of the electric rear derailleur may receive data related to power input or torque at a crank arm of the bicycle, and the processor may increase a target cadence for the automatic shifting under high power or torque (e.g., greater than 35 Nm) and decrease the target cadence for the automatic shifting under low power or torque (e.g., less than 15 Nm).” (i.e., raising or lowering the reference cadence). [0069] “The cadence band may include an upper cadence limit and/or a lower cadence limit. The system may shift outboard (e.g., to a harder gear) when the measured cadence is higher than the upper cadence limit and may shift inboard (e.g., to an easier gear) when the measured cadence is lower than the lower cadence limit. A minimum target cadence is a target cadence for an easier ride (e.g., a casual ride), as defined by an input torque to a crank arm of the bicycle by the rider.”(i.e., comparing actual crank cadence with reference cadence to determine the transmission gear ratio).
The combination of Shimazu and Nagata do not appear to teach “wherein the controlled device is an assist device of the human-powered vehicle, and the input information includes a cadence of a crank in a driving mechanism of the human- powered vehicle”,
However, Moening teaches wherein the controlled device is an assist device of the human-powered vehicle, and the input information includes a cadence of a crank in a driving mechanism of the human- powered vehicle [0001-0002] “The present disclosure generally relates to motor-assisted, manually powered vehicles. More specifically, aspects of this disclosure relate to adaptive pedal assist systems and attendant control logic for motorized bicycles” [0005-0008] “Additional aspects of this disclosure are directed to manually powered vehicles with adaptive power assist capabilities. In an example, a pedal electric cycle is disclosed that includes a rigid vehicle frame with a pedal or handle crankset and multiple road wheels that are rotatably mounted to the vehicle frame. The crankset receives and transmits manually-generated torque to one or more of the vehicle's road wheels. A torque sensor monitors the manually-generated torque received from the user via the crankset and output signals indicative thereof.” (i.e., determining assist-device output using crank cadence and stored reference or calibration data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Shimazu, Hahn, and Moening so that Shimazu’s rider-intervention learning adjusts a cadence reference used by Moening’s assist-output controller. The predictable result would be an assist controller that changes its cadence-dependent assist response to reflect the rider’s demonstrated preference and that can restore the learned cadence parameter to an initial value using Nagata’s initialization technique.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings because Moening states that cadence- and rider-dependent assist control can tailor power assistance to a particular user while stabilizing assist torque and extending operating range [0003] “Unlike other motor-assisted systems where the primary input torque is relatively stable, rider-generated torque magnitude for an e-bike is cyclical in nature, fluctuating when the rider pushes a driven pedal to bottom dead center (BDC) and then allows this same pedal to recover on the return swing to top dead center (TDC). The motor control algorithm filters the rider torque input to minimize amplitude fluctuations, which helps to stabilize the motor torque output during e-assist modes.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights