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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2025 was received and reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to application number 19/116,618 filed on 03/28/2025, in which claims 9-16 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. Furthermore, a multiple dependent claim may not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim, either directly or indirectly.
Claim 13 refer back to the control device of claim 12 and the control device of claim 12 back to the method of claim 9.
Claims 14 & 15 refer back to the control device and the method, however it is also unclear what method.
Claim 16 refers back to the control device of claim 12 and the control device of claim 12 back to the method of claim 9.
See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a computer readable medium. Page 7 of applicant’s specification discloses the medium may be a data carrier. As explained in U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer-Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010):
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi¬ cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Schumacher et al. US 20170267313 A1 (hereinafter Schumacher).
Claim 9: Schumacher discloses A method (100) for the automated stabilization of an attitude (F, F*) of a bicycle (1), the method comprising, when the bicycle (1) is performing a jump (S): determining a current pitch angle (a) of the bicycle (1) [[0010]; In an advantageous manner, the jump, the lift-off of the at least one wheel and/or the roll-over tendency or roll-over risk are/is detected with the aid of the at least one sensor mounted on the two-wheeler. For example, a rotation of the two-wheeler about its pitch axis is able to be detected with the aid of an acceleration sensor, a pressure sensor, a tilt sensor and/or a position sensor or a yaw-rate sensor]; comparing the current pitch angle (a) with a pitch angle threshold range (alim) [[0011]; In addition, it may be provided that the counter torque for the wheel that is losing contact with the ground is generated only if the roll-over tendency or the rotation of the two-wheeler about the pitch axis exceeds a specific threshold value. The roll-over tendency or the rotation may be detected in the form of an acceleration, a yaw rate and/or a critical tilt or tilt change. The threshold value may be set in such a way that a fall must be assumed starting with this value, e.g., in that a critical tilt has been exceeded or it cannot be assumed that the rotary motion will be fully executed prior to a roll-over in the forward or backward direction. Of course, it is also possible to use this threshold value to reduce or eliminate the torque of the wheel lifting off that contributes to the rotation and thus the roll-over tendency, to below this value]; introducing a brake intervention (B) or a negative torque pulse (M-) at a rear wheel (6) of the bicycle (1) when the current pitch angle (a) exceeds the pitch angle threshold range (alim) so that the pitch angle (a) is subsequently within the pitch angle threshold range (alim) [Fig 1b, [0018]; As illustrated with the aid of FIG. 1b, the method according to the present invention initially detects that a jump has occurred. (...) In the case of the roll-over tendency toward the rear, as in FIG. 1b, it is possible to brake the wheel that is still rotating after the lift-off in an effort to thereby reduce or completely eliminate the still existing torque of the rear wheel that has lost contact with the ground. This also reduces the rotary motion of the entire bicycle. In FIG. 1b, this reduces the excessive angle α1 to be expected between the ground surface and the longitudinal axis of the vehicle to a measure α2, which allows for a safe landing without a fall. Furthermore, however, it is also possible to control the airborne wheel with the aid of a drive so that a counter torque is generated which reduces the rotary motion of the bicycle or compensates for it.]; and introducing a positive torque pulse (M+) at the rear wheel (6) of the bicycle (1) when the current pitch angle (a) is below the pitch angle threshold (alim) so that the pitch angle (a) is subsequently within the pitch angle threshold range (alim) [Fig. 1c, [0019]; Accordingly, FIG. 1c illustrates the situation in which the driver or the bicycle exhibits a roll-over tendency in the forward direction during the jump. For example, this may happen as a result of a disadvantageous weight shift of the driver during the jump or it may also be due to the ground conditions of the jump. Because of this forward-directed roll-over tendency, there is the risk that the driver will execute a roll-over over the handlebars and thus will fall, since expected angle α1 during landing is greater than angle α2 that is just barely still safe for landing. By activating the drive of the bicycle in such a case and by the drive acting on the rear wheel such that a torque is generated there, which acts counter to the rotary motion of the bicycle, the alignment of the bicycle is able to be compensated in this case too and a fall can therefore be prevented].
PNG
media_image1.png
529
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10: Schumacher teaches the method of claim 9, accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 above is incorporated.
Schumacher discloses the method (100) of claim 9, further comprising determining the bicycle (1) is performing the jump (S) using at least one acceleration sensor (21) or at least one yaw rate sensor [[0020]; Processing unit 110 reads in at least the sensor signals from a sensor installed on the bicycle in order to thereby detect the lift-off of the bicycle and/or the rotary motion, i.e. a critical rotary motion. Suitable in this context are the sensor signals from an acceleration sensor 130, a rotational frequency sensor 140, a tilt sensor or position sensor 150, for instance, or some other suitable sensor 160 such as one or more pressure sensor(s), an ultrasonic sensor or a distance sensor].
Claim 11: Schumacher teaches the method of claim 9, accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 above is incorporated.
Schumacher discloses the method (100) of claim 9, wherein one or more of an intensity of the positive torque pulse (M+), an intensity of the negative torque pulse (M-), or an intensity of the brake intervention (B) depends on a difference between the pitch angle threshold range (alim) and the current pitch angle (a) [[0022]; In the subsequent step 220, the rotary motion thus detected is checked in order to ascertain on the basis of the available data situation whether a fall or a forward- or backward-directed roll-over is to be expected. For instance, this may be made dependent upon whether the rotary motion exceeds a certain critical magnitude in the form of a threshold value. In this context it is also conceivable to take the time into account during which the bicycle or at least the one wheel that is losing contact with the ground is already in the air, in order to derive the rotary motion already executed or still to be expected on that basis].
Claim 12: Schumacher teaches the method of claim 9, accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 above is incorporated.
Schumacher discloses a control device (20) for the bicycle (1), wherein the control device (20) is connectable to an electrical propulsion system (3) of the bicycle (1) for signal exchange, wherein the control device (20) carries out the method (100) of claim 9 [[0020]; The device includes a processing device 110 and a memory 120, which is linked thereto and stores threshold values for critical rotary motions, for example. These threshold values can be permanently stored and/or they are able to be applied by the driver].
Claim 13: Schumacher teaches the method of claim 12, accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 above is incorporated.
Schumacher discloses the control device (20) for the bicycle (1) of claim 12, wherein the control device (20) is additionally connectable to a braking system (7) of the bicycle (1) for signal exchange [[0020]; The device includes a processing device 110 and a memory 120, which is linked thereto and stores threshold values for critical rotary motions, for example. These threshold values can be permanently stored and/or they are able to be applied by the driver. (...) Based on the acquired sensor signals and a detected rotary motion that could lead to a roll-over or to a fall, motor 170 and/or a brake device 180 of the vehicle are/is actuated in order to influence the rotary motion of the entire bicycle].
Claim 14: Schumacher teaches the method of claim 12, accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 above is incorporated.
Schumacher discloses a computer program product comprising commands which, when the program is run by the control device (20) of claim 12, prompt the control device (20) to carry out the method (100) [[0020]; FIG. 2 shows a device 100 according to the present invention, which generates the aforementioned compensation of the rotary motion and thus provides a roll-over prevention. The device includes a processing device 110 and a memory 120, which is linked thereto and stores threshold values for critical rotary motions, for example. These threshold values can be permanently stored and/or they are able to be applied by the driver].
Claim 15: Schumacher teaches the method of claim 12, accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 above is incorporated.
Schumacher discloses a computer-readable medium comprising commands which, when carried out by the control device (20) of claim 12, prompt the control device (20) to carry out the method (100) [[0020]; FIG. 2 shows a device 100 according to the present invention, which generates the aforementioned compensation of the rotary motion and thus provides a roll-over prevention. The device includes a processing device 110 and a memory 120, which is linked thereto and stores threshold values for critical rotary motions, for example. These threshold values can be permanently stored and/or they are able to be applied by the driver].
Claim 16: Schumacher teaches the method of claim 12, accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 above is incorporated.
Schumacher discloses a bicycle (1), comprising the electrical propulsion system (3) and the control device (20) of claim 12 [[0020]; The device includes a processing device 110 and a memory 120, which is linked thereto and stores threshold values for critical rotary motions, for example. These threshold values can be permanently stored and/or they are able to be applied by the drive. (...) As already explained previously, this may be achieved by the generation of a compensating counter torque by the motor, for instance].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony G Mora whose telephone number is (571)272-2306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8am-5pm PST, Alternating Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Kito R Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/ANTHONY GABRIEL MORA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights