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 .
Drawing Objections
Fig. 3 of the drawings is objected to as it uses a scheme where numbers are inserted into the drawing to represent items instead of descriptive labels. This makes the drawings useless without a key, a legend, or a specification. The drawings submitted with a patent application are supposed to help describe and set the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and when the meaning of the drawings cannot be easily or clearly derived without a specification, key, or legend, the value of the drawings and use is diminished.
Please use descriptive worded labels next to the element numbers or inside the boxes, especially where the drawing element cannot be easily understandable. Proper action is requested.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 18, “based a gradient” should read “based on a gradient”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-20 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.
Regarding claim 11, “the open-loop control” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the open-loop control” to mean any open-loop control.
Regarding claims 12-20, these claims depend from claim 11 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 11 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 11 noted above.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites “in an open loop”. It is unclear if “an open loop” in claim 18 refers to “an open loop” in claim 11 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “an open loop”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “an open loop” in claim 18 to mean any open loop.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites “a propulsion device”, “a bicycle”, “a pedal device”, and “an operation”. It is unclear if these limitations in claim 20 refers to “a propulsion device”, “a bicycle”, “a pedal device”, and “an operation” in claim 11 or are new separate unclaimed recitation of “a propulsion device”, “a bicycle”, “a pedal device”, and “an operation”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a propulsion device”, “a bicycle”, “a pedal device”, and “an operation” in claim 20 to mean any propulsion device, any bicycle, any pedal device and any operation.
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 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.
Claims 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Earle (US 20220161890 A1) in view of Chang (US 20210114687 A1).
Claim 11
Earle teaches:
that is at least intermittently operated with muscle power using a pedal device (Earle - Abstract, Paragraphs 0055-0057) “Cadence sensor 122 is configured to measure a pedal cadence (AKA pedaling rate) of the user”
the propulsion device (1) includes at least one electric machine (4) for assisting operation of the pedal device (2) by muscle power (Earle - Abstract, Paragraphs 0112-0118) “An electric pedal-assist bicycle may have a drivetrain including a crankset and an electric motor (e.g., a hub motor)”
the method comprising: determining inclination information regarding the bicycle (3), the inclination information descriptive of an inclination angle (a) of a roadway in a direction of travel of the bicycle (3) (Earle - Paragraph 0063) “Gyroscope 134 is configured to measure an orientation of the electric bicycle (e.g., a pitch orientation and/or a roll orientation)”
deriving a propulsion request for the bicycle (3) based at least part on an operation of the pedal device (2) (Earle - Paragraph 0056) “utilize data from the torque sensor in concert with the cadence sensor to estimate a physical exertion of the user and automatically adjust the speed of hub motor 102”
at least during a dynamic mode of operation of the bicycle (3) (Earle - Paragraphs 0055-0058) “user inputs 108 may include a cadence sensor 122, a torque sensor 124, gearing sensor 126, and/or a brake sensor 128”
Earle does not teach:
Controlling the electric machine in an open loop based on the inclination information and the propulsion request.
However, Chang teaches:
A method for the open-loop control of a propulsion device (1) of a bicycle (3) (Chang - Paragraphs 0034, 0042) “an assist ratio that is a ratio of auxiliary propulsion power to human pedal power… a feed-forward control scheme”
And controlling the electric machine (4) in an open loop based on the inclination information and the propulsion request such that a downhill force acting in a longitudinal direction of the bicycle is at least partially compensated for (Chang - Paragraphs 0034, 0042) “an assist ratio that is a ratio of auxiliary propulsion power to human pedal power… the assist torque value (for compensating influence of the inclined road… a feed-forward control scheme”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Earle with controlling the electric machine in an open loop based on the inclination information and the propulsion request of Chang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Earle and Chang both discuss controlling pedal assist of an electric bike. One would have been motivated to combine as this allows the bicycle rider to ride through wind and steep slopes with ease (Chang – Paragraph 0042).
Claim 12
Earle teaches:
determining of the inclination information regarding the bicycle (3) comprises determining of the inclination information regarding the bicycle (3) based at least in part on a signal from at least one inclination sensor (5) on the bicycle (3) (Earle - Paragraph 0063) “Gyroscope 134 is configured to measure an orientation of the electric bicycle (e.g., a pitch orientation and/or a roll orientation)”
Claim 13
Earle teaches:
the signal from the at least one inclination sensor (5) on the bicycle (3) is from a gyro sensor (Earle - Paragraph 0063) “Gyroscope 134 is configured to measure an orientation of the electric bicycle (e.g., a pitch orientation and/or a roll orientation)”
Claim 14
Earle teaches:
determining the inclination information regarding the bicycle (3) comprises determining the inclination information regarding the bicycle (3) based at least in part on a signal from a GPS system for determining the position of the bicycle (3) (Earle - Paragraph 0069, 0121) “a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, wherein the electronic controller is further configured to drive the motor based on topographic information corresponding to a geographic location of the bicycle”
Claim 16
Earle teaches:
deriving the propulsion request for the bicycle (3) comprises deriving the propulsion request for the bicycle (3) based at least in part on at least one cadence during operation of the pedal device (2) (Earle - Paragraphs 0055-0057) “Cadence sensor 122 provides motor controller 100 with the pedal cadence, and motor controller 100 is configured to adjust a rotational speed of hub motor 102 in response”
Claim 17
Earle teaches:
deriving the propulsion request for the bicycle (3) comprises deriving the propulsion request for the bicycle (3) based at least in part on at least one torque during operation of the pedal device (2) (Earle - Paragraphs 0055-0056) “Motor controller 100 may utilize data from the torque sensor in concert with the cadence sensor to estimate a physical exertion of the user and automatically adjust the speed of hub motor 102 in response”
Claim 18
Earle teaches:
controlling the electric machine (4) (Earle - Paragraphs 0007, 0062, 0069, 0120) “dynamically decreasing an output of the motor of the electric pedal-assist bicycle using the electronic controller of the bicycle, based on an indication that the bicycle is traveling downhill”
and controlling the electric machine (4) (Earle - Paragraphs 0007, 0062, 0069, 0119) “the rider is currently climbing a hill, motor controller 100 may respond by increasing the power of hub motor 102 to aid in climbing the hill”
wherein, based on the propulsion request, the propulsive force of the electric machine (4) controlled (Earle - Paragraphs 0007, 0062, 0069, 0119-0120) “dynamically increasing an output of a motor of an electric pedal-assist bicycle using an electronic controller of the bicycle, based on an indication that the bicycle is traveling uphill; and dynamically decreasing an output of the motor of the electric pedal-assist bicycle using the electronic controller of the bicycle, based on an indication that the bicycle is traveling downhill”
Earle does not teach:
Controlling in the open loop.
However, Chang teaches:
In the open loop (Chang - Paragraphs 0042) “the design of auxiliary propulsion power control of the assistance system 4 according to the disclosure adopts a feed-forward control scheme”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Earle with controlling the electric machine in an open loop of Chang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Earle and Chang both discuss controlling pedal assist of an electric bike. One would have been motivated to combine as this facilitates ease of riding the electric bike (Chang – Paragraph 0042).
Claim 19
Earle teaches:
controlling the electric machine (4) (Earle - Paragraph 0057) “Accordingly, the motor controller may set the hub motor speed slower than if the rider had a similar cadence at a higher gear”
Earle does not teach:
Controlling in the open loop.
However, Chang teaches:
In the open loop (Chang - Paragraphs 0042) “the design of auxiliary propulsion power control of the assistance system 4 according to the disclosure adopts a feed-forward control scheme”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Earle with controlling the electric machine in an open loop of Chang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Earle and Chang both discuss controlling pedal assist of an electric bike. One would have been motivated to combine as this facilitates ease of riding the electric bike (Chang – Paragraph 0042).
Claim 20
Earle teaches:
A control device of a propulsion device (1) of a bicycle (3) (Earle - Paragraph 0027, 0031-0035, 0078) “(e.g., controller 100) may process input data from the plurality of sensors/inputs and produce an appropriate signal for controlling the hub motor”
that is at least intermittently operated with muscle power using a pedal device (2) (Earle - Abstract, Paragraphs 0055-0057) “Cadence sensor 122 is configured to measure a pedal cadence (AKA pedaling rate) of the user”
the propulsion device (1) including at least one electric machine (4) for assisting an operation of the pedal device (2) by muscle power (Earle - Abstract, Paragraphs 0112-0118) “An electric pedal-assist bicycle may have a drivetrain including a crankset and an electric motor (e.g., a hub motor)”
the control device comprising: input interfaces for receiving signals (Earle - Paragraph 0027, 0031-0035) “motor controllers of the present disclosure are configured to receive a plurality of inputs (e.g., vehicle sensors, user inputs, software inputs, environmental inputs, etc.)”
output interfaces for outputting signals (Earle - Paragraph 0027, 0031-0035, 0078) “an electronic controller may be configured to receive an input signal, compare the input signal to a selected control value or setpoint value, and determine an output signal to a control element (e.g., a motor or actuator)”
and a device for the open-loop control of a propulsive force of the at least one electric machine (4) (Earle - Paragraph 0027, 0031-0035, 0078) “(e.g., controller 100) may process input data from the plurality of sensors/inputs and produce an appropriate signal for controlling the hub motor”
wherein the control device is configured to implement the method of claim 11 (Earle - Paragraph 0027, 0031-0035, 0078) “(e.g., controller 100) may process input data from the plurality of sensors/inputs and produce an appropriate signal for controlling the hub motor”
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Earle and Chang, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Terashima (US 11124268 B2).
Claim 15
Earle does not teach:
Determining the inclination information based on the acceleration in a direction of travel of the bicycle and the propulsive force.
However, Terashima teaches:
determining the inclination information regarding the bicycle (3) comprises determining the inclination information regarding the bicycle (3) based at least in part on an acceleration in the direction of travel of the bicycle (Terashima - Col. 10 Line 19 – Col. 11 Line 2) “calculates the inclination angle θA based on the outputs of the gyro sensor 14B, the acceleration sensor 14C, and the vehicle speed sensor 18”
and at least one piece of information related to a current propulsive force of the bicycle (3) in order to determine the inclination information as an estimated inclination angle (a) (Terashima - Col. 10 Line 19 – Col. 11 Line 2) “calculates the inclination angle θA based on the outputs of the gyro sensor 14B, the acceleration sensor 14C, and the vehicle speed sensor 18”; It is further obvious that the acceleration and speed are related to the propulsive force.
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Earle with determining the inclination information based on the acceleration in a direction of travel of the bicycle and the propulsive force of Terashima with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Earle and Terashima both describe controlling pedal assist of an electric bike. One would have been motivated to combine as this controls a suitable pedal assist force (Terashima - Col. 1 Line 32 – Col. 1 Line 36).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). 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.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights