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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 05/14/2025 (claimed priority date 05/31/2022):
Claims 1-16 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
Ln = line, e.g., ln25 = line 25; ln25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “camera,” claimed in claim 1, its position/placement/location relative to the claimed/specified “human-powered vehicle,” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
1.1 The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. The drawings do not present the claimed “camera,” specified “camera 32A,” particularly where it is positioned/placed/located/attached to/fixed to/mounted onto relative to the claimed/specified “human-powered vehicle 2”. The fig. 3-4 only present the claimed/specified “camera 32A” as a part of detector, as the camera electrically connected to the electronic controller, however, where it is unclear where it is positioned/placed/located/attached to/mounted onto relative to the claimed/specified “human-powered vehicle.” Clarification is required.
37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows: When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
1.1 This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step,” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “informing unit,” “assist driving unit,” in claims 2-7.
Per fig. 2-3, Para [0014, 0016, 0030, 0078, 0088, 0091, 0119, 0125] of the specification, at least as published/originally filed, “informing unit IU,” “assist driving unit DU” appear to be structure elements/components of a bigger structure(s).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
1.1 Claims 1-16 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.
1.2 Claim 1 recites the limitations/features “a camera configured to capture a real-time image of at least one of a forward view, a rearward view, a right view, and a left view of the human-powered vehicle;” “the camera being electrically connected to the electronic controller,” wherein the specification does not provide any details/description/support, etc., for a position/placement/location of the claimed/specified “camera” relative to the claimed/specified “human-powered vehicle.” Clarification is required.
1.3 Claims 2-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 1.
2. 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.
2.1 Claims 1-16 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.
2.2 Claim 1 recites the limitations/features “a camera configured to capture a real-time image of at least one of a forward view, a rearward view, a right view, and a left view of the human-powered vehicle;” “the camera being electrically connected to the electronic controller,” which is unclear to understand where and/or how the claimed/specified “camera” is being positioned/placed/located/fixed to/mounted onto relative to the claimed/specified “human-powered vehicle,” which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
It is also unclear to understand where and how, or along which direction, relative to movement of the claimed/specified “human-powered vehicle,” the claimed/specified “road objects” are to be detected by the claimed/specified “camera” being positioned/placed/located/fixed to/mounted onto the claimed/specified “human-powered vehicle,” which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any details/description/support, etc., for a position/placement/location of the claimed/specified “camera” relative to the claimed/specified “human-powered vehicle.” Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret the claimed/specified “camera” as a well – known in the art “video camera,” or plural “video cameras” attached to a moving vehicle/bicycle as the vehicle/bike moves through an environment, with each camera capturing directed towards a particular angle such that the combined cameras are able to capture a complete 360 degree view of the surrounding environment; one or more cameras used that use a panoramic lens, a 360 degree view lens, a fish-eye lens, and/or other types of lenses that may be able to capture varying amounts of the surrounding environment with varying degrees of pixel accuracy; a single video camera that utilizes a 360 degree view lens used to capture the surrounding environment.
2.3 Claims 2-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 1.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
1. Claims 1-3 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEPHENS (US20230202608) in view of Espeset (US20160379415).
As per claim 1, STEPHENS discloses through the invention (see entire document) a control device (fig. 2, Para [0057, 0069, 0072, 0079, 0118, 0136]) for a human-powered vehicle (fig. 1-2, Para [0043, 0053, 0056-0057]), comprising:
an electronic controller (fig. 2, Para [0057, 0069, 0072, 0079, 0118, 0136]) configured to obtain driving-environment information relating to driving environment of the human-powered vehicle (fig. 1, Para [0036, 0042-0043, 0045]), the driving-environment information including road object information relating to road objects (fig. 7, 10, Para [0014-0016, 0043, 0073-0074, 0084, 0093, 0101-0106, 0113, 0128, 0137-0167]), the electronic controller being configured to control an electric component based on the driving-environment information (fig. 7, 10, 12-14, Para [0021-0022, 0068, 0095, 0267, 0160, 0180, 0191, 0193, 0210-0214, 0219-020, 0249, 0265, 0282-0283, 0293-0294, 0298, 0302, 0306, 0308]) ;
a detector, the electronic controller being configured to obtain the driving-environment information based on a detection result of the detector (fig. 2, 5-7, Para [0009, 0014-0016, 0046-0047, 0070-0078]), the detector including a camera configured to capture a real-time image of at least one of a rearward view of the human-powered vehicle (Para [0164]); and
the camera being electrically connected to the electronic controller (Para [0164]).
STEPHENS does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, a camera configured to capture a real-time image of at least one of a forward view, a rearward view, a right view, and a left view of the human-powered vehicle; the camera being electrically connected to the electronic controller, the electronic controller being configured to receive the real-time image from the camera.
However, Espeset teaches these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 8, 10-12, 14-19 Para [0142-0143] – teaching one or more video cameras used, with each video camera capturing a portion of the surrounding environment; the video camera(s) attached to a moving vehicle (e.g. cars, bicycles, humans, boats, planes, or flying drones, etc.) as the vehicle moves through an environment, with each camera capturing directed towards a particular angle such that the combined cameras are able to capture a complete 360 degree view of the surrounding environment; one or more cameras used that use a panoramic lens, a 360 degree view lens, a fish-eye lens, and/or other types of lenses that may be able to capture varying amounts of the surrounding environment with varying degrees of pixel accuracy; a single video camera that utilizes a 360 degree view lens used to capture the surrounding environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of U.S. Patent No.: 12330735 by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Espeset, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to generate a 360 degree mixed virtual reality environment that provides a 360 degree view of an environment (see entire Espeset document, particularly abstract).
As per claim 2, STEPHENS further discloses through the invention (see entire document) electric component that includes at least one of an informing unit, an assist driving unit, a gear-changing device, a braking device, a rider-posture changing device, and a light emitting device, and electronic controller configured to control the at least one of the informing unit, the assist driving unit, the gear-changing device, the braking device, the rider-posture changing device, and the light emitting device based on the driving-environment information (fig. 2, Para [0037, 0068, 0070, 0107-0109, 0115, 0120, 00126-0127, 0135-0136, 0204, 0221-0222]).
As per claim 3, STEPHENS further discloses through the invention (see entire document) electric component that includes an informing unit configured to inform a user that the driving-environment information meets a condition, and electronic controller configured to control the informing unit to inform the user that the driving-environment information meets the condition if the driving-environment information meets the condition (fig. 2, Para [0068, 0107, 0115, 0120]).
As per claim 12, STEPHENS further discloses through the invention (see entire document) electric component that includes a rider-posture changing device, and electronic controller configured to control the rider-posture changing device to change a state of the rider-posture changing device if a road object distance defined from the control device to a road object which is included in the road object information and which is within a predetermined distance from the control device is equal to or below a road object threshold (Para [0056, 0073, 0121, 0133, 0269, 0273-0275, 0286]).
As per claim 13, STEPHENS further discloses through the invention (see entire document) electronic controller configured to control the rider-posture changing device to change the state of the rider-posture changing device to a predetermined state if the road object distance is equal to or below the road object threshold (Para [0056, 0073, 0121, 0133, 0269, 0273-0275, 0286]).
As per claim 14, STEPHENS further discloses through the invention (see entire document) electric component that includes a light emitting device, and electronic controller configured to control the light emitting device to change a state of the light emitting device if a road object distance defined from the control device to a road object which is included in the road object information and which is within a predetermined distance from the control device is equal to or below a road object threshold (fig. 2, Para [0036, 0042-0043, 0045, 0055-0056, 0073, 0076, 0082, 0098-0100, 0107-0109, 0115, 0121, 0133, 0269, 0271, 0273-0275, 0288]).
As per claim 15, STEPHENS further discloses through the invention (see entire document) electronic controller configured to control the light emitting device to change the state of the light emitting device to a predetermined state if the road object distance is equal to or below the road object threshold (Para [0036, 0042-0043, 0045, 0055-0056, 0073, 0076, 0082, 0098-0100, 0107-0109, 0115, 0121, 0133, 0269, 0271, 0273-0275, 0288]).
As per claim 16, STEPHENS further discloses through the invention (see entire document) road object information that relates to at least one of non-living objects which are on roadways, and living objects which are on roadways (Para [0074, 0093, 0113, 0171, 0188, 0211]).
2. Claims 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of STEPHENS and Espeset, further in view of BIDERMAN (CA3162488A1), and further in view of Yamazaki (US20190300109).
As per claim 4, STEPHENS does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, driving-environment information that includes traffic information relating to traffic, electric component that includes an assist driving unit, and the electronic controller configured to control the assist driving unit to change an assist ratio if the traffic information is equal to or below a traffic-state threshold, the assist ratio being a ratio of assist force applied by the assist driving unit to pedaling force applied by a user.
However, BIDERMAN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0017, 0105, 0111-0112, 0120, 0130, 0134, 0151, 0204, 0210, 0217, 0223, 0299, 0322, 0392-0393, 0732] – teaching collecting data from source external to the electrically motorized wheel that includes data from a road traffic sensor; calculating, estimating gear ratio based on the collected sensor data.
Yamazaki, in turn, discloses through the invention, (see entire document), particularly in Para [0062] – teaching reducing changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation; possibility to reduce shock during a gear shifting operation and reduce changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation.
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of STEPHENS by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by BIDERMAN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to estimate/calculate gear ratio based on sensor data (see entire BIDERMAN document, particularly Para [0322]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Yamazaki, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to reduce shock during a gear shifting operation; reduce changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation (see entire Yamazaki document, particularly Para [0062]).
As per claim 5, STEPHENS does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, electronic controller configured to control the assist driving unit to decrease the assist ratio if the traffic information is equal to or below the traffic-state threshold.
However, BIDERMAN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0017, 0105, 0111-0112, 0120, 0130, 0134, 0151, 0204, 0210, 0217, 0223, 0299, 0322, 0392-0393, 0732].
Yamazaki, in turn, discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of STEPHENS by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by BIDERMAN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to estimate/calculate gear ratio based on sensor data (see entire BIDERMAN document, particularly Para [0322]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Yamazaki, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to reduce shock during a gear shifting operation; reduce changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation (see entire Yamazaki document, particularly Para [0062]).
As per claim 6, STEPHENS does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, electric component that includes an assist driving unit, and electronic controller configured to control the assist driving unit to change an assist ratio if a road object distance defined from the control device to a road object which is included in the road object information and which is within a predetermined distance from the control device is equal to or below a road object threshold, the assist ratio being a ratio of assist force applied by the assist driving unit to pedaling force applied by a user.
However, BIDERMAN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0299, 0712-0713, 0731-0732, 0746, 0748, 0759, 0768, 0788].
Yamazaki, in turn, discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of STEPHENS by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by BIDERMAN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to estimate/calculate gear ratio based on sensor data (see entire BIDERMAN document, particularly Para [0322]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Yamazaki, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to reduce shock during a gear shifting operation; reduce changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation (see entire Yamazaki document, particularly Para [0062]).
As per claim 7, STEPHENS does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, electronic controller configured to control the assist driving unit to decrease the assist ratio if the road object distance is equal to or below the road object threshold.
However, BIDERMAN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0299, 0712-0713, 0731-0732, 0746, 0748, 0759, 0768, 0788].
Yamazaki, in turn, discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of STEPHENS by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by BIDERMAN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to estimate/calculate gear ratio based on sensor data (see entire BIDERMAN document, particularly Para [0322]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Yamazaki, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to reduce shock during a gear shifting operation; reduce changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation (see entire Yamazaki document, particularly Para [0062]).
As per claim 8, STEPHENS does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, electric component that includes a gear-changing device, and the electronic controller configured to control the gear-changing device to change a gear ratio if a road object distance defined from the control device to a road object which is included in the road object information and which is within a predetermined distance from the control device is equal to or below a road object threshold.
However, BIDERMAN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0120, 0299, 0322, 0392-0393] – teaching collecting data from source external to the electrically motorized wheel that includes data from a road traffic sensor; calculating, estimating gear ratio based on the collected sensor data.
Yamazaki, in turn, discloses through the invention, (see entire document), particularly in Para [0062] – teaching reducing changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation; possibility to reduce shock during a gear shifting operation and reduce changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of STEPHENS by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by BIDERMAN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to estimate/calculate gear ratio based on sensor data (see entire BIDERMAN document, particularly Para [0322]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Yamazaki, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to reduce shock during a gear shifting operation; reduce changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation (see entire Yamazaki document, particularly Para [0062]).
As per claim 9, STEPHENS does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, electronic controller configured to control the gear-changing device to downshift if the road object distance is equal to or below the road object threshold.
However, BIDERMAN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0120, 0299, 0322, 0392-0393] – teaching collecting data from source external to the electrically motorized wheel that includes data from a road traffic sensor; calculating, estimating gear ratio based on the collected sensor data.
Yamazaki, in turn, discloses through the invention, (see entire document), particularly in Para [0062] – teaching reducing changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation; possibility to reduce shock during a gear shifting operation and reduce changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of STEPHENS by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by BIDERMAN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to estimate/calculate gear ratio based on sensor data (see entire BIDERMAN document, particularly Para [0322]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Yamazaki, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to reduce shock during a gear shifting operation; reduce changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation (see entire Yamazaki document, particularly Para [0062]).
As per claim 10, STEPHENS does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, electric component that includes a braking device, and electronic controller configured to control the braking device to change braking force if a road object distance defined from the control device to a road object which is included in the road object information and which is within a predetermined distance from the control device is equal to or below a road object threshold.
However, BIDERMAN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0238, 0315, 0404, 0690, 0718, 0757, 0782, 0784].
Yamazaki, in turn, discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of STEPHENS by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by BIDERMAN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to estimate/calculate gear ratio based on sensor data (see entire BIDERMAN document, particularly Para [0322]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Yamazaki, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to reduce shock during a gear shifting operation; reduce changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation (see entire Yamazaki document, particularly Para [0062]).
As per claim 11, STEPHENS does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, electronic controller configured to control the braking device to increase the braking force if the road object distance is equal to or below the road object threshold.
However, BIDERMAN discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0238, 0315, 0404, 0690, 0718, 0757, 0782, 0784].
Yamazaki, in turn, discloses these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in Para [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of STEPHENS by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by BIDERMAN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to estimate/calculate gear ratio based on sensor data (see entire BIDERMAN document, particularly Para [0322]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Yamazaki, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to reduce shock during a gear shifting operation; reduce changing of gear ratio during the gear shifting operation (see entire Yamazaki document, particularly Para [0062]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
1. Claims 1-16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 27 of U.S. Patent No.: 12330735 in view of Espeset (US20160379415).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
it is obvious that narrower claim combination of narrower claims 1 and 27 of U.S. Patent No.: 12330735 covers broader claim 1 of the instant application.
U.S. Patent No.: 12330735 does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, a camera configured to capture a real-time image of at least one of a forward view, a rearward view, a right view, and a left view of the human-powered vehicle; the camera being electrically connected to the electronic controller, the electronic controller being configured to receive the real-time image from the camera.
However, Espeset teaches these limitations/features through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 8, 10-12, 14-19 Para [0142-0143] – teaching one or more video cameras used, with each video camera capturing a portion of the surrounding environment; the video camera(s) attached to a moving vehicle (e.g. cars, bicycles, humans, boats, planes, or flying drones, etc.) as the vehicle moves through an environment, with each camera capturing directed towards a particular angle such that the combined cameras are able to capture a complete 360 degree view of the surrounding environment; one or more cameras used that use a panoramic lens, a 360 degree view lens, a fish-eye lens, and/or other types of lenses that may be able to capture varying amounts of the surrounding environment with varying degrees of pixel accuracy; a single video camera that utilizes a 360 degree view lens used to capture the surrounding environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of U.S. Patent No.: 12330735 by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Espeset, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to generate a 360 degree mixed virtual reality environment that provides a 360 degree view of an environment (see entire Espeset document, particularly abstract).
1.1 Claims 2-16 rejected under the nonstatutory double patenting rejections, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 1.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Yu (CN104590479A) - (see entire Yu document, particularly abstract - teaching a transmission device for bicycle, bicycle, the bicycle speed changing method and device, wherein the bicycle speed changing device comprises: an information collecting module for collecting the current bicycle riding information corresponding to the control plate; for storing the collected information, the communication module that sends the gear ratio into the corresponding control signal, and sends the control signal to the transmission, a communication module for transmitting information to the server through the preset APP to make the server according to information and the APP from the preset user information calculate the gear ratio, and receiving from the server by predetermined APP gear ratio and transmission gear ratio to a control board, a transmission for automatic adjustable gear according to the received control signal; realizing under the condition of non-active control that automatically adjusts the speed change gear according to the user condition, road condition and other information so that the user can always maintain an optimal driving state.
Kao (US5295727) - (see entire Kao document, particularly abstract - teaching a bicycle seat adjusting device, particularly a device to adjust the seat forward or backward and to adjust its inclination degree, comprising an adjusting shaft placed within an U-shaped support at the upper end of seat post so that the adjusting shaft can be locked by two retainers on opposite sides; the adjusting shaft designed with radial positioning holes for fitting an adjusting lever so that turning of the adjusting lever can tighten or loosen the retainers for fitting or adjusting of the seat to a desired position);
SMITS (WO2019059759A1) - (see entire SMITS document, particularly abstract - teaching a bicycle trainer comprising a seat, handlebars and rotatable pedals, and an electronically variable brake acting directly or indirectly on the rotatable pedals with a braking resistance that depends on a predetermined setting of a computer-controller, which predetermined setting is variable and depends on selected parameters to reflect simulated cycling conditions comprising at least one of a road, wind conditions and a cyclist, wherein the bicycle trainer excludes a flywheel and includes a variable-ratio transmission system and that the predetermined setting of the braking resistance also depends on a setting or change of setting of the variable-ratio transmission system so as to simulate a level of inertia or change of inertia as experienced by an outdoor cyclist when changing the variable-ratio transmission system);
WU XIN (CN213473362U) - (see entire WU XIN document, particularly abstract - teaching utility model that belongs to the technical field of scooters, and particularly relates to a scooter frame and a scooter with the same, the scooter frame that comprises a bracket, a seat and an adjusting mechanism, the seat arranged for a user to sit, the seat connected to the bracket through the adjusting mechanism, and the adjusting mechanism arranged on the bracket; the adjusting mechanism arranged to change the position of the seat relative to the bracket in the horizontal direction so as to meet the requirements of different users; according to the bicycle frame, the seat connected to the bracket through the adjusting mechanism, the position of the seat relative to the bracket in the horizontal direction is changed through the adjusting mechanism, so that the gravity center position of the whole bicycle frame is changed, and the relative position between the seat and the bracket is matched with users with different body types, heights and body defects; the user that can drive the scooter in the most comfortable sitting posture, and the experience feeling and the comfort degree of the user improved; and after adjustment of the adjusting mechanism, the requirements of different road conditions for the gravity center position that can be met, and the stability of the scooter in the running process improved).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. 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.
/YURI KAN, P.E./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights