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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a Continuation (CON) of 19/243,089 (now US 2025/0313295 A1), filed 06/19/2025, which is a Continuation in Part (CIP) of 17/931,320 (now US 2023/80085482 A1), filed 09/12/2022, which claims domestic benefit to provisionally filed application 63/242,819, filed 09/10/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 7, 11, 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3, 11, and 18 “transmit data wirelessly including location of the vehicle” this should be “transmit data wirelessly including the location of the vehicle” to avoid questions of antecedence.
Claims 7 and 15 recite “the one or more processors configured to receiver the user input” this should be “the one or more processors configured to receive the user input” 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.
Claims 6-7, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 6-7, and 14-15 recites the limitation "the user" separately from a user input interface, a user has not been formally introduced prior to these recitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified apparatus Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A two wheel vehicle comprising:
one or more battery modules including one or more battery cells;
one or more processors operably connected to the one or more battery cells to control two wheel vehicle performance;
a Global Positioning System (GPS) configured to determine a geographical location of the two wheel vehicle; and
a wireless transceiver operably connected to the one or more processors to receive data from a remote server and over-the-air real-time updates of the data, the data including a plurality of two wheel vehicle performance settings;
the one or more processors configured to select a two wheel vehicle performance setting from the plurality of two wheel vehicle performance settings based on the geographical location of the two wheel vehicle.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could get their location from a GPS and determine they are within a region and based on that location determine what setting they would like their e-bike to have.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of one or more processors, a GPS, and a wireless transceiver. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The indication that the processors are connected to the one or more battery cells to control two wheel vehicle performance is merely the intended use of the processors but not clearly linked to the invention in a meaningful way.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 9 and 17 cite the same limitations as that in claim 1, with the exception of adding more generic computer components, and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, 16, and 18-20 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the limitation of receiving an input from a user and selecting the performance setting based on the input, which actively requires the interaction of a user and responds to that interaction. Therefore, the claims do integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 10-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nangeroni et al. (US 2019/0383627 A1), hereinafter Nangeroni.
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, Nangeroni discloses a two wheel vehicle comprising: one or more battery modules including one or more battery cells; (see at least [0032] “the vehicles can include… bicycles” [0037] “a battery…a fuel cell with a fuel source (e.g., metal hydride)”)
one or more processors operably connected to the one or more battery cells to control two wheel vehicle performance; (see at least [0033] “operable to receive control instructions from a remote controller, such as a remote computing system, and control or modify vehicle operation based on the instructions”)
a Global Positioning System (GPS) configured to determine a geographical location of the two wheel vehicle; (see at least [0035] “location sensors (e.g., GNSS and/or other geopositioning modules, such as receivers for one or more of GPS” [0074] “the vehicle operation rules can depend on a primary geographic region 120 that the vehicle is operated within.”)
and a wireless transceiver operably connected to the one or more processors to receive data from a remote server and over-the-air real-time updates of the data, the data including a plurality of two wheel vehicle performance settings; (see at least [0034] “The communication systems 240 function to provide communication… remote computing systems (e.g., servers” [0046] “The vehicle operation rules are… determined at a remote computing system 400 (e.g., internet-connected server)” [0024] “the vehicle control operation can be dynamically updated based on changes in vehicle operation parameters.” [0114] “The vehicle operation parameters are… received from an external database (e.g., weather forecast transmission, database of road conditions (e.g., potholes, poor road quality, etc.), emergency database, etc.), and/or determined based on any other suitable information source(s).”)
the one or more processors configured to select a two wheel vehicle performance setting from the plurality of two wheel vehicle performance settings based on the geographical location of the two wheel vehicle. (see at least [0079] “Each primary geographic region 120 (and/or geographic subunit thereof) can be associated with one or more vehicle operation rules.” [0133] “different control systems can perform vehicle operation rule selection from different vehicle operation rule subsets (e.g., kinematic rules, alert rules, overriding rules, etc.), and/or can perform tentative vehicle operation rules selection based on a subset of the vehicle operation conditions.”)
With respect to claims 3, 11, and 18, Nangeroni discloses a wireless transmitter operably connected to the one or more processors and configured to transmit data wirelessly including location of the vehicle to a remote server; (see at least [0034] “The communication systems 240 function to provide communication between computing systems, user devices… servers…can include long-range communication modules (e.g., supporting long-range wireless protocols)” [0078] “when an external server connects to the vehicle to update the primary geographic region”)
a wireless receiver operably connected to the one or more processors to receive data from the remote server including vehicle performance parameters, the processor configured to select the two wheel vehicle performance setting from the plurality of two wheel vehicle performance settings based on the vehicle performance parameters. (see at least [0115] “The vehicle operation parameters are… retrieved from memory (e.g., on-board memory, external memory such as: cloud storage, etc.)” [0130] “selecting vehicle operation rules includes, for each vehicle operation condition of the vehicle operation rules, comparing the criteria associated with the vehicle operation condition to the vehicle operation parameter, wherein vehicle operation rules for which the vehicle operation condition and vehicle operation parameters match are selected.”)
With respect to claims 4 and 12, Nangeroni discloses comprising a user input interface configured to receive user input including selection of the two wheel vehicle performance setting from the plurality of two wheel vehicle performance settings. (see at least [0130] “Selecting vehicle operation rules… can additionally or alternatively be selected at a remote computing system, by the user device”)
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.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nangeroni as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of 49 CFR 571: US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), revision dated 31 Aug 21, hereinafter FMVSS.
With respect to claims 2 and 10, Nangeroni discloses wherein the plurality of two wheel vehicle performance settings (see at least [0032] “bicycles… propelled by one or more electric motors” [0079] “Each primary geographic region 120 (and/or geographic subunit thereof) can be associated with one or more vehicle operation rules.” [0056] “the vehicle operation rules can be determined based on… municipal ordinances”)
However, FMVSS, also pertaining to safe vehicle control, is known to those of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to incorporate the teaching/regulations of FMVSS into the disclosure of Nangeroni in order to comply with safety standards, as required by law.
Claims 5-7, 13-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nangeroni as applied to claims 1, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Lukovic et al. (US 2018/0326866 A1), hereinafter Lukovic.
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Nangeroni the user device used to indicate location or receive notifications by communicating with a client application, but does not explicitly disclose the user selection of presented settings available based on location.
However, Lukovic teaches comprising a user input interface configured to indicate the selected two wheel vehicle performance setting from the plurality of two wheel vehicle performance settings. (see at least [0046-0047] “the current operating mode B1, B2 or B3 is output on the human-machine interface 4 according to the setting of the last entry(ies) on the operating mode switch 6 b, in particular, displayed on the display device 5… a user entry to select an operating mode for the motor vehicle drive 1 is detected on the human-machine interface 4.”)
As both pertain to the power control of a vehicle driving within a determine area, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the setting selection of Nangeroni to include the user mode selection disclosed in Lukovic, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to select a suitable power/assist mode based on the allowed operations in a given area rather than relying only on user preferences, see Lukovic [0024].
With respect to claims 6, 14, and 19, Nangeroni discloses the user device used to indicate location or receive notifications by communicating with a client application, but does not explicitly disclose the user selection of presented settings available based on location.
However, Lukovic teaches comprising a user input interface configured to indicate a set of two wheel vehicle performance settings from the plurality of two wheel vehicle performance settings currently available for selection by the user based on the location of the two wheel vehicle, (see at least [0046-0047] “the current operating mode B1, B2 or B3 is output on the human-machine interface 4 according to the setting of the last entry(ies) on the operating mode switch 6 b, in particular, displayed on the display device 5… a user entry to select an operating mode for the motor vehicle drive 1 is detected on the human-machine interface 4.” [0024] “identifies the certain traffic areas as not being deemed able to be driven on… the driver is made aware of this approach so that he/she can still make a corresponding selection of a suitable operating mode for the motor vehicle drive via the human-machine interface”)
the user input interface configured to receive user input including selection of a two wheel vehicle performance setting from the set of two wheel vehicle performance settings. (see at least [0047] “a user entry to select an operating mode for the motor vehicle drive 1 is detected on the human-machine interface 4.”)
As both pertain to the power control of a vehicle driving within a determine area, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the setting selection of Nangeroni to include the user mode selection disclosed in Lukovic, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to select a suitable power/assist mode based on the allowed operations in a given area rather than relying only on user preferences, see Lukovic [0024].
With respect to claims 7 and 15, Nangeroni discloses the mobile device used to indicate location or receive notifications by communicating with a client application, but does not explicitly disclose the user selection of presented settings available based on location.
However, Lukovic teaches the one or more processors configured to communicate with a mobile device including a user input interface configured to indicate a set of two wheel vehicle performance settings from the plurality of two wheel vehicle performance settings currently available for selection by the user based on the location of the two wheel vehicle, (see at least [0046-0047] “the current operating mode B1, B2 or B3 is output on the human-machine interface 4 according to the setting of the last entry(ies) on the operating mode switch 6 b, in particular, displayed on the display device 5… a user entry to select an operating mode for the motor vehicle drive 1 is detected on the human-machine interface 4.” [0024] “identifies the certain traffic areas as not being deemed able to be driven on… the driver is made aware of this approach so that he/she can still make a corresponding selection of a suitable operating mode for the motor vehicle drive via the human-machine interface”)
the user input interface configured to receive user input including selection of a two wheel vehicle performance setting from the set of two wheel vehicle performance settings, (see at least [0047] “a user entry to select an operating mode for the motor vehicle drive 1 is detected on the human-machine interface 4.”)
the one or more processors configured to receiver the user input and select the two wheel vehicle performance setting from the set of two wheel vehicle performance settings based on the user input. (see at least [0048] “a verification is made of if another user entry to stop the motor vehicle drive 1 has taken place by means of the start-stop switch 6 a. If this is the case, the method is terminated. Otherwise, the method goes on to step S4, in which it is determined, which operating mode the user entry that took place at step S2 corresponds to.”)
As both pertain to the power control of a vehicle driving within a determine area, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the setting selection of Nangeroni to include the user mode selection disclosed in Lukovic, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to select a suitable power/assist mode based on the allowed operations in a given area rather than relying only on user preferences, see Lukovic [0024].
Claims 8, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nangeroni as applied to claims 1, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Pickett et al. (US 2022/0025954 A1), hereinafter Pickett.
With respect to claims 8, 16, and 20, Nangeroni discloses the user device used to indicate location or receive notifications by communicating with a client application, but does not explicitly disclose preventing the user selection of unavailable settings.
However, Pickett teaches the one or more processors prevent a user from selecting a two wheel vehicle performance setting from the plurality of two wheel vehicle performance settings not currently available for selection by the user based on the location of the two wheel vehicle. (see at least [0042] “the application also automatically saves settings or backup files anytime the source (bike or file) is modified; allows users to load, view and edit backup files; prevents a user from entering any invalid settings values; provides a history of all user actions in a scrollable log; and the like.”)
As both pertain to changing settings for the power control of a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the setting selection of Nangeroni to include the user selection prevention disclosed in Pickett, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the user modification was within the required parameters of operation and safety, see Pickett [0263].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schieffelin (US 2017/0106866 A1) discloses electric bicycle transmission systems, methods, and devices.
Ericksen (US 2021/0061405 A1) discloses a smart device application with customizable tunes for active valve control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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 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 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights