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
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 10/03/2025, in which claims 19-22, 25-27, 29-33, 35 and 36 are amended, claims 1-18, 23, 24, 28, and 34 are cancelled. Claims 19-22, 25-27, 29-33, 35 and 36 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS 10/03/2025, with respect to the interpretation of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. §112f have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous interpretations have been withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 19-36 under 35 U.S.C. §112a have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 19-36 under 35 U.S.C. §112b have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 19-22, 26-27, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented below in view of Nakaya and Lich.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) 35 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, new rejections are presented below in view of Nakaya and Lich.
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.
Claim(s) 19-22, 26, 27, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US 2021/0107573 A1, “Bailey”) in view of Nakaya et al. (EP 2 026 287 A2, “Nakaya”) and in further view of Lich et al. (US 2004/0035630 A1, “Lich”).
Regarding claims 19, 26, 35, Bailey discloses an integrated control method for balancing a two-wheeled vehicle using control moment gyroscopes and drive-by-wire steering systems and teaches:
A stabilization control system for a saddled vehicle, the stabilization control system comprising: (FIG. 7 is an illustration of elements of a control system for a two-wheeled self-balancing vehicle according to an embodiment. In some embodiments, the control system 700 includes sensors and control elements for a two-wheeled self-balancing vehicle, including the following – See at least ¶ [0064])
a controller that: (Control system 700 has CMG controllers 730 – See at least Fig. 7)
obtains a predetermined roll angle of the saddled vehicle from a steering lean angle sensor and a vehicle speed sensor; (In some embodiments, a control system for a two-wheeled vehicle includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU); one or more control moment gyroscopes (CMGs); one or more CMG controllers to control the one or more CMGs; an accelerometer to measure a y-axis acceleration for the vehicle, the y-axis of the vehicle being perpendicular to a direction of travel of the vehicle and parallel to a ground surface; and a processing element to calculate a roll angle for the vehicle based at least in part on the y-axis acceleration measured by the accelerometer, determine a force component based at least in part on the calculated roll angle, and generate a CMG command for a CMG gimbal rate based at least in part on the determined force component – See at least ¶ [0075]; The system further contains an accelerometer which is a speed sensor – See at least ¶ [0027])
detects, with a comparator, a difference roll angle data between the predetermined roll angle and an input from one or more vehicle sensors coupled to the saddled vehicle, and (With reference to the embodiment 900 illustrated in FIG. 9A, angle error accelerometer 905 receives an accelerometer signal and produces an angle error, kp 210. Likewise, CMG gimbal rate produced acceleration 915 procures an angle component tl-kp 920. The value of the proportion gain kp is between zero and one making the sum of the two paths equal to one. The optimum performance is when kp is equal to one. The sum of the errors is passed through a gain kphi at 930 that, according to one embodiment, has units of radians per second of rate command per radian of attitude error. The roll rate command, the result of summer 925, is compared to the filtered roll rate 935 and passed through a network with an integrator with a lead 945, 955, 950 and 960. The result is a torque command, output at 965 – See at least ¶ [0103])
controls an actuator driver that drives an actuator connected to the saddled vehicle based upon the difference roll angle data, [] (The roll rate command, the result of summer 925, is compared to the filtered roll rate 935 and passed through a network with an integrator with a lead 945, 955, 950 and 960. The result is a torque command, output at 965. With reference to FIG. 9B, the torque command 965 is split into two paths, 965A and 965B. Each path is compensated such that the loop gain through the two wheeled vehicle dynamics for the CMG control is similar to the steering control and actuator path. The control paths work in concert so each is dominate in the speed domain where it works best – See at least ¶ [0103]-[0104])
determines whether an output reaction torque provided by the actuator is sufficient for the single rider [] (The vehicle including one or more control moment gyroscopes (CMGs); calculating a roll angle for the vehicle based at least in part on the y-axis acceleration measured by the accelerometer; determining a force component based at least in part on the calculated roll angle; and generating a CMG command for a CMG gimbal rate based at least in part on the determined force component – see at least ¶ [0085])
Bailey does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more vehicle sensors include a suspension stroke sensor, and the controller further: detects, with the suspension stroke sensor, a stroke length of a suspension assembly of the saddled vehicle to determine whether a single rider is seated or the rider along with a pillion rider is seated on the saddle vehicle. However, Nakaya discloses event data recorder, motorcycle information recording method and teaches:
wherein the one or more vehicle sensors include a suspension stroke sensor, and (The suspension stroke sensor is configured to detect an extended or contracted state of a suspension which absorbs a shock applied to the motorcycle 1, and may be, for example, a displacement sensor configured to detect a distance between an upper position and a lower position of the suspension – See at least Col. 5, ln. 57 – Col. 6, ln. 1-5)
the controller further: detects, with the suspension stroke sensor, a stroke length of a suspension assembly of the saddled vehicle to determine whether a single rider is seated or the rider along with a pillion rider is seated on the saddle vehicle, and (The two-person detecting sensor is a sensor which detects a distribution of a pressure applied on the seat 14, a sensor which detects that a rear suspension is contracted in a predetermined amount larger than a front suspension – See at least Col. 6, ln. 15-20)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the integrated control method for balancing a two-wheeled vehicle using control moment gyroscopes and drive-by-wire steering systems of Bailey to provide for event data recorder, motorcycle information recording method, as taught in Nakaya, so activation precision of the event data recorder built into the motorcycle can be improved. (At Nakaya ¶ [0005])
The combination of Bailey and Nakaya does not explicitly teach determines whether an output reaction torque provided by the actuator is sufficient for the single rider or a sufficient output reaction torque needs to be produced, depending on presence or absence of a weight of the pillion rider. However, Lich discloses apparatus for detecting an occupant of a two-wheeled motor vehicle and teaches:
determines whether an output reaction [] provided by the [assist system] is sufficient for the single rider or a sufficient output reaction [] needs to be produced, depending on presence or absence of a weight of the pillion rider. (According to the present invention, therefore, detection means are provided on the motorcycle which make possible identification of an occupant. It is also possible to identify the number of occupants. In particular, the Seat position and mass are also to be determined in order to Supply rider-assisting Systems, for example the ABS System, with information that will guarantee optimum comfort and protection for the occupants – See at least ¶ [0009])
In summary, Bailey discloses adjusting the correcting output of the CMG system to self-balance the motorcycle and prevent falling over. This is achieved through calculating the motions of the bike depending on the state of the bike. Bailey does not explicitly disclose that the state of the bike includes determining the number of passengers via a suspension sensor. However, Nakaya discloses identifying the number of passengers on the motorcycle based on the compression of the rear shock. The combination of Bailey and Nakaya does not explicitly teach determining an output reaction of a motorcycle based on the presence or absence of a second rider. However, Lich discloses an apparatus for detecting an occupant of a two-wheeled vehicle and teaches identifying the number of riders and passing that information to assistant systems, e.g., ABS and restraint systems. Based on the number of riders, i.e., a change in mass and position of the mass, the system will adjust operation of the assistant systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the integrated control method for balancing a two-wheeled vehicle using control moment gyroscopes and drive-by-wire steering systems of Bailey and Nakaya to provide for the adjustment of assist systems based on the number of passengers, as taught in Lich, to guarantee optimum comfort and protection for the occupants. (At Lich ¶ [0009])
Regarding claim 20, Bailey further teaches:
wherein the actuator is configured to provide an output reaction torque and enable stabilization of the saddled vehicle. (Gyroscopes are angular momentum storage elements built around a rotating flywheel. The flywheel acts as a torque actuator, by transferring angular momentum from the CMG array (comprising one or more CMGs that provide roll torque) to the vehicle – See at least ¶ [0025])
Regarding claim 21, Bailey further teaches:
wherein the one or more vehicle sensors include one or more accelerometers, and one or more lean angle sensors. (FIG. 7 is an illustration of elements of a control system for a two-wheeled self-balancing vehicle according to an embodiment. In some embodiments, the control system 700 includes sensors and control elements for a two-wheeled self-balancing vehicle, including the following: 705: A processing element to process data for the control of the vehicle. 710: An inertial measurement unit (IMU) to measure specific force and angular rate for the vehicle. 715: An accelerometer to measure a lateral acceleration of the vehicle. 720: A steering augmentation element to augment a steering command for the vehicle. 725: One or more CMGs, which may include a first CMG and a second CMG, the first and second CMGs having angular momentum vectors pointing in opposite directions. 730: One or more CMG controllers to control a gimbal rate for the one or more CMGs – See at least ¶ [0064]-[0070])
Regarding claims 22 and 27, Bailey further teaches:
wherein the controller further: receives an input from an actuator position sensor mounted on the saddled vehicle (…generate the CMG rate command 140, the command being provided to the first CMG control 142 and second CMG control 144, producing CMG gimbal angles 8. The sum of the gimbal angles is fed back in the generation of the CMG rate command, and the difference between the CMG gimbal angles produces the stored H control value 150 – See at least ¶ [0024]) and determines an actuator angle and determine the maximum angle attained by the actuator. (As shown in Fig. 14, the system determines the maximum angle attained by the gimbal, i.e., actuator, within the measured time period.)
Claim(s) 25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of Nakaya and Lich, as applied to claim 19, in view of Melcher (US 6,805,362 B1, “Melcher”).
Regarding claims 25 and 29, the combination of Bailey, Nakaya, and Lich does not explicitly teach wherein, the stabilization control unit is configured to receive inputs by an actuator position sensor and is configured to receive inputs from a pre-determined actuator angle unit. However, Melcher discloses vehicle lean and alignment control system and teaches:
wherein the stabilization control unit is configured to receive inputs by an actuator position sensor and is configured to receive inputs from a pre-determined actuator angle unit. (The first connection gear registers with a potentiometer gear 136 so that the angle of rotation of the actuator arm 54 is sensed by the potentiometer of the position sensor 127 – See at least Col. 8, ln. 19-22 and Claim 5)
In summary, Bailey discloses identifying the actuator movement amount to achieve the correct balance of the motorcycle. Bailey does not explicitly teach providing inputs from the actuator position sensor. However, Melcher discloses vehicle lean and alignment control system and teaches providing an actuator position input to determine the amount of lean of the motorcycle.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the integrated control method for balancing a two-wheeled vehicle using control moment gyroscopes and drive-by-wire steering systems of Bailey, Nakaya, and Lich to provide for the vehicle lean and alignment control system, as taught in Melcher, to enables a driver to make very tight turns at low speeds. (At Melcher Col. 13, ln. 45-46)
Claim(s) 30, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey, in view of Wantanabe et al. (US 2017/0327109 A1, “Wantanabe”).
Regarding claim 30, Bailey discloses an integrated control method for balancing a two-wheeled vehicle using control moment gyroscopes and drive-by-wire steering systems and teaches:
A method for a stabilization control system, the method comprising the steps of: (FIG. 7 is an illustration of elements of a control system for a two-wheeled self-balancing vehicle according to an embodiment. In some embodiments, the control system 700 includes sensors and control elements for a two-wheeled self-balancing vehicle, including the following – See at least ¶ [0064])
initializing the stabilization control system; (Embodiments of the disclosure also relate to an apparatus for performing the operations herein via circuitry, logic, or processor-executed software modules. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general purpose computer selectively activated, i.e., initialized, or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer – See at least ¶ [0115])
comparing, with a comparator, a desired roll angle data initially input to the stabilization control system and a feedback roll angle data received from one or more vehicle sensors coupled to the saddled vehicle: (…generate the CMG rate command 140, the command being provided to the first CMG control 142 and second CMG control 144, producing CMG gimbal angles 8. The sum of the gimbal angles is fed back in the generation of the CMG rate command, and the difference between the CMG gimbal angles produces the stored H control value 150 – See at least ¶ [0024])
determining a difference in roll angle data; (With reference to the embodiment 900 illustrated in FIG. 9A, angle error accelerometer 905 receives an accelerometer signal and produces an angle error, kp 210. Likewise, CMG gimbal rate produced acceleration 915 procures an angle component tl-kp 920. The value of the proportion gain kp is between zero and one making the sum of the two paths equal to one. The optimum performance is when kp is equal to one. The sum of the errors is passed through a gain kphi at 930 that, according to one embodiment, has units of radians per second of rate command per radian of attitude error. The roll rate command, the result of summer 925, is compared to the filtered roll rate 935 and passed through a network with an integrator with a lead 945, 955, 950 and 960. The result is a torque command, output at 965 – See at least ¶ [0103])
identifying that the saddled vehicle is unstable due to difference in the roll angle data and determining stabilization (The roll rate command, the result of summer 925, is compared to the filtered roll rate 935 and passed through a network with an integrator with a lead 945, 955, 950 and 960. The result is a torque command, output at 965. With reference to FIG. 9B, the torque command 965 is split into two paths, 965A and 965B. Each path is compensated such that the loop gain through the two wheeled vehicle dynamics for the CMG control is similar to the steering control and actuator path. The control paths work in concert so each is dominate in the speed domain where it works best – See at least ¶ [0103]-[0104]) to enable the stabilization control unit. (The control system 815 is coupled to the outputs of the coordinated noise filters 810, i.e., filtered outputs from vehicle sensors, and provides position control using two actuators acting on the same parameter to be controlled – See at least ¶ [0102])
Bailey does not explicitly teach identifying that the saddled vehicle is stable if there is no difference in the roll angle data. However, Wantanabe discloses system and method to stabilize motorcycles and teaches:
identifying that the saddled vehicle is stable if there is no difference in the roll angle data; and (The operating state of a physical motorcycle can be measured and compared to that of the model at every instant in time to determine if the operating state of the physical motorcycle differs from that of the simulation model in such a way as to indicate loss of stability. The nature of that difference can then be used to intervene in the operation of the motorcycle independent of driver actions by application of brakes, modulating the engine torque or applying torques to urge the steering system in a corrective direction. Thus by comparing the physical response of the motorcycle to that of the computer model in an on-board controller these interventions can be applied at a time and intensity to stabilize the motorcycle and prevent a loss of control – See at least ¶ [0052])
In summary, Bailey discloses identifying a control amount for the actuators to ensure the vehicle is stabilized. The control amount makes up for the difference between the sensed angle and a stable angle. Bailey does not explicitly teach identifying that the vehicle is stable if there is no difference in the roll angle data. However, Wantanabe discloses system and method to stabilize motorcycles and teaches comparing the instant model to the actual physical detection of the roll angle data and adjusts the vehicle control to ensure the motorcycle stays stable. If the model and the physical detection are equal then the motorcycle would not require correction and would be stable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the integrated control method for balancing a two-wheeled vehicle using control moment gyroscopes and drive-by-wire steering systems of Bailey to provide for the system and method to stabilize motorcycles, as taught in Wantanabe, to improve stability in low-friction conditions without losing safety. (At Wantanabe ¶ [0006])
The combination of Bailey and Wantanabe does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more vehicle sensors include a suspension stroke sensor, and the method further comprises: detecting, with the suspension stroke sensor, a stroke length of a suspension assembly of the saddled vehicle to determine whether a single rider is seated or the rider along with a pillion rider is seated on the saddle vehicle. However, Nakaya discloses event data recorder, motorcycle information recording method and teaches:
wherein the one or more vehicle sensors include a suspension stroke sensor, and (The suspension stroke sensor is configured to detect an extended or contracted state of a suspension which absorbs a shock applied to the motorcycle 1, and may be, for example, a displacement sensor configured to detect a distance between an upper position and a lower position of the suspension – See at least Col. 5, ln. 57 – Col. 6, ln. 1-5)
the method further comprises: detecting, with the suspension stroke sensor, a stroke length of a suspension assembly of the saddled vehicle to determine whether a single rider is seated or the rider along with a pillion rider is seated on the saddle vehicle, (The two-person detecting sensor is a sensor which detects a distribution of a pressure applied on the seat 14, a sensor which detects that a rear suspension is contracted in a predetermined amount larger than a front suspension – See at least Col. 6, ln. 15-20)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the integrated control method for balancing a two-wheeled vehicle using control moment gyroscopes and drive-by-wire steering systems of Bailey and Wantanabe to provide for event data recorder, motorcycle information recording method, as taught in Nakaya, so activation precision of the event data recorder built into the motorcycle can be improved. (At Nakaya ¶ [0005])
The combination of Bailey, Wantanabe, and Nakaya does not explicitly teach determines whether an output reaction torque provided by the actuator is sufficient for the single rider or a sufficient output reaction torque needs to be produced, depending on presence or absence of a weight of the pillion rider. However, Lich discloses apparatus for detecting an occupant of a two-wheeled motor vehicle and teaches:
determining whether an output reaction [] provided by the [assist system] is sufficient for the single rider or a sufficient output reaction [] needs to be produced, depending on presence or absence of a weight of the pillion rider. (According to the present invention, therefore, detection means are provided on the motorcycle which make possible identification of an occupant. It is also possible to identify the number of occupants. In particular, the Seat position and mass are also to be determined in order to Supply rider-assisting Systems, for example the ABS System, with information that will guarantee optimum comfort and protection for the occupants – See at least ¶ [0009])
In summary, Bailey discloses adjusting the correcting output of the CMG system to self-balance the motorcycle and prevent falling over. This is achieved through calculating the motions of the bike depending on the state of the bike. Bailey does not explicitly disclose that the state of the bike includes determining the number of passengers via a suspension sensor. However, Nakaya discloses identifying the number of passengers on the motorcycle based on the compression of the rear shock. The combination of Bailey, Wantanabe, and Nakaya does not explicitly teach determining an output reaction of a motorcycle based on the presence or absence of a second rider. However, Lich discloses an apparatus for detecting an occupant of a two-wheeled vehicle and teaches identifying the number of riders and passing that information to assistant systems, e.g., ABS and restraint systems. Based on the number of riders, i.e., a change in mass and position of the mass, the system will adjust operation of the assistant systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the integrated control method for balancing a two-wheeled vehicle using control moment gyroscopes and drive-by-wire steering systems of Bailey, Wantanabe, and Nakaya to provide for the adjustment of assist systems based on the number of passengers, as taught in Lich, to guarantee optimum comfort and protection for the occupants. (At Lich ¶ [0009])
Regarding claim 31, Bailey further teaches:
wherein the difference in the roll angle data for determining stabilization is provided for controlling an actuator driver, that enables an actuator connected to the saddled vehicle for stabilizing the saddled vehicle. (With reference to FIG. 8, an embodiment 800 of the invention comprises a two-wheeled vehicle 825 to be controlled, and system components 801, including one or more attitude sensors (in an Inertial Measurement Unit 805), one or more state balanced noise filters 810, a control system 815, and one or more balance control actuators 820 – See at least ¶ [0095])
Regarding claim 33, Bailey further teaches:
further comprising the steps of:
receiving an output reaction torque by one or more sensors, and (With reference to the embodiment 900 illustrated in FIG. 9A, angle error accelerometer 905 receives an accelerometer signal and produces an angle error, kp 210. Likewise, CMG gimbal rate produced acceleration 915 procures an angle component tl-kp 920. The value of the proportion gain kp is between zero and one making the sum of the two paths equal to one. The optimum performance is when kp is equal to one. The sum of the errors is passed through a gain kphi at 930 that, according to one embodiment, has units of radians per second of rate command per radian of attitude error. The roll rate command, the result of summer 925, is compared to the filtered roll rate 935 and passed through a network with an integrator with a lead 945, 955, 950 and 960. The result is a torque command, output at 965 – See at least ¶ [0103])
providing feedback from the output reaction torque and outputs of the one or more sensors to the comparator for determining a difference. (The sum of the errors is passed through a gain kphi at 930 that, according to one embodiment, has units of radians per second of rate command per radian of attitude error. The roll rate command, the result of summer 925, is compared to the filtered roll rate 935 and passed through a network with an integrator with a lead 945, 955, 950 and 960. The result is a torque command, output at 965 – See at least ¶ [0103])
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of Wantanabe, Nakaya, and Lich, as applied to claim 30, and in further view of Melcher.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Bailey Wantanabe, Nakaya, and Lich does not explicitly teach providing inputs from the actuator position sensor for determining stabilizing. However, Melcher discloses vehicle lean and alignment control system and teaches:
further comprising the step of:
providing an input from the actuator position sensor mounted on the saddled vehicle for determining stabilizing. (The first connection gear registers with a potentiometer gear 136 so that the angle of rotation of the actuator arm 54 is sensed by the potentiometer of the position sensor 127 – See at least Col. 8, ln. 19-22 and Claim 5)
In summary, Bailey discloses identifying the actuator movement amount to achieve the correct balance of the motorcycle. Bailey does not explicitly teach providing inputs from the actuator position sensor. However, Melcher discloses vehicle lean and alignment control system and teaches providing an actuator position input to determine the amount of lean of the motorcycle.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the integrated control method for balancing a two-wheeled vehicle using control moment gyroscopes and drive-by-wire steering systems of Bailey Wantanabe, Nakaya, and Lich to provide for the vehicle lean and alignment control system, as taught in Melcher, to enables a driver to make very tight turns at low speeds. (At Melcher Col. 13, ln. 45-46)
Claim(s) 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey in view of Wantanabe, Nakaya, and Lich, as applied to claim 30, and in further view of Adams (Honda’s Self-Balancing Motorcycle is Perfect for Noobs, “Adams”).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Bailey Wantanabe, Nakaya, and Lich does not explicitly teach wherein the stabilization control system is configured to enable stabilization in T2 seconds where T2 is <= 0.4 T1 seconds where the T1 seconds is a time taken for enabling stabilization of the saddled vehicle by processing data inputs from the one or more vehicle sensors one at a time. However, Adams discloses a self-balancing motorcycle and teaches:
wherein the controller to enables stabilization in T2 seconds where T2 is <= 0.4 T1 seconds where the T1 seconds is a time taken for enabling stabilization of the saddled vehicle by processing data inputs from the one or more vehicle sensors one at a time. (Honda uses an electronic steer-by-wire system that disengages the handlebars from the front forks at speeds below 3 mph, passing control of the front wheel to the computer. The bike senses lean angles and swings the wheel to either side, thousands of times per second, to counteract any tendency tip over. It also adjusts the angles of the front forks, lowering the bike's center of gravity to improve stability – See at least pg. 4)
In summary, Bailey discloses operating the stability control “instantly”. Bailey does not define the term instantly to explicitly be in T2 seconds where T2 is <= 0.4 T1 seconds where the T1 seconds is a time taken for enabling stabilization of the saddled vehicle by processing data inputs from the one or more vehicle sensors one at a time. However, Adams discloses a self-balancing motorcycle and teaches that the balancing system may sense and counteract leans thousands of times per second.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the integrated control method for balancing a two-wheeled vehicle using control moment gyroscopes and drive-by-wire steering systems of Bailey Wantanabe, Nakaya, and Lich to provide for the self-balancing motorcycle, as taught in Adams, to allow those who are older or a little shorter in stature or have a heavy bike to relax a little bit and not stress out about falling over. (At Adams pg. 4)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brendelson et al. (US 20210269104 A1) which discloses gyroscopic rider assist device and teaches self-stabilization control that prevents a motorcycle from falling over using corrective moment or torque generated on the motorcycle.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE L COOLEY whose telephone number is (303)297-4355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662