DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 2 filed on 1/30/2026 has been entered, no new matter has been added. Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/30/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 2 filed on 1/30/2026 has been entered, no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/30/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the amendment to claim 1 requiring the battery and drive motor to be located entirely within a region surrounded by the upper frames, lower frames, the front frame, and the rear frame in a side view of the vehicle, and Rubanovich fails to teach this because figure 9B shows “a portion of the rear frame crosses the motor 52a in a side view.” This is not persuasive. The rear frame as interpreted by the previous office action, and this office action, is 26 “rear frame portion” taught by figure 27. This element does not pass in front of the motor 52a in figure 9B. The element that applicant seems to be referring to is what was previously interpreted in annotated figure 9B as a “swing arm” in the final office action filed on 7/23/2025. For clarity, annotated figure 9B is included below. This “swing arm” is surrounding the motor in figure 9B, so even if it were considered to be part of the rear frame, the motor would still be taught located entirely within a region surrounded by the upper frames, the lower frames, the front frame, and the rear frame in a side view.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues that this same “portion of the rear frame crosses the motor 52a in a side view such that . . . (2) the drive motor 52a is not able to be installed from a side of the vehicle” (emphasis in original). This is not persuasive because figure 9B teaches the “Swing Arm” installed through removable fasteners, which would enable the motor 52a to be installed from a side of the vehicle (taught in annotated figure 9B included above). Thus, applicant’s arguments for the allowability of claim 1 are not persuasive, and claim 1 remains rejected under 35 USC 103.
Regarding claims 2-13, applicant argues that because they appropriately depend upon claim 1, they are allowable. Because claim 1 is still rejected, this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubanovich (US 20230093742 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 6499553 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Rubanovich teaches a vehicle comprising: a pair of upper frames spaced apart in a left-right direction of the vehicle (40 “upper longitudinal members” taught by figure 2);
a pair of lower frames spaced apart in the left-right direction (42 “lower longitudinal members” taught by figure 2);
a front frame connecting front portions of the pair of upper frames to the pair of lower frames (28 “front portion” taught by figure 9A);
a rear frame connecting rear portions of the pair of upper frames to rear portions of the pair of lower frames (26 “rear frame” taught in figure 27);
a pair of front wheels (12 “front ground-engaging members” taught by figure 1);
a pair of rear wheels (14 “rear ground-engaging members” taught by figure 1);
a bar handle to steer the pair of front wheels (38 “steering input” taught in figure 1 and 26A);
a drive motor to drive the pair of rear wheels (52a “a rear motor” taught in figure 2 and by paragraph 98 “Additionally, controller 62 is operably coupled to gauge 90 to receive inputs from the operator related to desired operational conditions (e.g., 1WD, 2WD, 3WD, 4WD, operating modes such as turf mode, regen braking, and active descent braking, security features of powertrain assembly 15, etc.)”);
a battery to supply electric power to the drive motor (50 “a battery” taught by figure 2); and
the drive motor and the battery are located entirely within a region surrounded by the upper frames, the lower frames, the front frame, and the rear frame in a side view of the vehicle and configured so that each of the drive motor and the battery is able to be installed from a side of the vehicle (taught by figure 9B).
However Rubanovich does not teach a pivot shaft located farther forward than the pair of rear wheels, and attached to the rear frame and extending in a widthwise direction of the vehicle to pivotably support a swing arm.
Suzuki teaches a pivot shaft (52 “a pivot shaft” taught in figures 1 and 3) located farther forward than the pair of rear wheels, and attached to the rear frame and extending in a widthwise direction of the vehicle to pivotably support a swing arm (48 “a swing arm” taught in figure 3 and column 3 line 67 to column 4 lines 1-2 “The swing arm 48 is connected to the frame assembly 46 at a pivot axis P by a pivot shaft 52”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the pivot shaft and swing arm of Suzuki onto the rear frame of Rubanovich, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because the pivot shaft and swing arm of Suzuki allow the rear wheel to move vertically and thus absorb shocks from uneven ground.
Regarding claim 2, Rubanovich in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Rubanovich also teaches wherein the drive motor and the battery do not protrude downward from the lower frames in the side view of the vehicle (taught by figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Rubanovich in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Rubanovich also teaches wherein the drive motor is behind the battery (taught by figure 2);
the drive motor includes an output shaft (taught by figure 5 and 6 as well as paragraph ); and
the vehicle further comprises a power transmission to transmit power from the output shaft to the rear wheels to drive the rear wheels (15 “” taught in figures 6 and paragraph 96 “Battery 50 still provides the power for operating powertrain assembly 15 and motor 52 a is configured to provide rotational power to gearcase 70 which then transmits rotational power to front and rear differentials 56, 58 through front and rear prop shafts 74, 76 for driving front and rear ground-engaging members 12, 14”).
Regarding claim 4, Rubanovich in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle according to Claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Rubanovich also teaches wherein the power transmission includes a chain or a drive shaft (taught by figure 6).
Regarding claim 5, Rubanovich in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Rubanovich also teaches wherein the battery overlaps the pair of lower frames in a plan view of the vehicle (taught by figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Rubanovich in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Rubanovich also teaches wherein a widthwise length of the drive motor is shorter than a widthwise dimension of the rear frame in a plan view of the vehicle (taught by figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Rubanovich in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Rubanovich also teaches a motor control unit above the battery to control the drive motor (86 “a throttle or accelerator actuator” taught by figures 1 and 18).
Regarding claim 10, Rubanovich in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Rubanovich also teaches a motor control unit above the drive motor and behind the battery to control the drive motor (54 “at least one inverter or motor control unit” taught in figure 30).
Regarding claim 11, Rubanovich in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle according to Claim 9, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Rubanovich also teaches wherein the motor control unit is between the pair of lower frames in a plan view of the vehicle (54 “at least one inverter or motor control unit” taught in figure 31).
Regarding claim 12, Rubanovich in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Rubanovich also teaches a console box above the battery (160 “storage assembly” taught by figure 27).
Regarding claim 13, Rubanovich in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Rubanovich also teaches a straddled seat at a position higher than the drive motor; wherein the bar handle is at a position higher than the straddled seat (36 “seat” taught in figure 1).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubanovich (US 20230093742 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 6499553 B2), and in further view of Kurakawa (US 8862296 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Rubanovich in view of Suzuki teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Rubanovich does not clearly teach an end-to-end length of the pivot shaft (see figure 9B) and thus does not teach wherein: widthwise lengths of the drive motor and the battery are shorter than an end-to-end length of the pivot shaft in a plan view of the vehicle.
Kurakawa teaches wherein: widthwise lengths of the drive motor (M “motor” taught in figure 3) and the battery (BF “battery front” and BR “battery rear” taught in figure 2) are shorter than an end-to-end length of the pivot shaft (16 pivot shaft taught in figure 2) in a plan view of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the end-to-end length of the pivot shaft to be longer than the widthwise lengths of the drive motor and the battery with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because being longer than the drive motor and the battery allows the pivot shaft to connect the left and right sides of the frame, thus increasing the mechanical strength of the frame.
Regarding claim 8, Rubanovich in view of Suzuki and in further view of Kurakawa teaches the vehicle according to Claim 7, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Rubanovich also teaches a pair of steps attached to the rear frame or the pair of lower frames; wherein widthwise lengths of the drive motor and the battery are shorter than a distance between the pair of steps in a plan view of the vehicle (taught by annotated figure 5 attached below).
PNG
media_image2.png
482
948
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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 NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613