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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsuda (9,238,495, hereinafter “Matsuda ‘495”) in view of Matsuda (9,278,725, hereinafter “Matsuda ‘725”); Fukuda (7,588,117); and Wood (3,533,484).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, and 12-13, Matsuda ‘495 discloses a vehicle comprising:
a pair of upper frames (31) spaced apart in a left-right direction of the vehicle;
a pair of lower frames (14) spaced apart in the left-right direction;
a front frame (13) connecting front portions of the pair of upper frames with the pair of lower frames;
a rear frame (150, see Fig. 3) connecting rear portions of the pair of upper frames with rear portions of the pair of lower frames;
a pair of rear wheels (3, see Col. 1, lines 60-64 disclosing the vehicle can be an atv or a three wheeler);
a drive motor (5) to drive the pair of rear wheels via an endless power transmission (26) to connect the drive motor with the pair of rear wheels (see e.g., Figs. 1 and 3);
a battery (21) to supply electric power to the drive motor;
a pivot shaft (17) attached to the rear frame (150, see Fig. 3) and extending in a widthwise direction of the vehicle; and
a swing arm (16) supported pivotably by the pivot shaft (17) and supporting the pair of rear wheels (3);
wherein the drive motor (5) is located farther forward than the swing arm (16; see Fig. 3) and rear frame (150);
a motor fixing bracket (see Fig. 3 showing a mounting bracket extending upwardly from the lower frame 14 and supporting the motor/transmission 5/25) between an output side of the drive motor and the lower frame that non-rotatably fixes the drive motor to the lower frame, the motor fixing bracket is attached to an end portion of the drive motor (as shown in Fig. 3, the drive chain follows the swing arm upwardly above the lower frame bracket toward an output of the motor/transmission).
While Matsuda ‘495 discloses a motor case that cooperates with a transmission to drive the rear wheels, it includes separate cases for the motor and transmission with the transmission’s case supporting these power elements, rather than the motor. Further, Matsuda ‘495 provides for a single mounting bracket between the lower frame and the end of the powertrain, it does not specifically disclose that both ends are supported by brackets mounted to an underframe or that the motor’s output shaft extends through a hole in one of the brackets.
Matsuda ‘725 teaches another electrically powered vehicle having a drive motor (5 within case 15) that is disposed on the vehicle frame (14) in front of a pivot of a rear wheel swingarm (52) and drives an endless transmission (26). The powertrain includes both the motor (5) and a transmission (25), where the motor and transmission can share a common case (15; see Col. 4, lines 36-43).
Fukuda teaches another vehicle’s drive motor (21) that is supported at both ends (see Fig. 3) via brackets (27/29) which are both supported from below by a underlying frame (17).
Wood teaches another vehicle having a motorized power unit (22) having an output shaft (62) that drives a pair of rear wheels (28; see Fig. 2), a first motor fixing bracket (54) having a through hole (see Fig. 3) that has a bearing (journal sleeve 60) to support the end of the output shaft (62).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the vehicle of Matsuda ‘495 to incorporate the motor and transmission within a common housing as taught by Matsuda ‘725 and to support both ends of the drive housing with lower frame-mounted brackets as taught by Fukuda and to use a bearing in the support bracket to support the motor’s output shaft as taught by Wood to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., integrating vehicle subcomponents together within a common housing and supporting a vehicle component at both ends) to known devices (e.g., vehicle’s electric drive motors) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a drive that has fewer parts through integration and which fully supports the powertrain to improve rigidity and/or strengthening the frame).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuda ‘495 further discloses that the drive motor (5) is located in an open space surrounded by the pair of upper arms (31), the pair of lower arms (14), the front frame (13), and the rear frame (150) in a side view of the vehicle (see Fig. 3 showing the opening defined by the surrounding frame rails of this embodiment); and
the open space allows the drive motor (5) to be attached/detached from a side of the vehicle (see Col. 10, lines 27-35 discussing how the embodiment shown in Fig. 3 having a rigid rear frame to support the swing arm allows for the easier removal of the motor, one skilled in the art would readily appreciate that open side access shown in the side view of Fig. 3 allows for this removable motor to installed) .
Regarding claim 10, Matsuda ‘495 further discloses a straddled seat (9, e.g., the forward seat 9) provided at a higher position than the drive motor (5); and a bar handle (8) provided at a higher position than the straddled seat (9; see e.g., Fig. 1 ).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsuda ‘495 in view of Matsuda ‘725, Fukuda, and Wood as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aunkst et al. (US 2020/0031425).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuda ‘495 does not explicitly provide for the relative width positioning of the endless drive and the frame rails.
Aunkst teaches another straddle-type vehicle having a swingarm (102) supported by an elongated laterally running pivot shaft (82; see Fig. 11) between a pair of spaced rails (70A, 70B). As shown in Fig. 11, the idler pulley (98 of the endless drive belt running to the rear wheel (19, see Fig. 12) is located inboard of the two spaced rails (70A, 70B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the vehicle of the Matsuda combination to dispose the endless power transmission/belt inside of the spaced frame rails as taught by Aunkst to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., shielding a drive belt by mounting it inboard of rigid protective features) to known devices (e.g., straddle-type vehicle’s having a swing arm mounted rear drive wheel driven by an endless transmission belt) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a more protected drive).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsuda ‘495 in view of Matsuda ‘725, Fukuda, and Wood as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aunkst and Kawashima et al. (5,501,292).
Regarding claim 3, while Matsuda ‘495 discloses that the swingarm pivots about a laterally running pivot shaft, it does not disclose the relative lengths/widths of the motor with respect to the pivot shaft.
Aunkst teaches another straddle-type vehicle having a swingarm (102) supported by an elongated laterally running pivot shaft (82; see Fig. 11) between a pair of spaced rails (70A, 70B). The elongated shaft extending across the full width of the spaced frame rails (70A, 70B).
Kawashima teaches another straddle-type vehicle including a drive motor (36) that drives a swingarm mounted rear wheel and has its output shaft (40) projecting laterally in the width direction. The motor (36) being sized to fit entirely between two spaced frame rails (13, see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the vehicle of the Matsuda combination to include a single elongated swingarm pivot shaft spanning the spaced frame rails as taught by Aunkst and to use a drive motor unit sized to fit between the vehicle’s frame rails as taught by Kawashima resulting in a vehicle having a motor that is smaller widthwise than its swingarm pivot shaft to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., -------using a single element instead of multiple separate units to ensure alignment and reduce the number of components; and sizing a prime mover to fit within a given footprint/frame to balance weight, power, cost and safety) to known devices (e.g., straddle-type vehicle’s having a swing arm mounted rear drive wheel) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., -------a straddle-type vehicle having a simplified swingarm with a better protected motor that is surrounded by the framework).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsuda ‘495 in view of Matsuda ‘725, Fukuda, and Wood as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Preining et al. (US 2013/0153321).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuda ‘495 does not disclose a power transmission cover attached to the motor fixing bracket.
Preining teaches another straddle-type vehicle having a motor (2; see e.g., Fig. 12) mounted to the vehicle frame (11) via a bracket (1, 3). A power transmission cover (e.g., chain guard 9) is attached to the motor fixing bracket (e.g., to bracket 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the vehicle of the Matsuda combination to include a frame bracket mounted chain/belt guard as taught by Preining to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., shielding a drive belt by providing a guard over the output/drive interface) to known devices (e.g., straddle-type vehicle’s having an endless transmission belt driven proximate to a rider’s legs) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., a more protected drive system).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsuda ‘495 in view of Matsuda ‘725, Fukuda, and Wood as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aunkst and Shiina et al. (8,413,758).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuda ‘495 further discloses that the rear frame (150) includes a pair of laterally spaced frame elements (see Col. 10, lines 12-26) connecting the rear portions of the lower frame (14) to the rear portions of the upper frame (31), where the pivot shaft (denoted 17 in Fig. 1) is attached to the generally U-shaped frame (150). Matsuda ‘495 further discloses that the upper rear end of the frame includes a laterally running frame element (between reference characters “31” in Fig. 2).
Matsuda ’495, however, does not have its vertically oriented frames (150) incorporate an interconnecting piece to form a general U-shape.
Shiina teaches another ATV including a pair of motor-supporting bottom frames (see Fig. 6 where only the left rail 51L is denoted). A generally U-shaped rear frame (see uprights 54 and lateral web/brace 55) interconnects the ends of the bottom frames (51) to the upper frame (56). The swing arm is coupled to the rear frame (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the vehicle of the Matsuda ‘495 combination to have a U-shaped rear frame as taught by Shiina to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a frame having a rear-disposed lateral brace) for another (a frame having a slightly forward-disposed lateral brace) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a better reinforced rear framework).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Particularly, the claims have been amended to include limitations associated with the bracket supporting the output shaft side of the device. A further search of the prior art produced the Wood secondary reference which teaches that the output shaft is supported via the bracket.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 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 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618