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 .
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 1 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurumaki (JPH07257459) in view of Gogo (US 6,516,909).
In re claim 1, Tsurumaki discloses a straddled vehicle (22) comprising: a front wheel (4); a front fork (6, 8, 10d) that rotatably supports the front wheel; a cover (16) disposed in front of the front fork (as shown in Figures 3 and 5); a brake (44) attached to the front wheel; a brake hose (20) connected to the brake and extending upward behind the cover (as shown in Figure 3);
Tsurumaki does not disclose a protector attached to the brake hose, wherein the brake hose includes a first hose, a second hose provided separately from the first hose, and a shrink tube disposed behind the cover and connecting the first hose and the second hose, and the protector is disposed behind the cover and covers the shrink tube.
Gogo, however, does disclose a shrink tube (73) protecting the brake hose (23) and protector (66) that wraps entirely around a portion of the brake hose (to prevent the clamp from being dislodged and for protecting the hose; see column 4, lines 45-49) (as shown in Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the brake hose out of two separate hose portions joined by shrink tube, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman 168 USPQ 177, 179.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brake hose of Tsurumaki such that it comprised the shrink tube and protector of Gogo to advantageously protect the brake hose while being located behind the cover since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The Examiner notes that the combination of the shrink tube and the bushing would provide additional protection while also preventing the clamp (48) from being dislodged.
In re claim 6, the combination of Tsurumaki and Gogo disclose two hoses as discussed above, but do not disclose wherein the second hose is made of a harder material than the first hose. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use a harder material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In re claim 7, Tsurumaki further discloses wherein the cover includes a guide (26) that guides the hose (as shown in Figures 3 and 4).
In re claim 8, Tsurumaki further discloses comprising an upper bracket (10u) attached to the front fork, wherein the cover is attached to the upper bracket (via recessed portion 28 having a screw insertion hole 28a).
In re claim 9, Tsurumaki further discloses wherein the cover is a number plate (number plate portion 12).
In re claim 10, Gogo further discloses wherein the protector has a tapered shape (tapers from mounting edge to curved edge).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the protector includes a first divided body that covers the shrink tube from a first side thereof, and a second divided body that covers the shrink tube from a second side thereof and is attached to the first divided body” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a protector made from two divided bodies attached to one another while covering the shrink tube from opposite sides.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the protector includes a hole for the shrink tube to be disposed therein, and a protrusion disposed on an inner surface of the hole, for engaging with the shrink tube” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not teach a protector having a protrusion on an inner surface that engages the shrink tube.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/26/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gogo using bushing 66 as the protector.
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 Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights