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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9-11, 14, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6186965 in view of Nolin (PGPub 2024/0025508).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, JP’965 teaches an electric motorcycle 1 (Figures 1-2) comprising: a frame 12; a battery 45; a motor 8 electronically connected to the battery; a chain 56 (Figure 7) connecting the motor to a rear wheel 7; and a dual-sided swing arm 37 (left arm 37 shown in Figure 1 and right arm 37 shown in Figure 2, Figures 3 and 6 also shown arms of swing arm 37 on opposite sides of wheel 7)), configured to maintain the rear wheel 7, the dual-sided swing arm comprising a right side swing arm spar (Figure 2) and a left side swing arm spar (Figure 1), the dual-sided swing arm joined to the frame at a pivot point 28 forward of the rear wheel 7 (see Figure 1); wherein the motor 8 is positioned within the dual-sided swing arm at a motor location (motor support 39) between the pivot point 28/C1 and the rear wheel 7 (see Figures 1 and 3).
JP’965 teaches that the motor is mounted within the dual-sided swing arm 37 at mount 39, but is silent regarding how the motor is accessed. However, motor of JP’965 is enclosed within the swing arm and it is well known that access to the motor is required for maintenance, repair, and replacement.
Nolin teaches an electric motorcycle (swing arm assembly 190 includes a swing arm 90, pivotable about pivot point 91, seen in Figure 4, that receives a drivetrain and electric motor; Nolan para [0073]). The swing arm 90, seen in Figure 11, is mounted to the cycle frame at a pivot point and shock absorber 142 (which is shown having a coil spring surrounding a shock; Figure 11) is connected to the frame at a point slightly behind the pivot point (Figure 11; a generally vertical line connecting the pivot point and the shock connection point is angled rearwardly at its upper end indicating the shock connection point is behind the pivot point). The embodiment of Figure 11 is a configured as cruiser type of motorcycle (this configuration includes slight modifications relative to a street type of motorcycle, as shown in Figure 7, which has the shock absorber connection point slightly forward of the pivot point). Nolan also shows an outer panel mounted to a lateral side of swing arm, apparently using screws of bolts (see Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention provide an access opening on a lateral side of at least one spar of the swing arm, as is well known and in view of Nolin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide access to the motor for maintenance, repair and replacement of worn or broken parts.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, JP’965 shows the spring 38 attached to the frame slightly forward of the pivot point 28 (C1) of the swing arm 15, rather than rearward of the pivot point, as claimed. However, Nolan teaches, with respect to the cruiser embodiment of Figure 11, the shock absorber connection point slightly forward of the swing arm pivot point, as discussed above. 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 electric vehicle of JP'965 such that the shock absorber connection point with the frame is rearward of the swing arm pivot point, in view of Nolin, with a reasonable order to configure the motorcycle as a cruiser type to suit the specific ergonomic needs of the user.
Regarding claim 3, the rear wheel 7 is attached to a hub (Figure 7) configured to receive the chain 56.
Regarding claim 6, JP’965 teaches handlebars and appears to show a triple clamp of the kind where the handlebar is removably connected using screws at the clamps, however, it is silent regarding the set of handlebars joined to the frame by modular detachable hardware.
Nolin teaches an electric motorcycle having a modular handlebar assembly 272 selected from different handlebar modular options and removably clamped to the front fork by a triple clamp assemble 234 (para [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electric vehicle of JP’965 with a set of handlebars joined to the frame by modular detachable hardware, in view of Nolin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to adjust the handlebar assembly to the ergonomic needs of the user.
Regarding claim 9, the combination discussed above teaches all of the claimed structure, as discussed above, but is silent regarding a sprocket provided with the motor to a hub of a rear wheel. JP’965 does teach using a chain 56 to transfer power from the motor to the hub of the rear wheel, as seen in Figure 7, but it does not mention sprockets. It is understood that sprockets are typically used in conjunction with chain transmissions to transfer power, particularly in motorcycles.
Nolin teaches a drive train between motor 120 and rear wheel 116 including a front sprocket 194, chain 197, and rear sprocket 195 at the rear wheel hub (see Figure 3, para [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electric vehicle of JP’965 with sprockets cooperating with the chain to transfer power to the rear wheel, as is old and well known and taught by Nolin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a robust and reliable drivetrain between the motor and rear wheel.
Regarding claim 10, see discussion of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, JP’965 teaches the rear wheel 7 is attached to a hub (Figure 7) and configured to receive the chain 56.
Regarding claim 14, JP’965 teaches handlebars and appears to show a triple clamp of the kind where the handlebar is removably connected using screws at the clamps, however, it is silent regarding the set of handlebars joined to the frame by modular detachable hardware.
Nolin teaches an electric motorcycle having a modular handlebar assembly 272 selected from different handlebar modular options and removably clamped to the front fork by a triple clamp assemble 234 (para [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electric vehicle of JP’965 with a set of handlebars joined to the frame by modular detachable hardware, in view of Nolin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to adjust the handlebar assembly to the ergonomic needs of the user.
Regarding claim 19, JP’965 teaches that at least one of the right side swing arm spar and the left side swing arm spar (left and right arms of swing arm 37) is connectable to the frame at 28/C1 using a pivot plate 25 (swing arm 37 is connected to pivot plates/brackets 25, seen in JP’965 translation, page 4, fourth paragraph and Figures 1, 2, and 4).
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6186965 and Nolin as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9-11, 14, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Kawabata (PGPub 2015/0329168).
The combination is silent regarding a “fast charging unit”.
Kawabata teaches an electric motorcycle having a quick charging unit (quick charging connector portion 77 in Figure 6, para [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electric vehicle of the combinaiton with a fast/quick charging unit, in view of Kawabata, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to quickly charge the battery from an external source.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6186965 and Nolin as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9-11, 14, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Duncan (PGPub 2015/0075888).
The combination is silent regarding a wheel base of the motorcycle that does not exceed 52 inches, although it is well known to configure smaller vehicles to accommodate smaller riders or to make the wheelbase shorter for better maneuverability.
Duncan teaches an electric motorcycle with a wheel base of 50 inches (see specification table in para [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electric vehicle of the combination with a wheel base of less than 52 inches (50 inches), in view of Duncan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the vehicle compact and easily maneuverable.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6186965 and Nolin as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9-11, 14, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Jacobsz Rosier (CN110248864).
The combination teaches all of the claimed structure except for at least one of a handlebar display mount and a fingerprint reader configured to provide keyless access to the electric motorcycle.
Jacobsz Rosier teaches a handlebar display mount 34 and a fingerprint reader (“fingerprint or iris scanner” recited in line 1 of page 23 of translation) configured to provide keyless access to the electric motorcycle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electric vehicle of the combination with a set of handlebars having a handlebar display mount and/or a fingerprint reader, in view of Jacobsz Rosier, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the user a convenient way to interact with the cycle controller and to unlock the vehicle without the need for a physical key that could be lost or stolen.
Claim(s) 8, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6186965 and Nolin as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9-11, 14, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Biderman et al. (PGPub 2016/0243927).
The combination teaches all of the claimed structure except for an access door providing access to the motor.
Biderman teaches an electric motorcycle having an access door 944 to provide access to drive motor 908 (see Figure 9A, para [0377]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electric vehicle of the combination with an access door to provide access to the motor, in view of Biderman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate servicing and replacement of the motor, as needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that JP’965 teaches a single swing arm with one side open, rather than a pair of swing arm spars. The examiner disagrees. JP’965 teaches a “swing arm 37” that is made up for two spars, a left spar, seen in Figure 1 and a right spar shown in Figure 2 (Figures 3 and 6 also show swingarm spars on opposite sides of the wheel 7). Each spar connects to the rear wheel at its end and the brackets 28 of frame 12 at its front end. A motor support portion 39 is provided between the spars of the swingarm 37.
The examiner agrees that JP’965 is silent regarding a maintenance access opening. However, it is well known that access to the motor is required for maintenance and repairs. Nolan shows a panel on the lateral outside of a rear fork arm (bolts are shown holding the lateral panel or cover onto the swingarm) that allows access to the motor. The examiner maintains that providing an access opening is well known, suggested by Nolan on the lateral side of a swingarm, and would have been an obvious structural modification in order to provide access to the motor. Therefore, the claims are not believed to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi, Sand, Taniguchi, and Nakashima show access opening for motors.
CN110126963 shows an electric motorcycle having a motor 21 mounted between distinct rear wheel spar arms of rear fork 3 (Figure 4).
Meinalan and CN 106995033 to Ruan teach a motorcycle having an electric motor mounted between rear fork spars.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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 at 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 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights