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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 26, 2025, regarding the 112b rejections (page 3) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102/ 103 rejections of amended claim 5-8 (pages 4-5) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA (JP-S63188581-A).
Regarding Claim 5, YOSHIDA teaches a saddled vehicle (Para. [P-1], at least in line 1, and Fig. 2 teach a motorcycle) comprising:
a center stand (Main Stand 14, Fig. 1) that retains a vehicle body (Vehicle Body 1, Fig. 2) upright with a rear wheel (“RW”, Fig. 2 Annotated Fig. 2) lifted off a ground surface (Para. [P-1], particularly lines 10-12, teach lifting the vehicle body and putting it on the stand such that it is understood that one or both of the wheels are lifted off the ground);
a swingarm (“SWA”, Fig. 2 Annotated) that pivotally holds the rear wheel (RW) and is swingably held on the vehicle body (1) by a swingarm pivot (“PV”, Fig. 2 Annotated);
a rear suspension (Rear Suspension 3, Fig. 2) that suspends the swingarm (SWA) from the vehicle body (1), the rear suspension (3) having an expansion-side damping force by drive of an actuator (Para. [P-2], lines 1- teach that Rear Suspension 3 is an air suspension which is supplied air pressure- i.e. expansion force- using a Compressor 4, Fig. 1, considered an actuator, and also has an Exhaust Valve 7; it is also understood to be implicitly taught that the Rear Suspension 3 has a damping force for each of a retraction and an expansion side as that is an inherent property of a suspension cylinder, as is well known in the art);
a controller (Controller 10, Fig. 1) that controls the actuator (Para. [P-2], lines 3-5 teach the Controller 10 controlling the Compressor 4, and also Exhaust Valve 7),
a center stand angle sensor (Stand Switch 15, Fig. 5) that detects an unfolding state of the center stand (Para. [P-2], lines 15-18 teach Stand Switch 15 detecting Main Stand 14 moving away from a retracted- i.e. folded- position),
wherein the controller (10) minimizes the expansion-side damping force of the rear suspension (3) when the controller detects that the center stand (14) has been unfolded by a predetermined angle (Para. [P-3], lines 2-9 teach that when the Main Stand 14 is removed from a stored position- i.e. has been unfolded by a predetermined angle- air is sent to the Rear Suspension 3 to extend it, which is understood to minimize the expansion-side damping force as the Rear Suspension 3 is being actively expanded; Para. [P-2], lines 7-10 teaches that a Stand Switch 15 detects when Main Stand 14 is removed from the stored position- i.e. the predetermined angle is the angle that triggers Stand Switch 15), the predetermined angle being smaller than an angle at which the center stand has expanded to a fully unfolded position (Stand Switch 15 being at the stored position and Stand Switch 16 being at a fully unfolded position of Main Stand 14 as illustrated in Fig. 4, the angle to trigger Stand Switch 15- i.e. the predetermined angle- is smaller than the angle that would trigger Stand Switch 16- i.e. the fully unfolded position).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
YOSHIDA does not teach that the predetermined position which triggers expanding the suspension is where the center stand touches a ground surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the Stand Switch (15) of YOSHIDA that triggers an expansion of the suspension, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. It is further noted that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to move the Stand Switch (15) of YOSHIDA away from a completely stored position and toward a position in which the stand touches the ground in order to advantageously avoid a false triggering of the switch due to vibrations which would beneficially increase the safety of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 6, YOSHIDA further teaches that the controller (10) lets the rear suspension (3) recover the expansion-side damping force when the controller detects that the center stand (14) has expanded to the fully unfolded position (Para. [P-2], lines 20- 22 teach that the when the Main Stand 14 is detected by a Stand Switch 16 to be in a fully upright- i.e. unfolded- position, see Fig. 4, the Compressor 4 will not provide air to the Rear Suspension 3 even if the pressure drops below a set value, which is understood to mean that it will allow it to recover an original pressure).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHIDA in view of Miyamaru (JP-H0277374-A).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, (having similar limitations but different dependencies), YOSHIDA further teaches that the controller (10) minimizes the expansion-side damping force of the rear suspension (3) only when the controller (10) detects an output signal of the center stand angle sensor (Para. [P-2], lines 15-18 teach an output of Stand Switch 15 triggering the supply of air pressure to Rear Suspension 3).
YOSHIDA does not teach that the expansion-side damping force is minimized only when an ignition signal is off.
Miyamaru teaches, in another saddled vehicle (Scooter/ Motorcycle 1, Fig. 1), a controller (Control Circuit- Fig. 5) which makes an output signal of a stand angle sensor (Stand Operation Switch 55, Fig. 5) valid only when an engine speed is below a predetermined value (Page 4, para. 7: “Embodiment 2 FIG. 7…” teaches an Engine Speed Detection Circuit 70, Fig. 7, that functions such that it allows a Stand Body 25 to rotate only when an engine speed is below a predetermined value).
Miyamaru further teaches an ignition switch (Ignition Switch 59, Fig. 5).
Miyamaru further teaches actuating a stand (Stand Body 25) only when the vehicle is in a stopped state (Page 3, para. 20: “In this state, the vehicle…”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of YOSHIDA and Miyamaru in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify YOSHIDA’s saddled vehicle to include an ignition switch as suggested by Miyamaru to advantageously control a starting and stopping of an engine and to further modify the saddled vehicle such that the expansion-side damping force is minimized only when an ignition signal is off as suggested by the related teachings of Miyamaru of limiting the rotation of the stand such that it is only possible when the vehicle is in a stopped state, a state that is also achieved when an ignition signal is in an off state. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of ensuring that the actuation of the stand or suspension member is only possible while the vehicle is stopped that would beneficially make a safer vehicle.
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 TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights