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 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (JP 02-109786) in view of Brawn (US 7,677,347).
In re claim 1, Takada discloses a saddled vehicle comprising a center stand (12) that retains a vehicle body (1) upright with a rear wheel (5) lifted off a ground surface (as shown in Figure 1); a swingarm (4) that pivotally holds the rear wheel and is swingably held on the vehicle body by a swingarm pivot (3); and a rear suspension (54) that suspends the swingarm from the vehicle body, wherein the rear suspension has its total length varied by drive of an actuator (55, drive motor 61) (rear suspension length changes in length as geometry of rear suspension is adjusted by actuator 55, 61 as shown in Figure 4), wherein the actuator controlled by a switch (not shown as discussed in specification); the swingarm swings downward to reach a position where the center stand will not touch the ground surface even if the center stand is unfolded to a fully unfolded position (as shown in Figure 4), and unfolding the center stand with the swingarm swung downward and then letting the rear suspension recover its original length lifts the rear wheel off the ground surface to complete setting up the center stand (as shown in Figure 2).
Takada does not disclose wherein the rear suspension includes the actuator () that adjusts a length of the rear suspension or a controller that controls the actuator, when the controller expands the rear suspension to a predetermined length according to an operation on an actuation switch.
Brawn, however, does disclose a saddled vehicle with a controllable rear suspension (12); wherein the rear suspension includes the actuator (solenoid actuated air valves 31; see Figure 7) that adjusts a length of the rear suspension and a controller (36) that controls the actuator, when the controller expands the rear suspension to a predetermined length according to an operation on an actuation switch (height switch 38).
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 device of Takada such that it comprised the actuator, controller, and switch of Brawn to advantageously control the suspension on demand to fully extend the suspension to allow maximum space for the center stand to be deployed.
In re claim 9, Brawn further discloses wherein a longitudinal axis of the actuator is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the rear suspension (actuator assembly as a whole is parallel to the rear suspension as shown in Figure 7).
Claims 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada and Brawn in view of Jain (US 9,738,339).
In re claims 2, 4, and 6, Takada and Brawn disclose the saddled vehicle according to claim 1, Takada further disclosing a center stand drive motor (61) that unfolds the center stand (as discussed above) (claims 4 and 6); Brawn further disclosing wherein the controller detects that the rear suspension has expanded to a predetermined length according to an operation on the actuation switch (38, as discussed above) (claims 4 and 6), but do not disclose a center stand angle sensor that detects an unfolding angle of the center stand, wherein the controller detects that the center stand has been unfolded to the fully unfolded position and allows the rear suspension to recover its original length.
Jain, however, does disclose a center stand angle sensor that detects an unfolding angle of the center stand (column 5, lines 48-52).
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 device of Takada and Brawn such that it comprised the center stand angle sensor of Jain to advantageously automatically notify the controller when the center stand is fully unfolded to allow the rear suspension to return to normal operating length.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7 are allowed and 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 controller makes an output signal of the actuation switch valid only when an ignition switch of the saddled vehicle is being turned off” 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 wherein the actuation switch to change the length of the suspension is tied to the ignition switch being turned off.
Claim 8 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 rear suspension further includes: a body portion including: a coil spring; and a damper body inserted into the coil spring; and a holder connected to the vehicle body, and wherein a length adjusting mechanism configured to adjust the length of the rear suspension is disposed between the body portion and the holder” 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 an adjustable length rear suspension having the length adjusting mechanism between the body portion and the holder of the suspension.
Claim 10 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 actuator has a motor and a first gear, and wherein the rear suspension has a second gear driven by the first gear” 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 gear driven extendable suspension.
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 the base reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument regarding the rear suspension including the actuator.
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/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611