Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In the second to last line of claim 1 Applicant uses the phrase, “end portions of the first front cowl portion have, in a side view of the saddle-type vehicle, an inverted wing shape that is obtained by turning an airfoil of a flying object upside down, with lower portions of the end portions curving so as to be convex downward.” This phrase is found to be vague and indefinite. It is not clear what shapes would or would not be an inverted wing shape. It is not clear what view of the wing Applicant is deriving the shape from (i.e., plan view, elevation view, cross-sectional view . . . etc.)
Applicant appears to be referring to this shape taken from Fig. 5 of Applicant’s drawings:
PNG
media_image1.png
107
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Krishna et al. disclose what is known as a general airfoil shape:
PNG
media_image2.png
112
395
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Inverting this image (i.e., turning the image upside down) gives:
PNG
media_image2.png
112
395
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compared with the disclosed shape:
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
112
395
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
107
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (lower portions curved downward)]
While the two shapes each have lower portions of end portions that are convex downwards, the two shapes are not that similar. Thus, the above language used to define the shape has no clear metes and bounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeshita et al. (JP 2007/0024089).
With respect to claim 1, Takeshita et al. disclose front cowl structure of a saddle-type vehicle comprising:
a first front cowl portion 51 that covers a vehicle body from a front side (as shown in Fig. 3 of Takeshita et al.);
a second front cowl portion 63 that covers the vehicle body from the front side below the first front cowl portion 27 (as shown in Fig. 6 of Takeshita et al.); and
a concave portion 57 that extends in a front-rear direction of the saddle-type vehicle, connects the first front cowl portion 51 and the second front cowl portion 63 with each other, and is sunken inward in a vehicle widthwise direction (as shown in Fig. 3 of Takeshita et al.), wherein the concave portion extends outward in the vehicle widthwise direction and inclines upward as the concave portion extends rearward (as shown in Figs. 3-4 of Takeshita et al.), and
wherein end portions of the first front cowl portion, in a side view of the saddle-type vehicle, an inverted wing shape that is obtained by turning an airfoil of a flying object upside down, with lower portions of the end portions curving so as to be convex downward as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 4 of Takeshita et al.:
[AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
175
291
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (end portion with inverted wing shape, end portion curving downwards (identical end portion on other side of vehicle))]
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshita et al. (JP 2007/0024089), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shikanai et al. (US 2023/0202602).
With respect to claim 4, Takeshita et al. disclose the claimed front cowl structure except for the projection extending upward on an outer side of the second front cowl portion. 4. However, Shikanai et al. teaches a similar front cowl structure including a first front cowl portion, a second front cowl portion, and a concave portion connecting the first front cowl portion and the second front cowl portion as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 4 of Shikanai et al.:
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (concave portion)][AltContent: textbox (second front cowl portion)][AltContent: textbox (first front cowl portion)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image4.png
212
399
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Shikanai et al. further teach that a projection 50 extending upward is provided on an outer side of the second front cowl portion in the vehicle widthwise direction (as shown above), and the projection extends outward in the vehicle widthwise direction and incline upward as the projection extends rearward (as shown above).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Shikanai et al. with the front cowl structure disclosed by Takeshita et al. for the advantage of reducing the impact of airflow on the vehicle rider (Shikanai, paragraph [0022]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshita et al. (JP 2007/0024089), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takemura et al. (US 2003/0062740).
With respect to claim 5, Takeshita et al. disclose the claimed front cowl structure except for the second slit portions that discharge rearward the running air flowing along the first front cowl portion. However, Takemura et al. teach a similar front cowl structure including a first front cowl, a second front cowl, and a concave portion as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Takemura et al.:
[AltContent: textbox (second front cowl)][AltContent: textbox (first front cowl)][AltContent: textbox (concave portion)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image5.png
373
484
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
Takemura et a. further teach second slit portions 33B, 33E that discharge reward the running air flowing along the first front cowl portion as shown above (Takemura et al., paragraph [0045]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Takemura et al. with the front cowl structure disclosed by Takeshita et al. for the advantage of preventing the space between the driver and the upper cowl from becoming negative (Takemura et al., paragraph [0045]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejection. .
Applicant has amended claim 1 to further define the shape of the first front cowl portion. However, as outlined in the above 112(b) rejection, the shape defined is still considered vague and indefinite. IN the 112(b) rejection, Krishna et al. is referenced to show what might be considered an airfoil shape. However, in actuality, there are many different airfoil shapes as shown by the image in the Century of Flight article, “History of The Airfoil.” This image, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image6.png
443
408
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Shows some of the variety of different airfoil shapes that exist. Here are the images turned upside down (inverted) and compared with the claimed invention:
PNG
media_image6.png
443
408
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
107
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While the shapes may have similarities, the disclosed invention does not appear to closely resemble many inverted airfoil shapes. Therefore, the claimed language does not clearly set any metes and bounds on what shape the end portions of the first front cowl portion have, and the 112(b) rejection has been maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 4 of Takeshita, to the extent the claim language can be understood, shows an inverted airfoil shape with lower portions of the end portions curving so as to be convex downwards. Thus, the prior art rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612