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 .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 2/18/26 (hereinafter Response) has been entered in part. Examiner notes claims 1, 5, 8-9, 17-18, and 20 have been amended and claim 14 has been cancelled. Although amendments to the specification and drawings were included in the response they are not entered because they include new matter. Claims 1-13 and 15-20 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
New figure 10 included in the Response is not entered because the specific configuration of a motorcycle lacking a seat as shown in new figure 10 was not shown in the original drawings and thus is considered to be new matter. Although the original specification in the paragraph starting on p.14 line 14 makes mention that the vehicle may lack a seat, no additional specifics were included and thus do not properly support the newly submitted figure 10. As a result of non-entry of figure 10, the associated specification amendment is also not entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a trials motorcycle without a seat must be shown or the feature canceled from claims 16 and 19. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Based on the amendments to the claims the 112(b) rejection of claim 5 is withdrawn. However, based on the amendments to the claims new 112 issues are now presented.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 20, the phrase “a front brake actuator … and a rear brake actuator” because the originally filed specification does not disclose that the front and rear brakes are adapted to be engaged by an actuator. Instead the specification as revealed, e.g., by dependent claims 8, 9, and 18, the disclosed front and rear brakes are adapted only to be engaged by a brake lever or a brake pedal. By claiming an actuator the claim is broadened to a class of devices that is not disclosed by the original specification and thus is considered to be new matter.
Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(a) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(a).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0231241 A1 to Knitt et al (hereinafter Knitt) in view of US 2001/0024062 A1 to Yoshino and further in view of US 2014/0291050 A1 to Yates et al (hereinafter Yates).
Regarding claim 1, Knitt discloses a control system for an electric vehicle (20) including an electric motor (58), an energy storage device (54), a front brake actuator (70) adapted to engage a front brake of the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 4 & [0021]-[0023]), the electric motor (58) being operable as a motor supplied with electrical energy from the energy storage device (54) to drive at least one wheel (24) of the vehicle (20) to propel the vehicle (20), the electric motor (58) operable as a generator to regeneratively brake the vehicle (20) (Figs. 1, 4-6 & Abstract and [0005] and [0020]-[0021]), comprising:
a first control device (74) adapted to output a first signal indicative of a torque demand from the electric motor (58) (Figs. 4-6 & [0023] and [0031]-[0032]);
a second control device (72) adapted to output a second signal indicative of a negative torque demand from the electric motor (58) (Figs. 4-6 & [0021] and [0027]); and
a controller (600) adapted to receive the first signal and the second signal and to control the electric motor (58) in accordance with the first signal and the second signal (Figs. 4-6 & [0030]. See also [0031]-[0035] generally);
wherein the controller (600) is adapted to control the electric motor (58) to propel the vehicle (20) in response to the torque demand indicated by the first signal exceeding the negative torque demand indicated by the second signal and to control the electric motor (58) to regeneratively brake the vehicle (20) in response to the negative torque demand indicated by the second signal exceeding the torque demand indicated by the first signal (Figs. 4-6 & [0027] and [0035]),
wherein the second control device (72) is independent of the front brake actuator (70) of the vehicle (20) … (Figs. 1 and 4 & [0021]-[0023]); and
wherein the controller (600) is adapted to control the electric motor (58) based on … the second signal (Figs. 4-6 & [0027] and [0035]).
Although Knitt discloses in [0036] that it is known in the art of electric motorcycles to include a rear friction brake controlled by a brake pedal, Knitt does not appear to explicitly disclose a rear brake actuator adapted to engage a rear brake of the vehicle, and the second control device is independent of a rear brake actuator/pedal of the vehicle, because Knitt discloses in [0036] that the regenerative brake and controller 72 are designed to functionally replace the rear brake and brake pedal.
Knitt additionally does not appear to disclose wherein the controller is adapted to control the electric motor based on a rate of change of the second signal
Yoshino teaches that it was old and well known in the art of regenerative braking, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a controller to be adapted to control an electric motor based on a rate of change of a signal ([0084] and [0095]. See also, [0055], [0065]-[0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of regenerative braking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the regenerative braking system including the second control device/regenerative brake control device 72 disclosed by Knitt to incorporate for the controller to be adapted to control an electric motor based on a rate of change of a signal as taught by Yoshino in order to improve braking characteristics of regenerative braking, e.g., see Yoshino [0084],[0095], and [0099], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Yates teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electric motorcycles including regenerative braking, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a rear brake actuator adapted to engage a rear brake of the vehicle ([0073] and [0120] teach equipping the motor cycle with standard friction brake systems in the front and rear of the motorcycle independent and separate from the regenerative braking system); and
for the … control device to be independent of independent of a rear brake actuator … of the vehicle ([0073] and [0120] teach equipping the motor cycle with standard friction brake systems in the front and rear of the motorcycle independent and separate from the regenerative braking system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electric motorcycles including regenerative braking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motorcycle including regenerative braking system disclosed by the modified combination of Knitt/Yoshino to incorporate the for motorcycle to include a front and rear friction braking system from the regenerative braking system where based on the combined teachings of Knitt/Yates, the resulting structure of Knitt in view of Yates would include a rear friction brake controlled by a brake pedal (as disclosed by Knitt), in addition to and independent of the control device 72 of Knitt harvesting energy through regenerative braking through the rear wheel in order to enhance the braking balance and performance of the motorcycle, e.g., see Yates [0072] and [0120], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Knitt further discloses wherein the first control device (74) includes a throttle (74) mounted on a handlebar (40) of the vehicle (20) (Fig. 4 & [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Knitt further discloses wherein the second control device (72) includes a hand-operable lever (72) mounted on a handlebar (40) of the vehicle (20) (Fig. 4 & [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 1, Knitt further discloses wherein the first control device (74) includes a throttle mounted on a first side of a handlebar (40) of the vehicle (20), and the second control device (72) includes as a hand-operable lever (72) mounted on a second side of the handlebar (40) opposite the first side (Fig. 4) & [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 1, Knitt further discloses wherein the motor (58) is adapted to recharge the energy storage device (54) in a generator mode ([0027])
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 1, Knitt further discloses wherein the vehicle (20) is arranged as a two-wheel (22,24) electric vehicle (20) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 1, Knitt further discloses wherein the vehicle (20) does not include a manually-operated clutch (Fig. 8 & [0037]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Knitt/Yoshino/ Yates further discloses wherein the front brake actuator includes a front brake lever (Knitt- 70) of the vehicle and the rear brake actuator includes a rear brake pedal of the vehicle (See above rejection of claim 1 discussing that the front brake actuator is a brake lever, e.g., see Knitt – Fig. 4 & [001]-[0023] and [0036]. See also, Yates [0073] and [0120]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Knitt in view of the teachings of Yoshino/ Yates for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Knitt/Yoshino/ Yates further discloses wherein the front brake actuator (Knitt - 70) includes a front brake lever (Knitt - 70) arranged on a first side of a handlebar (Knitt - 40) of the vehicle (Knitt - 20) and the rear brake actuator includes a rear brake pedal, the first control device (Knitt - 74) includes a throttle (Knitt - 74) and is arranged on the first side of the handlebar (Knitt - 40) of the vehicle (Knitt - 20), and the second control device (Knitt - 72) includes a hand-operated lever (Knitt - 72) and is arranged on a second side of the handlebar (Knitt - 40) opposite the first side (Knitt - Figs. 1 and 4 & [0021]-[0023]; Yates- [0073] and [0120]).
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 1, Knitt further discloses wherein the second control device (72) includes a hand-operated lever (72) and a rotational sensor (90) adapted to detect a rotation of the lever (72) and to output the second signal based on the rotation of the lever (72) (Figs. 4-6 & [0022]-[0023] and [0033]).
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 1, Knitt further discloses wherein the second control device (72) includes a spring-loaded, hand-operated lever and a spring adapted to urge the lever toward a rest position and to provide tactile feedback to a driver of the vehicle (20) (Fig. 4 & [0022] and [0036]).
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 10, Knitt further discloses wherein the rotational sensor (90) is adapted to output the second signal indicative of a rotational position of the lever (72) (Figs. 4-6 & [0022]-[0023] and [0033]).
Regarding claim 17, Knitt discloses a two-wheel electric vehicle (20) (Fig. 1 & Abstract), comprising:
a front wheel (22) (Fig. 1 & [0019]);
a rear wheel (24) (Fig. 1 & [0019]);
a front brake; a front brake actuator (70) adapted to engage a front brake of the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 4 & [0021]-[0023])
an energy storage device (54) (Fig. 1 & [0020]);
an electric motor (58) operable as a motor supplied with electrical energy from the energy storage device (54) to drive the rear wheel (24) to propel the vehicle (20) and operable as a generator to regeneratively brake the vehicle (20) (Figs. 1, 4-6 & Abstract and [0005] and [0020]-[0021]); and
a control system including:
a first control device (74) adapted to output a first signal indicative of a torque demand from the electric motor (58) (Figs. 4-6 & [0023] and [0031]-[0032]);
a second control device (72) adapted to output a second signal indicative of a negative torque demand from the electric motor (58) (Figs. 4-6 & [0021] and [0027]); and
a controller (600) adapted to receive the first signal and the second signal and to control the electric motor (58) in accordance with the first signal and the second signal (Figs. 4-6 & [0030]. See also [0031]-[0035] generally);
wherein the controller (600) is adapted to control the electric motor (58) to propel the vehicle (20) in response to the torque demand indicated by the first signal exceeding the negative torque demand indicated by the second signal and to control the electric motor (58) to regeneratively brake the vehicle (20) in response to the negative torque demand indicated by the second signal exceeding the torque demand indicated by the first signal (Figs. 4-6 & [0027] and [0035]);
wherein the second control device (72) is independent of the front brake actuator (70) of the vehicle (20) … (Figs. 1 and 4 & [0021]-[0023]); and
wherein the controller (600) is adapted to control the electric motor (58) based on … the second signal (Figs. 4-6 & [0027] and [0035]).
Although Knitt discloses in [0036] that it is known in the art of electric motorcycles to include a rear friction brake controlled by a brake pedal, Knitt does not appear to explicitly disclose a rear brake actuator adapted to engage a rear brake of the vehicle, and the second control device is independent of a rear brake actuator/pedal of the vehicle, because Knitt discloses in [0036] that the regenerative brake and controller 72 are designed to functionally replace the rear brake and brake pedal.
Knitt additionally does not appear to disclose wherein the controller is adapted to control the electric motor based on a rate of change of the second signal
Yoshino teaches that it was old and well known in the art of regenerative braking, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a controller to be adapted to control an electric motor based on a rate of change of a signal ([0084] and [0095]. See also, [0055], [0065]-[0066]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of regenerative braking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the regenerative braking system including the second control device/regenerative brake control device 72 disclosed by Knitt to incorporate for the controller to be adapted to control an electric motor based on a rate of change of a signal as taught by Yoshino in order to improve braking characteristics of regenerative braking, e.g., see Yoshino [0084],[0095], and [0099], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Yates teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electric motorcycles including regenerative braking, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a rear brake actuator adapted to engage a rear brake of the vehicle ([0073] and [0120] teach equipping the motor cycle with standard friction brake systems in the front and rear of the motorcycle independent and separate from the regenerative braking system); and
for the … control device to be independent of independent of a rear brake actuator … of the vehicle ([0073] and [0120] teach equipping the motor cycle with standard friction brake systems in the front and rear of the motorcycle independent and separate from the regenerative braking system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electric motorcycles including regenerative braking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motorcycle including regenerative braking system disclosed by the modified combination of Knitt/Yoshino to incorporate the for motorcycle to include a front and rear friction braking system from the regenerative braking system where based on the combined teachings of Knitt/Yates, the resulting structure of Knitt in view of Yates would include a rear friction brake controlled by a brake pedal (as disclosed by Knitt), in addition to and independent of the control device 72 of Knitt harvesting energy through regenerative braking through the rear wheel in order to enhance the braking balance and performance of the motorcycle, e.g., see Yates [0072] and [0120], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 20, Knitt discloses a method of controlling an electric vehicle (20) (Figs. 1 and 5 & Abstract), including an electric motor (58) and an energy storage device (54), a front brake actuator (70) adapted to engage a front brake of the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 4 & [0021]-[0023]), the electric motor (58) being operable as a motor supplied with electrical energy from the energy storage device (54) to drive at least one wheel (24) of the vehicle (20) to propel the vehicle (20), the electric motor (58) operable as a generator to regeneratively brake the vehicle (20) (Figs. 1, 4-6 & Abstract and [0005] and [0020]-[0021]), comprising:
outputting a first signal by a first control device (74), to a controller (600), indicative of a torque demand from the electric motor (58) (Figs. 4-6 & [0023] and [0031]-[0032]);
outputting a second signal by a second control device (72), to the controller (600), indicative of a negative torque demand from the electric motor (58) (Figs. 4-6 & [0021], [0027], [030], and [0033]); and
controlling the electric motor (58), by the controller (600), in accordance with the first signal and the second signal, by controlling the electric motor (58) to propel the vehicle (20) in response to the torque demand indicated by the first signal exceeding the negative torque demand indicated by the second signal and controlling the electric motor (58) to regeneratively brake the vehicle (20) in response to the negative torque demand indicated by the second signal exceeding the torque demand indicated by the first signal (Figs. 4-6 & [0027] and [0035]. See also [0030]-[0035] generally);
wherein the second signal output by the second control device (72) is independent of the front brake actuator (70) of the vehicle (20) … (Figs. 1 and 4 & [0021]-[0023]).
Although Knitt discloses in [0036] that it is known in the art of electric motorcycles to include a rear friction brake controlled by a brake pedal, Knitt does not appear to explicitly disclose a rear brake actuator adapted to engage a rear brake of the vehicle, and the second signal output by the second control device is independent of a rear brake actuator/pedal of the vehicle, because Knitt discloses in [0036] that the regenerative brake and controller 72 are designed to functionally replace the rear brake and brake pedal.
Knitt additionally does not appear to disclose controlling the electric motor, by the controller, in accordance with a rate of change of the second signal.
Yoshino teaches that it was old and well known in the art of regenerative braking, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, controlling the electric motor, by the controller, in accordance with a rate of change of a signal ([0084] and [0095]. See also, [0055], [0065]-[0066]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of regenerative braking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system method of the motorcycle including a regenerative braking system including the second control device/regenerative brake control device 72 where the electric motor is controlled bin accordance with a first signal and a second signal as disclosed by Knitt to additionally incorporate controlling the electric motor, by the controller, in accordance with a rate of change of a signal as taught by Yoshino in order to improve braking characteristics of regenerative braking, e.g., see Yoshino [0084],[0095], and [0099], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Yates teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electric motorcycles including regenerative braking, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a rear brake actuator adapted to engage a rear brake of the vehicle ([0073] and [0120] teach equipping the motor cycle with standard friction brake systems in the front and rear of the motorcycle independent and separate from the regenerative braking system); and
for the … control device to be independent of independent of a rear brake actuator … of the vehicle ([0073] and [0120] teach equipping the motor cycle with standard friction brake systems in the front and rear of the motorcycle independent and separate from the regenerative braking system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electric motorcycles including regenerative braking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motorcycle including regenerative braking system disclosed by the modified combination of Knitt/Yoshino to incorporate the for motorcycle to include a front and rear friction braking system from the regenerative braking system where based on the combined teachings of Knitt/Yates, the resulting structure of Knitt in view of Yates would include a rear friction brake controlled by a brake pedal (as disclosed by Knitt), in addition to and independent of the control device 72 of Knitt harvesting energy through regenerative braking through the rear wheel in order to enhance the braking balance and performance of the motorcycle, e.g., see Yates [0072] and [0120], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
It would have been obvious to have modified Knitt in view of the teachings of Yoshino/ Yates for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 9, and, as such, is rejected for substantially the same reasons as given above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt in view of Yoshino and further in view of Yates and further in view of US 2020/0331440 A1 to Stubberud et al (hereinafter Stubberud).
Regarding claim 13, depending on claim 10, Knitt further discloses wherein the rotational sensor (90) is adapted to output the second signal indicative of a rotation … of the lever (72) (Figs. 4-6 & [0022]-[0023] and [0033]).
The modifed combination of Knitt/Yoshino/Yates does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the rotational sensor is adapted to output the second signal indicative of a rotational displacement of the lever.
Stubberud teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electric vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a rotational sensor to be adapted to output the second signal indicative of a rotational displacement of the lever (22) (Figs. 7A-C & [0056] teach a rotational detector/sensor can be either a position detector or a rotational displacement detector).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted features of Stubberud with teaching of Knitt since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the displacement sensor of Stubberud for the position sensor of the Knitt. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt in view of Yoshino and further in view of Yates and further in view of US 2018/0099675 A1 to Boisvert.
Regarding claim 15, depending on claim 1, the modifed combination of Knitt/Yoshino/ Yates does not appear to disclose wherein the controller (Knitt - 600) is adapted to control an output device adapted to output audible, visual, and/or tactile signal based on the first and/or second signals.
Boisvert teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electric motorcycles including regenerative braking, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a controller (150) is adapted to control an output device adapted to output audible, visual, and/or tactile signal based on the first and/or second signals (Figs. 5 and 8 & [0110] and [0132]-[0133] teach a controller receives positional data from brake and accelerator position sensors. Figs. 9, 10A/B and [0142] teach outputting a visual signal to a display based at least in part on the brake position lever which generates the second/regenerative braking signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electric motorcycles including regenerative braking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motorcycles including regenerative braking system disclosed by the modifed combination of Knitt/Yoshino/Yates to incorporate for the controller to be adapted to control an output device adapted to output audible, visual, and/or tactile signal based on the first and/or second signals as taught by Boisvert in order to provide feedback to the driver, e.g., see Boisvert [0141], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt in view of Yoshino and further in view of Yates and further in view of Cycle News, “Electric Motion Trials Bikes Review,” published May 26, 2022, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20220526190551/https://www.cyclenews.com/ 2022/05/article/electric-motion-trials-bikes-review/.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, depending on claims 1 and 17 respectively, the modifed combination of Knitt/Yoshino/Yates does not appear to disclose wherein the vehicle (20) is arranged as a trials motorcycle and does not include a seat.
Cycle News teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electric motorcycles including regenerative braking (p. 2 2nd ¶ from bottom), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the vehicle to be arranged as a trials motorcycle and does not include a seat (p1 fist and second pictures depicting the ePure and eScape & third to last ¶ - last ¶ teaches that the ePure trials motorcycle does not “have a real seat” whereas the eScape traditional motorcycle does).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electric motorcycles including regenerative braking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motorcycle disclosed by the modifed combination of Knitt/Yoshino/Yates to be a trials motorcycle that does not include a seat as taught by Cycle News in order to have a lower standover clearance than a traditional bike enabling the rider to have better maneuverability, e.g., compare the first two pictures on p. 1 of Cycle News, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments toward the 102 rejection of claims 1, 17, and 20 are persuasive and therefore the rejection is withdrawn, however, Applicant's arguments directed toward the potential rejection of amended claims 1, 17, and 20 under a combination of Knitt, Yoshino, and Yates as a 103 rejection have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s main argument is that Yoshino discloses a “rate of decrease in brake pedal depression” not the claimed “controller adapted to control an electric motor based on a rate of change of a signal”. See Response p. 10. This argument is not persuasive because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Further, Examiner notes, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the present case, Knitt discloses a “controller adapted to control an electric motor based on a … a signal” and Yoshino is merely relied upon for disclosing controlling based on a rate of change of a signal generated by the rate of change of the depression of the brake pedal, e.g., measured by pressure sensor 226 and fed into the control system to control the electric motor. The fact that the rate of change is generated by a brake pedal vs another type of brake actuator, e.g., a regenerative braking lever, does not make the combination untenable.
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 CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611