DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is more than 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, “The electric or hybrid rideable saddle vehicle” should be “An electric or hybrid rideable saddle vehicle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-6, 8, and 11 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.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation “the first rotation axis” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the locking arm" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the locking arms" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by patent document number WO 2020/194985 to Okabe et al. (hereinafter referred to as Okabe).
Regarding claims 1 – 3, Okabe discloses an electric or hybrid rideable saddle vehicle (electric motorcycle 1), comprising:
[Claim 1] - a rechargeable battery (battery B; Page 2);
- an electric or hybrid traction motor (motor M; Page 3) which can be supplied by the rechargeable battery to deliver a drive torque;
- a storage container (battery case 40) comprising a first housing seat (seat 23) which at least partially houses the rechargeable battery, wherein the rechargeable battery is removably housed in the first housing seat so that the rechargeable battery can be inserted into, and extracted from, the first housing seat, the storage container further comprising a locking device (locking member 50) adapted to lock the rechargeable battery in the first housing seat;
- a rideable saddle (seat 23) which can be moved between a closing configuration (See Fig. 6), in which the rideable saddle prevents access to the storage container, and an opening configuration (See Fig. 12), in which the rideable saddle allows access to the storage container, the storage container being arranged below the rideable saddle (Fig. 2);
wherein the locking device is adapted and configured to be moved to take an operating locking position (shown in Fig. 6) and an operating releasing position (shown in Fig. 12); and
- wherein the locking device is retained in the operating locking position only by means of a thrust force applied by the rideable saddle when the rideable saddle takes the closing configuration (the thrust force of the catch mechanism 44 on the hook 55; Page 5);
[Claim 2] wherein when the rideable saddle (seat 23) takes the closing configuration (See Fig. 6), the locking device (locking member 50) is pinched between a support base (a surface of the catch mechanism 44) of the rideable saddle and a shell (upper case 40b) of the storage container (battery case 40); and
[Claim 3] comprising a main body (lower case 40a), and wherein the rideable saddle (seat 23) is hinged (hinge mechanism 39, Fig. 9) to the main body (lower case 40a) to be rotated about a first rotation axis, between two positions angularly spaced apart from each other, corresponding to the closing configuration (See Fig. 6) and the opening configuration (See Fig. 12), respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 9, 10, and 12 – 15 are 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.
Claims 5-6, 8, and 11 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.
Regarding claim 4, Okabe discloses the electric or hybrid rideable saddle vehicle according to claim 4, but does not disclose wherein the locking device is accommodated in the storage container and has a first end portion rotatably hinged to a wall of the storage container and a second end portion which, in the operating releasing position, is a free end portion. Claims 5 – 7 and 10 depend from claim 4, and therefore, would also be allowed.
Regarding claim 9, Okabe discloses the electric or hybrid rideable saddle vehicle (electric motorcycle 1) according to claim 1, but does not disclose the locking device comprises at least one recess or through opening which, in said operating locking position, accommodates, or is crossed by, a protruding part of the rechargeable battery, said protruding part being a gripping handle. Claim 11, depends from claim 9
Regarding claim 12, Okabe discloses the electric or hybrid rideable saddle vehicle according to claim 1, but does not disclose when the locking device is in the operating locking position, at least one elastically yielding element is interposed and sandwiched between the locking device and the rechargeable battery.
Regarding claim 13, Okabe discloses the electric or hybrid rideable saddle vehicle (electric motorcycle 1) according to claim 1, wherein the rechargeable battery (battery B; Page 2) extends between a bottom portion and a head portion. However, Okabe does not disclose wherein the storage container comprises a second housing seat, adapted and configured to house at least one helmet, having a first housing portion and a second housing portion wherein when the rechargeable battery is inserted into the first housing seat, the first housing portion at least partially extends over the head portion of the rechargeable battery and the second housing portion at least partially extends laterally with respect to the head portion of the rechargeable battery. Claim 14 depends from claim 13, and therefore is also allowable.
Regarding claim 15, Okabe discloses the electric or hybrid rideable saddle vehicle (electric motorcycle 1) according to claim 1, but does not disclose an elastic return means configured to push the locking device towards the operating locking position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Felicia L Brittman-Alabi whose telephone number is (313)446-6512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6.
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.
/Felicia L. Brittman-Alabi/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611