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 .
This office action was made in response to an amendment filed 2/2/2026.
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(s) 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US 2014/0339008) in view of Mochizuki et al (US 2016/0347199). Matsuda discloses:
With regard to claim 1, Matsuda discloses a straddle electric vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body frame 4 including:
a head pipe 11 inside which a steering shaft 7 is located and a front frame 12 extending rearward from the head pipe 11;
a battery case 23 supported by the vehicle body frame 4; and
a motor case 15 located behind the battery case 23 and accommodating an electric motor 5 that generates driving force by which a wheel 3 is driven,
wherein the front frame 12 includes:
at least one lower-rear supporting portion 61 supporting a bottom surface of the battery case 23; and
at least one motor fixing portion adjacent to the lower-rear supporting portion and fixed to the motor case (see marked up figure below),
a lower end of the battery case 23 is located lower than an upper end of the motor case 15 (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matsuda fails to explicitly disclose wherein the battery case is inclined relative to a vertical direction so as to extend diagonally toward a front-lower side such that a rear surface of the battery case is inclined such that, in a side view of the vehicle, the rear surface extends forward as the rear surface extends downward.
Mochizuki teaches a straddled electric vehicle similar to that of Matsuda, including a frame 15 and a battery case 66A, wherein the battery case 66A is inclined relative to a vertical direction so as to extend diagonally toward a front-lower side such that a rear surface of the battery case 66A is inclined such that, in a side view of the vehicle, the rear surface extends forward as the rear surface extends downward (see Fig. 6) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the straddle electric vehicle of Matsuda with the teaching of Mochizuki such that the battery case is angled in such a way that its rear surface extends forward as the rear surface extends downward, with a reasonable expectation of success, to allow for a better fit of the battery case adjacent to the motor case without the need for an odd-shaped battery case.
With regard to claim 3, Matsuda discloses wherein:
the vehicle body frame 4 includes a left frame 12 and a right frame 12 which are located away from each other in a left-right direction (“[0031] The vehicle body frame 4 includes a head pipe 11 and a pair of right and left main frames 12.”);
the at least one lower-rear supporting portion 14 includes a lower-rear supporting portion 14 of the left frame 12 and a lower-rear supporting portion 14 of the right frame 12;
the at least one motor fixing portion includes a motor fixing portion of the left frame 12 and a motor fixing portion of the right frame 12;
the motor case 15 includes a front fixing portion; and
the motor fixing portion of the left frame 12 and the motor fixing portion of the right frame 12 are coupled to each other through the front fixing portion of the motor case (see Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 8, Matsuda discloses an upper cover that closes an upper opening of the battery case 23 and is fixed to the vehicle body frame 4, wherein:
the battery case 23 is fixed to the vehicle body frame through the upper cover (“Since the sub-frames 30 are mounted from above into the vehicle body frame with respect to the battery case 23 and cover the upper portion of the battery case 23.” - ¶[0047]).
With regard to claim 9, Matsuda fails to explicitly disclose a power supply cable extending from the battery case to the motor case. Mochizuki teaches a power supply cable 78 extending from the battery case 66A to the motor case 22A (“[0125] The drive unit 22 further includes a plurality of connectors 22B. The connectors 22B are provided on the housing 22A. The connectors 22B include three connectors 78 connected to lines that supply electric power to the drive unit 22 (more specifically, electric motor 221) and a connector 80 connected to a line that transfers signals that control the operation of the drive unit 22 (more specifically, electric motor 221).”), wherein:
a rear surface of the battery case 66A includes a cable passing opening through which the power supply cable passes (see Fig. 5); and
a lower end of the motor case 22A is located lower than the cable passing opening of the battery case 66A (see Figs. 5 and 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the straddle vehicle of Matsuda with the teaching of Mochizuki so as to include power supply cables extending from the battery case to the motor case in the manner taught by Mochizuki to allow for the motor to be powered.
With regard to claim 11, Mochizuki teaches wherein the bottom surface of the battery case 66A is inclined such that the bottom surface extends downward as the bottom surface extends rearward from its front end (see Fig. 6.
With regard to claim 12, Mochizuki teaches wherein the lower-rear supporting portion supports a lower end portion of the bottom surface of the battery case 66A (see Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 15, Matsuda discloses wherein an upper end of the upper cover is located above an upper end of the vehicle body frame (see Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 are allowed.
Claims 4-6, 13, 14, and 16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,3-9 and 11-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TIMOTHY WILHELM whose telephone number is (571)272-6980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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, Paul Dickson can be reached at 571-272-7742. 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.
/TIMOTHY WILHELM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617 May 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights