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 § 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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “[a]n electric motorcycle of an inertial measurement device” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the connection between the electric motorcycle and the inertial measurement device is. The phrase is grammatically incorrect and it is unclear what the intended structure was intended to be. For the sake of compact prosecution the phrase is interpreted as reciting “An electric motorcycle [[of]]including an inertial measurement device”.
Also, in claim 1, introduction of both “an inertial measurement device” and “an inertial measurement unit” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if these are the same device/unit or separate devices/units. For the sake of compact prosecution they are interpreted as being the same.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being indefinite because the preamble reciting “the inertial measurement device of the electric motorcycle” is incommensurate in scope to what is being claimed. Using claim 2 as an example, claim 2 recites “wherein the vehicle frame unit is formed of a head tube portion, the head tube support frame, the battery box, and the secondary frame.” None of the additional limitations recited in dependent claim 2 are part of the “inertial measurement device” and therefore the preamble is incommensurate with the scope of the claim. Instead, the preamble should simply recite “The electric motorcycle of claim 1”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “a receiving space” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks clear antecedent basis. Specifically, it is unclear how “a receiving space” might be different from the previously recited “mounting space.” The originally filed Specification does not delineate what the receiving space is other than what is recited in the claims and thus does not clarify the indefiniteness issue. For the sake of compact prosecution, they are interpreted as being the same space.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “a connecting frame that is oscillating” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the connecting frame is oscillating in relation to the rest of the limitations of the claim/the electric motorcycle. Merriam-Webster defines “oscillate” as “to swing backward and forward like a pendulum.” The connecting frame 44 appears to be a link that is pivotable with the rest of the suspension components, i.e., the shock 45, and the swingarm 42. Perhaps this is a translation issue? For the sake of compact prosecution oscillating will be interpreted as pivotably.
Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(b).
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 1-3, 5-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0122568 A1 to Eguchi in view of US 2017/0057578 A1 to Kitagawa et al (hereinafter Kitagawa).
Regarding claim 1, Eguchi discloses an electric motorcycle (1)… (Fig. 1 & Abstract), wherein the electric motorcycle (1) at least comprises a vehicle frame unit (2, 26, 11, 12, 26, 27L, 27R), a seat cushion (8) arranged on the vehicle frame unit (2, 26, 11, 12), a battery box (5) arranged on the vehicle frame unit (2, 26, 11, 12, 26, 27L, 27R) and located at a front lower side of the seat cushion (8), a power unit (3) arranged on the battery box (5), a vehicle body cover unit (7) set on and covering a periphery of the vehicle frame unit (2, 26, 11, 12, 26, 27L, 27R) (Figs. 1-5 & [0037]-[0039]),
…
the vehicle frame unit (2, 26, 11, 12, 26, 27L, 27R) at least comprises a head tube support frame (27L,27R) and a secondary frame (11, 12) (Fig. 1 & [0040] and [0046]);
the seat cushion (8) is arranged on the secondary frame (11,12), and the seat cushion (8) at least comprises an operator's hips seat (8) (Fig. 1 & [0039]);
PNG
media_image1.png
394
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein as viewed from a lateral side, a lower side of the seat cushion, a front side of a vertical imaginary line that passes through a rear end of the operator's hips seat and is arranged in a vehicle body up-down direction, a bottom edge of the secondary frame, and a rear side of the battery box jointly define a mounting space (A) (Eguchi Annotated Fig. 1).
Although Eguchi discloses the electric motorcycle includes various sensors, Eguchi does not delve into any details as to what types of sensors are included or where they might be located. Therefore Eguchi does not appear to disclose: a motorcycle including an inertial measurement unit mounted on the vehicle frame unit in the mounting space.
Kitagawa teaches that it was old and well known in the art of motorcycles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a motorcycle to include an inertial measurement unit (80) mounted on the vehicle frame unit (10,20) in the mounting space (Fig. 5) (Figs. 1, 4, 5 & [0027]-[0028], [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of motorcycles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric motorcycle disclosed by Eguchi to incorporate an inertial measurement unit mounted on the vehicle frame unit in the mounting space as taught by Kitagawa in order to increase the safety of the vehicle by providing data to the ABS or other control systems, e.g., see Kitagawa [0032] & [0063], 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, Eguchi further discloses wherein the vehicle frame unit (2, 26, 11, 12, 26, 27L, 27R) is formed of a head tube portion (26), the head tube support frame (27L,27R), the battery box (5), and the secondary frame (20) (Figs. 1-5 & [0037]-[0040], [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Eguchi/Kitagawa further discloses wherein the secondary frame (Eguchi - 11,12/Kitagawa - 20) comprises upper braces (Eguchi - 11/Kitagawa - 21) and the lower braces (Eguchi - 12/Kitagawa - 22); and the upper braces (Eguchi - 11/Kitagawa - 21) and the lower braces (Eguchi - 12/Kitagawa - 22) define a receiving space (Eguchi - M/Kitagawa – Fig. 5), and the inertial measurement unit (Kitagawa – 80) is mounted in the receiving space (Kitagawa – Fig. 5) (Eguchi Annotated Fig. 1 and Eguchi – Fig. 2 & [0039]/Kitagawa - Figs. 1, 4, 5 & [0027]-[0028], [0055]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Eguchi in view of the teachings of Kitagawa 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 5, depending on claim 1, Eguchi further discloses wherein the battery box (5) comprises an inclined surface; and the mounting space (A) is located at a rear side of the inclined surface (Eguchi Annotated Fig. 1 and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 3, the modified combination of Eguchi/Kitagawa further discloses wherein the upper braces (Eguchi - 11/Kitagawa - 21) are provided with a connecting base (Kitagawa - 25); and the inertial measurement unit (Kitagawa - 80) is fastened by a connecting member (Kitagawa - 60) to the connecting base (Kitagawa - 25) (Figs. 3-5 & [0035], [0039]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Eguchi in view of the teachings of Kitagawa 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 7, depending on claim 5, the modified combination of Eguchi/Kitagawa further discloses wherein the upper braces (Eguchi - 11/Kitagawa - 21) are provided with a connecting base (Kitagawa - 25); and the inertial measurement unit (Kitagawa - 80) is fastened by a connecting member (Kitagawa - 60) to the connecting base (Kitagawa - 25) (Eguchi – Fig. 2/Kitagawa - Figs. 3-5 & [0035], [0039]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Eguchi in view of the teachings of Kitagawa 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 8, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Eguchi/Kitagawa further discloses wherein the secondary frame (Eguchi - 11,12/Kitagawa - 20) comprises upper braces (Eguchi - 11/Kitagawa - 21) and lower braces (Eguchi - 12/Kitagawa - 22), and the upper braces (Eguchi - 11/Kitagawa - 21) are provided with a connecting base (Kitagawa - 25) (Eguchi – Fig. 2/Kitagawa - Figs. 3-5 & [0035], [0039]-[0040]); the inertial measurement unit (Kitagawa – 80) comprises a signal output cable (Kitagawa - Fig. 4 & [0048] teaches the inertia sensor includes a harness, i.e., a signal output cable), and the signal output cable is extended downward (Kitagawa Fig. 4 & [0048]); the electric motorcycle comprises a main cable (Eguchi - [0043] discloses the motorcycle includes main cable for connecting main components); the battery box (Eguchi – 5) comprises an inclined surface (Eguchi – Fig. 5).
In combining the teachings of Kitagawa with the electric motorcycle of Eguchi, the resulting combination would include the main cable is arranged to extend along the inclined surface of the battery box (Eguchi - 5) to connect to the signal output cable of the inertial measurement unit (Kitagawa - 80) because the IMU 80 located in the secondary frame at the rear of the motorcycle would be electrically connected to the controller 6 located on top of the battery box 5, thus one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would run the main cable to connect to the controller to the newly added IMU 80. To do so the cable would be run down the battery box 5, including the inclined surface and then up into the port shown in Fig. 4 of Kitagawa.
Although Eguchi and Kitagawa do not appear to disclose the signal output cable is extended downward in a manner of being perpendicular to the connecting base, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the signal output cable perpendicular to the connecting base because the arrangement of the base to the cable is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the arrangement of the base to the cable, or the particular routing of the main cable, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of the base to the cable, or even the main cable, would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 3, the modified combination of Eguchi/Kitagawa further discloses wherein when viewed from top, the inertial measurement unit (Kitagawa – 80) is located inboard of outer edges of the upper braces (Kitagawa - 21) of the secondary frame (Kitagawa – 20) (Kitagawa - Fig. 7 & [0049]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Eguchi in view of the teachings of Kitagawa 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 10, depending on claim 8, the modified combination of Eguchi/Kitagawa further discloses wherein when viewed from top, the inertial measurement unit (Kitagawa – 80) is located inboard of outer edges of the upper braces (Kitagawa - 21) of the secondary frame (Kitagawa – 20) (Kitagawa - Fig. 7 & [0049]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Eguchi in view of the teachings of Kitagawa 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 12, depending on claim 1, Eguchi further discloses wherein the battery box (5) comprises an inclined surface, a front side of the battery box being fastened to the head tube support frame (27L/R), the secondary frame (11,12) being fastened to the inclined surface of the battery box (5) (Figs. 1-5 & [0047]-[0048]).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi in view of Kitagawa and further in view of US 2016/0318579 A1 to Miyashiro.
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 1, the Eguchi further discloses wherein the power unit (3) is arranged at a lower side of the battery box (5) (Fig. 5 & [0047]).
Eguchi does not explicitly disclose that when viewed from a lateral side of a vehicle body (Fig. 5), at least a portion of the inertial measurement unit overlaps the rear shock absorber.
However, in modifying Eguchi in view of the teachings of Kitagawa as discussed above in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the inertial measurement unit (Kitagawa – 80) in a position such that at least a portion of the IMU (Kitagawa – 80) overlaps with the rear shock absorber (Eguchi – 21/Kitagawa - 19).
The disclosed suspension configuration of Eguchi, the shock is disposed on a left side of the motorcycle, e.g., see Fig. 3. Further, an inverter 13 is also mounted in the secondary frame between the upper and lower rails. As shown in Figs. 3 and 4 of Eguchi there is space on the side of the shock 21 to mount the IMU of Kitagawa. This mounting is supported by Kitagawa, even though Fig. 5 of Kitagawa does not explicitly show an overlap from the side. [0042] merely states that the IMU is mounted “in the space surrounded by the pair of right and left upper seat rails 21 and the pair of right and left lower seat rails 22.” Based on the space constraints of the existing components of the motorcycle of Eguchi, a persona of ordinary skill in the art when looking to modify the motorcycle of Eguchi to include the IMU of Kitagawa would be motivated to mount the IMU in a location that is within the upper and lower seat frame 11/12 that also overlaps the shock 21 when viewed from the side.
Further, it is noted that Kitagawa goes to great lengths to make the point that the mounting location of IMU 80 disclosed in [0080] should not be viewed as being limiting and that any space on the motorcycle that will provide necessary protection should be considered. See Kitagawa [0051]-[0063]. This disclosure supports that placement of the IMU in reference to other components of the vehicle amounts to mere optimization of variables obvious to a skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of IMU in relation to the shock would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Additionally, Eguchi does not appear to disclose a connecting frame that is pivotably arranged between the power unit and a rear swingarm, and a rear shock absorber is pivotally connected to the connecting frame;
Miyashiro teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electric motorcycles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the suspension to include a connecting frame (78) that is pivotably arranged between the power unit (31) and the rear swingarm (7), and a rear shock absorber (74) is pivotably connected to the connecting frame (78) (Figs. 1-3 & [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electric motorcycles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension design disclosed by Eguchi to incorporate a connecting frame that is pivotably arranged between the power unit and a rear swingarm, and a rear shock absorber is pivotally connected to the connecting frame as taught by Miyashiro in order to allow the shock to extend or contract in the up/down direction, e.g., see [0053], achieve different suspension kinematics of a multi bar suspension design as opposed to a single pivot design as would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, 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 11, depending on claim 4, the modified combination of Eguchi/Kitagawa/Miyashiro further discloses wherein when viewed from top, the inertial measurement unit (Kitagawa - 80) and the rear shock absorber (Eguchi – 21/Kitagawa – 19/Miyashiro - 74) are respectively located at two opposite sides of a vehicle body front-rear direction center line (See Eguchi Fig. 3. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 4, in modifying Eguchi to place the IMU 80 of Kitagawa in the location overlapping the shock from the side of the motorcycle, a person of ordinary skill in the art would thus necessarily place the IMU on the opposite side of the motorcycle centerline).
It would have been obvious to have modified Eguchi in view of the teachings of Kitagawa/Miyashiro for at least the same reasons discussed above in claims 1 & 4 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Freedom is Everything, LiveWire One 6 axis IMU canyon riding," YouTube, published 3/6/22, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui5frGEsRkY generally discloses an electric motorcycle including an IMU located in the rear triangle of the motorcycle below the seat as discussed at least in 1:35-2:50.
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