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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 2, “the lower surface on a rear a side of the front cowling” has no antecedent basis in the claims. This objection could be overcome by reciting --a lower surface on a rear side of the front cowling--.
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 11-15 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 claim 11, line 4, it is not clear if “the lower surface” is the same as the lower surface recited in line 3. If they are the same, then line 4 would be clearer if it recited, --wherein the lower surface is located on an upper state side. . .-- If the surfaces are different then line 4 should recite --wherein a lower surface on an upper stage side . . .-- For purposes of expediting examination, the claim will be interpreted as if the lower surfaces are different from one another.
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 Kawai (JP 3376839).
With respect to claim 1, Kawai discloses a cowling structure for a straddle-type vehicle, the cowling structure comprising:
a front cowling 11 covering a vehicle front portion from a front side, wherein a lamp unit 30 is installed inside the front cowling 11,
wherein a lower surface of the front cowling is inclined obliquely downward to a rear side as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 1 of Kawai:
[AltContent: textbox (`)]
PNG
media_image1.png
181
315
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (inclined, lower surface)]
wherein the lower surface is formed with a first ventilation hole 12A (hole 12A acts as a ventilation hole since air hitting the cowling 11 would pass through to the other side of the cowling 11) through which traveling wind blows,
wherein the lamp unit 30 includes:
a lamp (“headlight”) configured to illuminate a front of a vehicle; and
an optical axis adjustment portion 36 configured to adjust an optical axis of the lamp, and wherein the optical axis adjustment portion 36 is configured to receive an operation with a tool 50, through the first ventilation hole 12A (see middle of pg. 4 of the machine translation of Kawai).
With respect to claim 11, Kawai discloses that the front cowling includes a front lower cowling (the lower surfaces of the cowling on both lateral sides of the vehicle),
wherein the lower surface of the front cowling is formed in upper and lower stages, as indicated below in the image taken from Fig. 1 of Kawai (note, the division of the lower surface into upper and lower stages has no real structural meaning, and could be simply be considered as upper and lower portions):
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (upper stage)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
293
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (lower surface of upper stage)][AltContent: textbox (lower stage)]
wherein the lower surface on an upper stage side of the front lower cowling is inclined obliquely downward to a rear side (as indicated above, this surface was shown to be inclined obliquely downward in the rejection of claim 1), and wherein the first ventilation hole 12A is formed in the lower surface on the upper stage side (as indicated above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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 12-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the first ventilation hole being visible in a front view of the vehicle, and the first ventilation hole opening forward.
Claim 9 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for, in the front view of the vehicle, the first ventilation hole being formed below the lamp.
Claim 10 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the protruding portion that protrudes downward from a rear side of the first ventilation hole, the protruding portion being configured to facilitate entry of traveling wind into the first ventilation hole
Claim 12 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the step surface formed between the lower surface on the upper stage side of the front lower cowling and the lower surface on a lower stage side of the front lower cowling, and wherein the second ventilation hole is formed in the step surface.
Claim 13 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the lower surface on a rear side of the front cowling being lower than the lower surface on a front side of the front cowling.
Claims 14-15 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for, in a bottom view, a part of the lower surface on a lower stage side of the front cowling overlapping the first ventilation hole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 over Kawai, Applicant argues that the “inclined, lower surface” appears to be a side surface of the cowling 11. This may be true, but it also can be considered a lower surface since it is on the bottom half of the cowl as indicated in the below image taken from Fig. 1 of Kawai:
[AltContent: textbox (mid-line)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (upper half of cowling)][AltContent: textbox (lower half of cowling)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
203
351
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant additionally argues that Kawai does not appear to clearly disclose that the lower surface of the cowling 11 is inclined obliquely downward toward the rear. However, the examiner would like to point out that one of ordinary skill in the art would know what a general motorcycle cowling covering is structure for aerodynamics, and thus would understand that the mid-line (indicated above), represents a peak of the outward curve of the cowling cover. Thus it would be understood that the lower half of the cowling cover would be oriented obliquely downward to a rear side.
Applicant further argues that ventilation hole 12A is not formed in the lower surface of the front cowling. However, with the lower half of the cowling, as defined above, the ventilation hole 12A is found to be in the lower surface of the front cowling.
Applicant continues by arguing that Kawai does not disclose, teach or suggest that insert hole 12A is the same hole as the first ventilation hole through which traveling wind blows as recited in claim 1. The examiner admits to not understanding this argument. The examiner has outlined in the above rejection how the hole 12A acts as a ventilation hole, and Kawai further discloses that hole 12A is also a hole which is configured to adjust an optical axis of the lamp, wherein the optical axis adjustment portion is configured to receive an operation with a tool (screwdriver 50 through the first ventilation hole (see middle of pg. 4 of the machine translation of Kawai). The examiner is stating that the hole 12A is defined by Kawai as a hole for adjusting the optical axis adjustment portion and that such a hole would also inherently act as a ventilation hole.
For these reasons, the above rejection is 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
Prosecution Insights