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 8 and 9 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.
The term “basically” in claims 8 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “basically” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. the phrase "basically parallel" should be changed to just "parallel".
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9660236 B2 ("Kondo").
Claim 1: Kondo teaches an off-road electric motorcycle (1), comprising: a frame (Fig. 2; col. 1, lines 56-57); wheels (2,5) comprising at least a front wheel (2) and a rear wheel (5) (Fig. 1); a power system (20) comprising an electric motor (21) and a battery pack (30), wherein the electric motor is used for driving at least one of the front wheel and the rear wheel (col. 5, lines 9-11), and the battery pack is used for supplying power to the electric motor (col. 5, lines 30-31); wherein the frame comprises a support assembly (40) disposed along a length direction of the off-road electric motorcycle (Fig. 2; col. 6, lines 37-40), the support assembly is divided into at least a first installation section (50) and a second installation section (59a, 59b), the battery pack is pluggably mounted in the first installation section (col. 5, lines 48-51), and the first installation section is located at a front end of the second installation section (col. 7, lines 58-65). Kondo does not teach a braking system configured to brake the off-road electric motorcycle.
However, while Kondo does not explicitly show a brake, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It is official notice that electric motor vehicles with braking systems were available at time of filing, so the off-road electric motorcycle of Kondo would have a braking system configured to brake the off-road electric motorcycle.
Claim 2: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Kondo further teaches the off-road electric motorcycle, wherein the battery pack (30) comprises a main battery pack and a backup battery pack (col. 5, lines 31-43).
Claim 3: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Kondo further teaches the off-road electric motorcycle, wherein the first installation section (50) is divided into a main battery pack installation section and a backup battery pack installation section (Fig. 6; col. 11, lines 4-12).
Claim 4: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Kondo further teaches the off-road electric motorcycle, wherein the main battery pack installation section is located on an upper side of the backup battery pack installation section (both simultaneously upper side at the same time; Figs. 2 and 6).
Claim 5: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Kondo further teaches the off-road electric motorcycle, wherein the main battery pack installation section is located on a lower side of the backup battery pack installation section (both simultaneously in the lower side at the same time; Figs. 2 and 6).
Claim 6: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Kondo further teaches the off-road electric motorcycle, wherein the main battery pack installation section is located on a front side of the backup battery pack installation section (both simultaneously in the front side at the same time; Figs. 2 and 6).
Claim 7: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Kondo further teaches the off-road electric motorcycle, wherein the main battery pack installation section is located on a rear side of the backup battery pack installation section (both simultaneously in the rear side at the same time; Figs. 2 and 6).
Claim 8: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Kondo further teaches the off-road electric motorcycle, further comprising a front fork (3) connected to the front wheel (2), wherein a direction along which the main battery pack is plugged and unplugged is basically parallel to the front fork (Fig. 2; col. 5, lines 48-51).
Claim 9: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Kondo further teaches the off-road electric motorcycle, wherein a direction along which the backup battery pack is plugged and unplugged is basically parallel to a width direction of the off-road electric motorcycle (Fig. 2; col. 5, lines 48-51).
Claim 10: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Kondo further teaches the off-road electric motorcycle, wherein the battery pack (30) comprises at least two independently pluggable battery packs (col. 5, lines 31-43).
Claim 11: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Kondo further teaches the off-road electric motorcycle, wherein a seat (6) is disposed on the second installation section (59a, 59b) (Figs. 1 and 2), and a control module (29) is disposed below the seat and configured to control the electric motor (21) to rotate (Figs. 1 and 5; col. 19, lines 11-16).
Claim 12: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Kondo further teaches the off-road electric motorcycle, wherein a safety control switch (62; col. 17 line 65 - col 18, line 4) is further disposed below the seat (Fig. 2).
Claim 14: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Kondo further teaches the off-road electric motorcycle wherein, a battery pack installation compartment is disposed in the first installation section (50) and comprises a compartment body (part where battery pack 30 goes; Fig.6; col. 13, lines 23-33) and a compartment cover (60), and a battery fixing member (57, 61) is disposed on an inner side of the compartment cover and/or an inner side of the compartment body (Figs. 4 and 5; col. 16, lines 14-24).
Claim 15: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Kondo further teaches the off-road electric motorcycle, wherein the battery fixing member (57, 61) comprises an elastic member or a flexible member (springs; col. 14, lines 63-67).
Claim 16: Kondo teaches an off-road electric motorcycle (1), comprising: a frame (Fig. 2; col. 1, lines 56-57); wheels (2,5) comprising at least a front wheel (2) and a rear wheel (5) (Fig. 1); a power system (20) comprising an electric motor (21) and a battery pack (30), wherein the electric motor is used for driving at least one of the front wheel and the rear wheel (col. 5, lines 9-11), and the battery pack is used for supplying power to the electric motor (col. 5, lines 30-31); wherein the frame comprises a support assembly (40) disposed along a length direction of the off-road electric motorcycle (Fig. 2; col. 6, lines 37-40), and the battery pack is pluggably mounted in an installation section (50) formed by the support assembly (Fig. 2; col. 5, lines 48-51). Kondo does not teach a braking system configured to brake the off-road electric motorcycle.
However, while Kondo does not explicitly show a brake, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It is official notice that brakes are well-known in the art for electric motor systems, so the off-road electric motorcycle of Kondo would have a braking system configured to brake the off-road electric motorcycle.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9660236 B2 ("Kondo") in view of US 20200047841 A1 ("Luckjohn").
Claim 13: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. The cited prior art does not teach the off-road electric motorcycle, wherein a storage space is further disposed below the seat.
However, Luckjohn teaches the off-road electric motorcycle, wherein a storage space (144) is further disposed below the seat (112) (Figs. 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the cited prior art with the features of Luckjohn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Luckjohn teaches "The present invention relates to a seat caddy for a vehicle, and more particularly to a seat caddy for a charging cable of an electric vehicle, such as an electric motorcycle." (para. 2, lines 1-3)
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9660236 B2 ("Kondo") in view of US 20220048402 A1 ("Desberg").
Claim 17: Kondo teaches an electric motorcycle (1), comprising: a frame (Fig. 2; col. 1, lines 56-57); wheels (2,5) comprising at least a front wheel (2) and a rear wheel (5) (Fig. 1); a power system (20) comprising an electric motor (21) and a battery pack (30), wherein the electric motor is used for driving at least one of the front wheel and the rear wheel (col. 5, lines 9-11), and the battery pack is used for supplying power to the electric motor (col. 5, lines 30-31); wherein the frame comprises a support assembly disposed along a length direction of the electric motorcycle (Fig. 2; col. 6, lines 37-40), the support assembly is divided into at least a first installation section (50) and a second installation section (59a, 59b), the first installation section is located at a front end of the second installation section (col. 7, lines 58-65), the battery pack is mounted in the first installation section (col. 5, lines 48-51), Kondo does not teach a braking system configured to brake the electric motorcycle; and the battery pack is configured to be coupled to a power tool to supply power to the power tool after being detached from the first installation section.
However, while Kondo does not explicitly show a brake, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It is official notice that brakes are well-known in the art for electric motor systems, so the off-road electric motorcycle of Kondo would have a braking system configured to brake the off-road electric motorcycle.
Desberg in a similar field of art further teaches and the battery pack (200) is configured to be coupled to a power tool to supply power to the power tool after being detached from the first installation section (132) (Figs. 3A and 4; para. 72, lines 1-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kondo with the features of Desberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Desberg teaches "the battery 200 can easily be removed from the scooter 100 and can be recharged using a separate charging unit. A charged battery 200 can be swapped in for a depleted battery. In an embodiment in which the battery 200 is a multifunctional battery which can be used in conjunction with other devices, such as power tools" (para. 72, lines 1-13)
Claim 18: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Desberg further teaches the electric motorcycle, wherein the electric motor (180) is a wheel hub motor (para. 48, lines 1-5).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9660236 B2 ("Kondo") in view of US 20220048402 A1 ("Desberg") and further in view of National Parks Ebikes ("Pedal").
Claim 19: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. The cited prior art does not teach the electric motorcycle, wherein maximum output power of the electric motor is less than or equal to 3500 W.
However, Pedal teaches the electric motorcycle, wherein maximum output power of the electric motor is less than 3500 W (page. 8, lines 3-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the cited prior art with the features of Pedal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Pedal teaches “Only certain types of e-bikes are allowed in National Parks according to the 2020 regulations. They define an electronic bicycle as being a cycle that has an electric motor not exceeding 750 Watts” (page. 8, lines 3-6).
Claim 20: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. The cited prior art does not teach the electric motorcycle, wherein a maximum traveling speed of the wheels traveling forward is less than or equal to 50 km/h.
However, Pedal teaches the electric motorcycle, wherein a maximum traveling speed of the wheels traveling forward is less than 50 km/h (page. 9, lines 5-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the cited prior art with the features of Pedal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Pedal teaches “a specific trail can only be used by Class 1 e-bikes, or exclusively by Classes 1 and 2. This is to ensure that visitors similarly ride e-bikes to traditional bicycles, and pedal bikes rarely reach speeds exceeding 20mph” (page. 9, line 15 - page. 10, line 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618