DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action in response to the above identified patent
application filed on January 22, 2024.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “two front wheels and/or two rear wheels” (claim 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the implied phrase “In an embodiment, there is provided” should be deleted. 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Each section of the specification must have a heading (i.e. “Brief Summary of the Invention”, “Brief Description of the Drawings”, and “Detailed Description of the Invention”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 17 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim term “centreline” (multiple occurrences) should be changed to - - center line - - to conform to US practice. 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 3-4, 7, 10, 15, and 17-18 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.
Claim 10, the limitation “the range” must be changed to - - a range - -.
Claims, the claim term “substantially” is a relative term
The term “substantially” in claims 3, 7, 15, and 17, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,345,425 and 11,912,367. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they define a motorcycle having an air duct having the same structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eitel (USP 6,238,017).
Referring to Figure 13, Eitel teaches a motorcycle comprising a front wheel, a rear wheel and a vehicle body, the vehicle body comprising an open elongate duct (for flow path 67) extending longitudinally through a central portion of the vehicle body between an open inlet aperture (56) arranged at a front portion of the vehicle body and an open outlet aperture (72) arranged at a rear portion of the vehicle body.
Claim 2: Eitel illustrates (Fig. 13) the open inlet aperture is located adjacent the front wheel and/or the open outlet aperture is located adjacent the rear wheel.
Claim 3: Eitel illustrates (Fig. 13) the elongate duct extends substantially parallel to a longitudinal center line plane of the vehicle body between the or each inlet aperture and the or each outlet aperture.
Claim 4: Eitel illustrates (Fig. 13) the longitudinal center line plane extends through at least a part of the elongate duct.
Claim 5: Eitel illustrates (Fig. 13) the vehicle body further comprises a seat for a rider and a power source located between the front and rear wheels, wherein the elongate duct extends through the vehicle body between the seat and the power source.
Claim 8: Eitel illustrates (Fig. 13) the elongate duct comprises an inlet portion adjacent the inlet aperture, a central portion and an outlet portion adjacent the outlet aperture, and wherein the central portion of the duct has a smaller cross sectional area than the or each inlet aperture and/or the outlet aperture.
Claim 9: Eitel illustrates (Fig. 13) the inlet portion of the duct tapers inwardly from the inlet aperture towards the central portion such that the cross-sectional area of the inlet portion of the duct decreases from the inlet aperture to the central portion and/or the outlet portion of the duct tapers outwardly from the central portion towards the outlet such that the cross-sectional area of the outlet portion of the duct increases from the central portion to the or each outlet aperture.
Claim 11: Eitel illustrates (Fig. 13) the elongate duct has a venturi profile.
Claim 15: Eitel illustrates (Fig. 13) the inlet aperture, the outlet aperture and/or the elongate duct has a substantially rectangular cross-section and/or the elongate duct comprises substantially planar surfaces.
Claim 16: Eitel teaches the power source comprises an internal combustion engine and/or an electric motor.
Claim 17: Eitel illustrates (Fig. 13) the power source comprises an elongate heat exchanger (66) element having a longitudinal axis and operable to provide cooling in response to an airflow passing through the elongate heat exchanger element in a direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the elongate heat exchanger element from an upstream side to a downstream side, wherein the elongate heat exchanger element is located substantially parallel to the longitudinal center line of the vehicle body.
Claim 18: Eitel illustrates (Fig. 13) the elongate heat exchanger element is arranged such that the downstream side of the elongate heat exchanger element is in fluid communication with an interior of the elongate duct.
Claim 20: Eitel illustrates (Fig. 13) two or more open outlet apertures (louvers 61) are provided, the open elongate duct extending between the open inlet aperture and open outlet apertures.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the article titled “Maddox Pulse Jet Bicycle Kits” written by Ben Branch.
The article titled “Maddox Pulse Jet Bicycle Kits” illustrates a motorcycle comprising a front wheel, a rear wheel and a vehicle body, the vehicle body comprising an open elongate duct (defining a pulse jet engine) extending longitudinally through a central portion of the vehicle body between an open inlet aperture (adjacent the front wheel) arranged at a front portion of the vehicle body and an open outlet aperture (adjacent the rear wheel) arranged at a rear portion of the vehicle body.
Claim 6: The article illustrates the motorcycle being powered by a pulse jet engine, the jet engine configured with the inlet aperture, outlet aperture and elongate duct are located and arranged to define a line of sight between at least a part of the inlet aperture and at least a part of the outlet aperture through the elongate duct.
Claim 7: The article illustrates the motorcycle being powered by a pulse jet engine, the jet engine configured with the inlet aperture, the outlet aperture and the elongate duct are located and arranged to define a line of sight between at least a part of one inlet aperture and at least a part of one outlet aperture through the elongate duct in a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal center line plane of the vehicle body.
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) 10, 12, 13, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eitel (USP 6,238,017), as applied to the claims 1 and 8 above.
Eitel does not teach: one or more interior walls of the inlet portion and/or outlet portion of the duct are arranged at an angle to the central longitudinal axis in the range of 1 to 10 degrees (claim 10); the inlet aperture and/or the outlet aperture has a frontal cross-sectional area between 10 and 40% of a total frontal cross-sectional area of the motorcycle (claim 12); the inlet aperture and/or the outlet aperture has a width greater than 50% of the total width of the motorcycle body (claim 13); or the central portion has a cross-sectional area in a range of 10,000 mm2 to 90,000 mm2 (claim 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to change the size/shape of the air duct disclosed by Eitel, since it has been held that a change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Eitel does not teach the motorcycle having two front wheels and/or two rear wheels (claim 19). However, configuring a motorcycle with two front wheels or two rear wheels was well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the motorcycle of Eitel with two front wheels or two rear wheels, as was well known, motivation being to increase the stability of the motorcycle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the cited references showing a vehicle with an air duct of: USP 4964484; USPub 2003/0000755; JP 2015-74242; CN 201245069; and the non-patent literature titled “The Pulsejet-Powered Weltmeister Fictional Experimental Motorcycle.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, 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.
/WILLIAM C JOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618