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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/435,474 filed on 2/7/2024.
Claims 2, 3 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on
12/15/2025.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shimizu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0263291 A1) in view of Schreib (U.S. Patent 6,017,652), in further view of Kitani (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0025025 A1).
In regard to Claim 1, Shimizu teaches an electric bicycle comprising (see Abstract teaching a motorcycle with an electric motor):
A frame that includes a top tube, a down tube, and a seat tube (see Figure 1 items, Paragraph 44 teaching that the motorcycle has main frames 5b, a head pipe 5a, and lower frames 5c);
An electric motor mounted on or within at least one of the down tube and the seat tube (see Figure 1, Paragraph 42 lines 2-5 teaching that the motorcycle has an electric motor 11 situated at a driving unit 10 that is located close to the intersection of the main frames and the lower frames); and
A cooling system mounted proximate to the electric motor, wherein the cooling system maintains a desired operating temperature for the electric motor (see Figure 4, Paragraph 80 lines 1-4 teaching that at least an intake port 61 and a fan 50 are used as part of a cooling structure 20 to cool the motor 11), and wherein the cooling system includes a fan that is configured to blow air over at least a portion of the electric motor to maintain the desired operating temperature (see Paragraph 80 lines 1-4 teaching that the fan 50 sends cooling air to the motor 11); and
A cover that covers a component of the electric bicycle, wherein the cover includes an air intake vent that acts as an intake for the fan (see Paragraph 55 lines 1-4 teaching that a cooling air intake port 61 is provided above the unit accommodating section 60).
Though not specifically taught by the reference, the Examiner is inferring the cooling system’s intended use of maintaining a desired operating temperature for the motor. Cooling systems are exceptionally well known in the field of engine temperature management.
Shimizu fails to teach wherein the cover is a battery cover.
However, Schreib teaches wherein the cover is a battery cover (see Claim 1 teaching a motorcycle battery cover).
Shimizu and Schreib are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of motorcycle components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a battery cover as taught by Schreib. Doing so could increase the service life of a motorcycle battery by shielding it from its environment.
Shimizu further fails to teach a plurality of intake vents.
However, Kitani teaches a plurality of intake vents (see Paragraph 62 lines 1-6 teaching an outboard motor with at least one inlet 74 for introducing air for a centrifugal fan 72).
Shimizu and Kitani are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of motor systems utilizing fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate multiple inlet ports as taught by Kitani. Doing so could increase the volume of air that could be introduced to the system.
In regard to Claim 4, Shimizu further teaches a motor cover that covers the electric motor, wherein the motor cover includes an exhaust vent that acts as an exhaust for the fan (see Figure 4, Paragraph 49, Paragraph 52 lines 6-15 teaching a housing 40 that is adjacent to the motor 11 with a cooling air outlet port 62).
Shimizu fails to teach a plurality of exhaust vents.
However, Kitani teaches a plurality of exhaust vents (see Paragraph 62 lines 1-4 teaching an outboard motor with outlets 76 for removing air for a centrifugal fan 72).
Shimizu and Kitani are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of motor systems utilizing fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate multiple exhaust ports as taught by Kitani. Doing so could increase the volume of air that could be removed from the system.
In regard to Claim 5, Shimizu further teaches an exhaust vent positioned at a bottom of the motor cover (see Paragraph 11 teaching that the cooling air outlet port is below the motor accommodating section).
Shimizu fails to teach a plurality of exhaust vents, and wherein the vents are positioned at a top of the motor cover.
However, Kitani teaches a plurality of exhaust vents, and wherein the vents are positioned at a top of the motor cover (see Paragraph 62 lines 1-6 teaching that the centrifugal fan 72 outlets 76 comprise at least one opening above the motor 28).
Shimizu and Kitani are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of motor systems utilizing fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate multiple exhaust ports above the motor to supplement exhaust ports below the motor as taught by Kitani. Doing so could increase the volume of air that could be removed from the system by using surface area both above and below the motor.
In regard to Claim 7, Shimizu further teaches a fan mount that mounts to the frame, wherein the fan mount includes an opening to receive the fan (see Figure 8, Paragraph 87 teaching that the fan 50 is supported by a support section main body 71 which has the shape of a disk).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shimizu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0263291 A1) in view of Schreib (U.S. Patent 6,017,652), in further view of Kitani (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0025025 A1), in further in view of Yamamoto (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0183059 A1).
In regard to Claim 6, Shimizu fails to teach one or more exhaust vents that act as an exhaust for the fan and one or more air intake vents that act as an intake for the fan, wherein at least one of the one or more exhaust vents and the one or more air intake vents are formed in the frame of the bicycle.
However, Yamamoto teaches one or more exhaust vents that act as an exhaust for the fan and one or more air intake vents that act as an intake for the fan, wherein at least one of the one or more exhaust vents and the one or more air intake vents are formed in the frame of the bicycle (see Paragraph 79 lines 5-10 teaching a motorcycle system wherein hot air guided by a radiator fan 52 proceeds outward in the vehicle width direction beyond a side cowl body 41).
Shimizu and Yamamoto are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of motorcycle cooling systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a design wherein exhaust air from a cooling system exits the vehicle via a part of the vehicle body or cowling as taught by Yamamoto. Doing so could improve a motorcycle cooling system by eliminating the need for an additional component which specifically evacuates hot cooling air.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shimizu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0263291 A1) in view of Schreib (U.S. Patent 6,017,652), in further view of Kitani (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0025025 A1), in further view of Kegg (U.S. Patent Publication 2002/0159897 A1).
In regard to Claim 8, Shimizu fails to teach wherein at least a portion of a perimeter of the fan mount includes gasket edges that form a seal with the frame, wherein the seal prevents air leaks such that airflow from the fan is forced over the electric motor.
However, Kegg teaches wherein at least a portion of a perimeter of the fan mount includes gasket edges that form a seal with the frame, wherein the seal prevents air leaks such that airflow from the fan is forced over the electric motor (see Paragraph 39 lines 22-25, Claim 1 teaching an electrical fan-motor assembly wherein a fan motor assembly which cools an electric motor is attached to the motor assembly thereby sealing the motor housing with the fan housing).
Shimizu and Kegg are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric motors with cooling fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a design wherein the fan is fixed to the motor in a sealed fashion as taught by Kegg. Doing so could maximize cooling by preventing any cooling air from escaping from the chamber before it can contribute to cooling the motor.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shimizu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0263291 A1) in view of Schreib (U.S. Patent 6,017,652), in further view of Kitani (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0025025 A1), in further view of Osecky (U.S. Patent Publication 2002/0101714 A1).
In regard to Claim 9, Shimizu fails to teach wherein the fan enters a pulse mode in response to detection of a fan blockage, and wherein the fan intermittently pulses during the pulse mode until the fan blockage is no longer present.
However, Osecky teaches wherein the fan enters a pulse mode in response to detection of a fan blockage, and wherein the fan intermittently pulses during the pulse mode until the fan blockage is no longer present (see Paragraph 25 lines 13-16 teaching a fan obstruction removal system wherein a fan is pulsed in alternating directions to clear obstructions).
Shimizu and Osecky are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fan systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a pulsing process in order to clear an obstruction within the fan as taught by Osecky. Doing so could improve a fan system by enabling the fan to autonomously clear obstructions when it is blocked from spinning.
Claims 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shimizu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0263291 A1) in view of Schreib (U.S. Patent 6,017,652), in further view of Kitani (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0025025 A1), in further view of Dlala (U.S. Patent 11,535,097 B2).
In regard to Claim 10, Shimizu fails to teach wherein the cooling system includes a pump that distributes a coolant over at least a portion of the electric motor to maintain the desired operating temperature.
However, Dlala teaches wherein the cooling system includes a pump that distributes a coolant over at least a portion of the electric motor to maintain the desired operating temperature (see Claim 1 teaching a motor cooling system wherein a coolant pump circulates a coolant through an electric motor’s coolant intake, manifold, and coolant channels).
Shimizu and Dlala are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of motor cooling systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a coolant is circulated through a motor by a pump as taught by Dlala. Doing so could improve a motor by keeping it within an operational temperature range.
In regard to Claim 11, Shimizu fails to teach wherein the cooling system includes a motor cover that mounts to the electric motor and delivers the coolant to the electric motor.
However, Dlala teaches wherein the cooling system includes a motor cover that mounts to the electric motor and delivers the coolant to the electric motor (see Column 2 lines 54-63, Claim 1 teaching that the coolant is circulated through a motor manifold that couples the motor intake to a coolant channel).
Shimizu and Dlala are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of motor cooling systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a coolant is circulated through a motor manifold or cover as taught by Dlala. Doing so could improve a motor by keeping it within an operational temperature range while preventing coolant leaks.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shimizu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0263291 A1) in view of Schreib (U.S. Patent 6,017,652), in further view of Kitani (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0025025 A1), in further view of Dlala (U.S. Patent 11,535,097 B2), in further view of Masoudipour (U.S. Patent 7,675,209 B2).
In regard to Claim 12, Shimizu fails to teach wherein an interior side of the motor cover that faces the electric motor includes a coolant path that circulates the coolant over the electric motor.
However, Masoudipour teaches wherein an interior side of the motor cover that faces the electric motor includes a coolant path that circulates the coolant over the electric motor (see Figure 5, Column 7 lines 8-15 teaching a compressor system which includes an electric motor 40 with a cooling jacket 10 situated underneath the compressor housing 51).
Shimizu and Masoudipour are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric motor cooling systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a cooling path or jacket underneath the motor cover as taught by Masoudipour. Doing so could improve an electric motor cooling system by utilizing the coolant to absorb and remove heat from the motor.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shimizu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0263291 A1) in view of Schreib (U.S. Patent 6,017,652), in further view of Kitani (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0025025 A1), in further view of Dlala (U.S. Patent 11,535,097 B2), in further view of Masoudipour (U.S. Patent 7,675,209 B2), in further view of Suzuki (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0057117 A1).
In regard to Claim 13, Shimizu fails to teach wherein the coolant path is etched into the interior side of the motor cover.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the coolant path is etched into the interior side of the motor cover (see Figure 1, Paragraph 67 lines 1-10 teaching a motor device with a motor cover 22d which has a cooling oil passage 56 on the interior side of the motor cover).
Shimizu and Suzuki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric motors with cooling systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a cooling fluid jacket on the interior side of a motor cover as taught by Suzuki. Doing so could improve a motor cooling system by eliminating the need for an additional part and by circulating cooling fluid in a part that is directly adjacent to the motor.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shimizu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0263291 A1) in view of Schreib (U.S. Patent 6,017,652), in further view of Kitani (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0025025 A1), in further view of Dlala (U.S. Patent 11,535,097 B2), in further view of Suzuki (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0057117 A1).
In regard to Claim 14, Shimizu fails to teach wherein the motor cover includes a coolant input and a coolant output that enables circulation of the coolant along the motor cover, wherein the coolant input and the coolant output are each connected to a coolant tube that connects to the pump.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the motor cover includes a coolant input and a coolant output that enables circulation of the coolant along the motor cover, wherein the coolant input and the coolant output are each connected to a coolant tube that connects to the pump (see Figure 1, Paragraph 15, Paragraph 67 lines 1-10 teaching that a pump may be used to circulate the coolant through the passage, and that the pump may be located outside the motor drive device).
Though not specifically taught by the reference, the Examiner is inferring the use of piping or conduits between the cooling jacket and the pump if the pump is located outside of the motor device. The use of hoses and piping is exceptionally well known in the field of engine cooling fluid circulation to and from external pumps.
Shimizu and Suzuki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electric motors with cooling systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a pump to circulate the cooling fluid on its path to and from the motor as taught by Suzuki. Doing so could improve a motor cooling system by eliminated the need for the pump to be located inside the motor assembly, and by improving heat dissipation by circulating the fluid.
Claims 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shimizu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0263291 A1) in view of Schreib (U.S. Patent 6,017,652), in further view of Kitani (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0025025 A1), in further view of Fukunaga (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0216820 A1).
In regard to Claim 15, Shimizu fails to teach a temperature sensor mounted on or proximate to the electric motor, wherein the temperature sensor detects an operating temperature of the electric motor.
However, Fukunaga teaches a temperature sensor mounted on or proximate to the electric motor, wherein the temperature sensor detects an operating temperature of the electric motor (see Abstract teaching a drive device containing a motor, and a temperature sensor which detects the temperature of the motor).
Shimizu and Fukunaga are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of motors with temperature sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a motor temperature sensor as taught by Fukunaga. Doing so could improve a motor monitoring system by enabling it to identify when the motor is operating withing a functional temperature range. This could enable the system to identify when the temperature needs to be corrected in order to prevent damage to the engine.
In regard to Claim 16, Shimizu fails to teach a computing system to receive the operating temperature of the electric motor from the temperature sensor.
However, Fukunaga teaches a computing system to receive the operating temperature of the electric motor from the temperature sensor (see Abstract teaching that the motor temperature sensor sends temperature information to a motor controller).
Shimizu and Fukunaga are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of motors with temperature sensing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the motor temperature sensor sends temperature to a controller as taught by Fukunaga. Doing so could improve a motor monitoring system by enabling it to identify when the motor is operating withing a functional temperature range with a controller. This could enable the controller to identify when the temperature needs to be corrected in order to prevent damage to the engine.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shimizu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0263291 A1) in view of Schreib (U.S. Patent 6,017,652), in further view of Kitani (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0025025 A1), in further view of Fukunaga (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0216820 A1), in further view of Eide (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0379994 A1).
In regard to Claim 17, Shimizu fails to teach wherein the computing system is mounted in the top tube of the frame.
However, Eide teaches wherein the computing system is mounted in the top tube of the frame (see Claim 8 teaching a bicycle with a controller mounted to the handlebars).
Shimizu and Eide are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of two-wheeled vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a controller located at the top tube or handlebars as taught by Eide. Doing so could improve a two-wheeled vehicle with a controller, by making the controller more accessible to a user.
Claims 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shimizu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0263291 A1) in view of Schreib (U.S. Patent 6,017,652), in further view of Kitani (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0025025 A1), in further view of Fukunaga (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0216820 A1), in further view of Presetschnik (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0211412 A1).
In regard to Claim 18, Shimizu fails to teach wherein the computing system compares the operating temperature to a threshold temperature, and wherein the computing system activates the cooling system responsive to a determination that the operating temperature exceeds the threshold temperature.
However, Presetschnik teaches Shimizu fails to teach wherein the computing system compares the operating temperature to a threshold temperature, and wherein the computing system activates the cooling system responsive to a determination that the operating temperature exceeds the threshold temperature (see Paragraph 29 line 9-Paragraph 32 teaching a vehicle cooling circuit wherein a controller 138 compares temperature information to a maximum threshold, and activates a cooling system if the threshold is exceeded).
Shimizu and Presetschnik are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooling systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a controller that compares temperature information to a maximum threshold, and activates a cooling system if the threshold is exceeded as taught by Presetschnik. Doing so could improve a cooling system by ensuring that cooled components maintain a temperature below a certain threshold. This could increase the service life of the cooled components.
The rest of Claim 18 is similar to Claim 1 (that the temperature is that of the electric motor). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 19, Shimizu fails to teach wherein the computing system receives an updated operating temperature and compares the updated operating temperature to a shut-off threshold, and wherein the computing system turns off the cooling system responsive to a determination that the updated operating temperature is less than the shut-off threshold.
However, Presetschnik teaches wherein the computing system receives an updated operating temperature and compares the updated operating temperature to a shut-off threshold, and wherein the computing system turns off the cooling system responsive to a determination that the updated operating temperature is less than the shut-off threshold (see Paragraph 29 line 9-Paragraph 32 teaching a vehicle cooling circuit wherein a controller 138 compares temperature information to a minimum threshold, and deactivates a cooling system if the temperature reading dips below the threshold).
Shimizu and Presetschnik are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooling systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a controller that compares temperature information to a minimum threshold, and deactivates a cooling system if the temperature reading dips below the threshold as taught by Presetschnik. Doing so could improve a cooling system by ensuring that cooled components maintain a temperature above a certain threshold. This could increase the service life of the cooled components.
The rest of Claim 19 is similar to Claim 1 (that the temperature is that of the electric motor). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shimizu (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0263291 A1) in view of Schreib (U.S. Patent 6,017,652), in further view of Kitani (U.S. Patent Publication 2006/0025025 A1), in further view of Hoshi (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0248861 A1).
In regard to Claim 20, Shimizu fails to teach a computing system operably coupled to the cooling system, wherein the computing system detects startup, and wherein the computing system operates the cooling system for a duration of time after the detected startup.
However, Hoshi teaches a computing system operably coupled to the cooling system, wherein the computing system detects startup, and wherein the computing system operates the cooling system for a duration of time after the detected startup (see Paragraph 38 lines 3-8 teaching a motor vehicle system wherein a controller 37 activates a circulation pump to circulated a coolant upon a start of the vehicle 10).
Shimizu and Hoshi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles with cooling systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shimizu’s invention to incorporate a controller that activates a cooling system upon a vehicle startup as taught by Hoshi. Doing so could improve a vehicle cooling system by ensuring that the cooling system is active as soon as the heat-producing components of the vehicle have begun operation.
The rest of Claim 20 is similar to Claim 1 (that the cooling system is that of an electric bicycle). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on December 15th, 2025, with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of amended Claim 1 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of Claims 1, 2, 7 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments. New 103 rejections of Claims 1 and 7 have been introduced as a result. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled.
With regard to amended Claim 1, the Applicant argues that that the Shimizu, Schreib, and Kitani references fail, alone or in combination, to teach the following limitations, which have been incorporated from now-cancelled Claims 2 and 3: “wherein the cooling system includes a fan that is configured to blow air over at least a portion of the electric motor to maintain the desired operating temperature” and “a battery cover that covers a battery of the electric bicycle, wherein the battery cover includes a plurality of air intake vents that act as an intake for the fan.” The Applicant also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Shimizu, Schreib, and Kitani. The Examiner disagrees.
The Shimizu reference teaches a motorcycle system (see Abstract) comprising “a fan configured to introduce external air from the cooling air intake port and send the cooling air to the electric motor” (see Paragraph 13), and “an upper cover member opening downward and configured to cover the cooling air intake port” (see Paragraph 12). The only elements of the limitations at issue that are not taught by Shimizu are that the cover covers a battery, and that the intake has a plurality of vents, rather than one.
The Schreib reference teaches a battery cover for a motorcycle comprising a plate having at least one aperture (see Claim 1). The Kitani reference teaches an outboard motor with at least one opening below an electric motor that serves as an inlet for a centrifugal fan of the motor (see Paragraph 62). In combination, the cited references teach the amended limitations of Claim 1.
Both the Shimizu and Schreib references teach components for motorcycles. Shimizu and Kitani both teach cooling systems for motors. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the Instant Filing Date to combine these references. Doing so could improve the cooling needs of a vehicle containing a motor and a battery by enabling both to be cooled by the same mechanism. Implementing multiple ports or vents into a cover for a cooling fan could further improve cooling by optimizing airflow via better air distribution.
The rest of the claims pending in the Instant Application remain rejected under the same rationales provided in the previous office action.
The Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Chun (World Intellectual Property Organization Patent Publication 2012148131 A1) teaches an electric motor within an accommodating space and a cooling system (see Abstract).
Namuduri (U.S. Patent 10,044,297 B2) teaches a vehicle with an electric motor and a cooling fan (see Abstract).
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 PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658