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 § 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H04257783 A ("Honda") in view of US 20070035420 A1 ("Yamada").
Claim 1: Honda teaches an electric straddled vehicle comprising: an electric component (50); a case (51) accommodating the electric component (para. 18, lines 1-3); a breather hose (87, 88, 89) having a first end (1E Annotated Fig. 1 below) and a second end (2E Annotated Fig. 1 below) that are opposite to each other, the first end being connected to the case (Figs. 1,2 and 7); and a cap (91a, 91) attached to the second end of the breather hose, the cap being breathable and waterproof (para. 40, lines 1-3). wherein the cap (91a, 91) includes a pipe (91, 90) including a through hole (Figs. 1,2, and 7; para. 40, lines 1-3 and para. 29, lines 1-4), the pipe being attached to the second end (2E) of the breather hose (87, 88, 89), a breathable waterproof sheet (99) closing the through hole of the pipe (Fig. 1; para. 39, lines 1-5), the breathable waterproof sheet being configured to allow moisture to penetrate therethrough without allowing water to penetrate therethrough (para. 40, lines 1-5), and a lid fixed to the pipe, the lid (28) covering at least a portion of the breathable waterproof sheet (Annotated Fig. 1 and Fig. 4). But does not teach the breathable waterproof sheet, which is a perforated waterproof film, fully closing the through hole of the pipe.
However, Yamada teaches the breathable waterproof sheet (58a), which is a perforated waterproof film (para. 16, lines 5-7), fully closing the through hole of the pipe. (para. 69, lines 4-11; Figs. 7 and 9). 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 Yamada. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Yamada teaches “an existing moisture-permeable waterproof sheet 58a from the inside of the case. That is, the ventilation hole 58 is capable of allowing the moisture in the inside of the amplifier case 55 to be discharged to the outside, and also is capable of blocking intrusion of water therethrough into the amplifier case 55 from the outside” (para. 69, lines 5-11) and would advantageously block water intrusion.
PNG
media_image1.png
731
1044
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure. 1
Claim 2: Honda teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Honda further teaches the electric straddled vehicle, wherein the second end (2E) of the breather hose (87, 88, 89) is disposed further upward than the case (Annotated Fig. 1).
Claim 3: Honda teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Honda further teaches the electric straddled vehicle, further comprising: a seat (Seat) for an operator of the electric straddled vehicle to sit thereon, wherein the second end (2E) of the breather hose (87, 88, 89) is disposed further upward than a lower end (Lower End) of the seat (Annotated Fig. 1).
Claim 4: Honda teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Honda further teaches the electric straddled vehicle, further comprising: a front wheel (14f), wherein the second end (2E) of the breather hose (87, 88, 89) is disposed further upward than the front wheel (Annotated Fig. 1).
Claim 5: Honda teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Honda further teaches the electric straddled vehicle, further comprising: a rear wheel (14r), wherein the second end (2E) of the breather hose (87, 88, 89) is disposed further upward than the rear wheel (Annotated Fig. 1).
Claim 6: Honda teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Honda further teaches the electric straddled vehicle, wherein the electric component (50) is a power unit including an electric motor (52) and a reducer (54) (para. 18, lines 1-3).
Claim 7: Honda teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Honda further teaches the electric straddled vehicle, wherein the case (50) is waterproof (para. 8, lines 1-4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 3618
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights