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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SATORU (CN-1282695-A).
Regarding Claim 1, SATORU teaches a straddled vehicle (Small Motorcycle 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a base (Footrest 9/10, Fig. 1) including
a base opening (Recess 24, Fig. 2) through which an accommodating space is open to an upper side (Recess 24 being open on the upper end as illustrated in Fig. 2) and
an opposing portion (the bottom wall of Surrounding Groove 27, Fig. 11) located around the base opening (Surrounding Groove 27 being formed around Recess 24 as illustrated in Fig. 5);
an outer lid (Service Cover 11, Fig. 4) that opens and closes the base opening (Service Cover 11 removably covering- i.e. opening and closing- Recess 24 as illustrated in Fig. 4);
a projection (Peripheral Wall 44, Fig. 7) that is located at one of the outer lid and the base (Peripheral Wall 44 being located on Service Cover 11 and interacting with Footrest 9/10 as illustrated in Fig. 7), is located outside the base opening (Peripheral Wall 44 being located outside of Recess 24 as illustrated in Fig. 7), and projects in an upper-lower direction toward the other of the outer lid and the base (Peripheral Wall 44 projecting downwards toward Footrest 9/10 as illustrated in Fig. 7); and
an outer wall (the left wall of Surrounding Groove 27 as illustrated in Fig. 12) that is located at the outer lid or the base (Surrounding Groove 27 being formed in Footrest 9/10), faces the projection (44) from an outside (the left wall of Surrounding Groove 27 being to the left of/ on an outside side of Recess 24 to Peripheral Wall 44 as illustrated in Fig. 12), and is located between the outer lid (11) and the opposing portion (27) in the upper-lower direction (the left wall of Surrounding Groove 27 being vertically between Service Cover 11 and the bottom wall of Surrounding Groove 27 as illustrated in Fig. 12), wherein:
the opposing portion (27) is inclined relative to a horizontal direction (as illustrated in Fig. 12); and
the outer wall (27) includes a drain passage (Locking Holes 29m, 29l and 29r, Fig. 11 and Para. [0067]) that is located at a position lower than an upper end of the opposing portion (27) and extends from an inside of the outer wall to an outside of the outer wall (Locking Holes 29m, 29l and 29r being lower than an upper end of Surrounding Groove 27 and extending through Surrounding Groove 27 as illustrated in Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 2, SATORU further teaches that the projection (44) is a seal that seals a gap (Surrounding Groove 27 forming a gap) between the outer lid (11) and the opposing portion (27) in the upper-lower direction (Peripheral Wall 44 covering/ sealing the gap formed by Surrounding Groove 27 between Service Cover 11 and the bottom wall of Surrounding Groove 27 as illustrated in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 3, SATORU further teaches that:
the projection (44) has an elongated shape that is longer than an outer periphery of the base opening (Peripheral Wall 44 encircling Recess 24such that it is considered to have an elongated shape that is longer than the circumference of Recess 24); and
the projection (44) includes a portion where the projection partially overlaps itself in a radial direction of the base opening (Peripheral Wall 44 forming a hook-like feature such that it partially overlaps itself in a left-right/ radial direction as illustrated in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 5, SATORU further teaches a side stand (Legs 39, Fig. 1) by which the straddled vehicle (1) stands by itself in a state of being inclined toward a first side (left) in a vehicle width direction (Para. [0071] teaches that the Small Motorcycle 1 tilts to the left side when parked with Legs 39), wherein
when the straddled vehicle (1) stands by itself by using the side stand (39), a lowest position of the opposing portion (27) at which the projection (44) is exposed (Peripheral Wall 44 being exposed by Locking Hole 29l) is located at the first side (left) of the base opening (24) in the vehicle width direction (a lowest part of Surrounding Groove 27 being located toward the left side while the Small Motorcycle 1 is supported by Legs 39 as understood by Fig. 1 & 4).
Regarding Claim 8, SATORU further teaches a case (Electrical Box 22, Fig. 5) including a bottom wall (Bottom Inner Surface 22a, Fig. 5), wherein
the bottom wall (22a) includes a bottom wall drain hole (Drain Hole 37, Fig. 5) through which water having entered the accommodating space is discharged from the accommodating space (Para. [0028]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATORU in view of OISHI (US-20170033340-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, SATORU further teaches that:
the opposing portion (27) is inclined downward from a first side (left/ front, Fig. 1 and 7) to a second side (right/ rear, Fig. 1 and 7) in a front-rear direction (Surrounding Groove 27 inclining downward from right/ rear to left/ front as illustrated in Fig. 1 and 7);
SATORU does not teach that the projection overlaps itself.
OISHI teaches, in a battery pack case (Abstract), a projection (Seal 40, Fig. 5) that includes a first longitudinal end portion (First End 40 a, Fig. 5) and a second longitudinal end portion (Second End 40 b, Fig. 5) opposite to the first longitudinal end portion (First End 40 a and Second End 40 b being located on opposite ends of Seal 40 as illustrated in Fig. 5 and taught it Para. [0020]);
a portion (Inner Overlapping Portion 71, Fig. 5) of the projection (40) which extends from the first longitudinal end portion (40 a) and a portion (Outer Overlapping Portion 72, Fig. 5) of the projection (40) which extends from the second longitudinal end portion (40 b) overlap each other (as illustrated in Fig. 5); and
an end portion (40 b) located at an outer side (right, Fig. 5) out of the first longitudinal end portion (40 a) and the second longitudinal end portion (40 b) is located lower than an end portion (40 a) located at an inner side (left, Fig. 5) out of the first longitudinal end portion (40 a) and the second longitudinal end portion (Second End 40 b being located to an outer side and lower than First End 40 a as illustrated in Fig. 5).
OISHI further teaches that when portions of a seal overlap each other the sealing of a case is improved (Para. [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of SATORU and OISHI in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SATORU’s straddled vehicle such that the projection overlaps itself as suggested by OISHI. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage improving the sealing of a case a taught by OISHI and discussed above that would beneficially make a vehicle more weather resistant.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATORU in view of Shinohara (EP-0669246-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, SATORU further teaches a case (Electrical Box 22, Fig. 5).
SATORU does not teach that the case comprises an inner lid.
Shinohara teaches, in another straddled vehicle (Scooter 10, Fig. 1), a case (Battery Holder 4, Fig. 2) including a case opening (Battery Holder 4 opening in an upward direction as illustrated in Fig. 2); and an inner lid (Battery Cap 26, Fig. 3, understood as inner in that Frame Cover 8 acts as an outer cover as illustrated in Fig. 3) that opens and closes the case opening (Battery Cap 26 removably covering- i.e. opening and closing Battery Holder 4 as illustrated in Fig. 3), wherein:
a base (Leg Rear 2, Fig. 3) includes a base space (a space formed in Leg Rear 2 between Left and Right Extending Portions 2a, as illustrated in Fig. 3 and taught in Para. [0023]) therein; and
the base space (2a) includes a space located at an upper side of the inner lid (the space formed in Leg Rear 2 between Left and Right Extending Portions 2a being formed adjacent to an upper side of Battery Cap 26).
The case (4) of Shinohara is arranged such that it further comprises a main body (Battery Holder 4 generally forming a main body, Fig. 2) that defines an accommodating space (Battery Holder 4 being open on the upper end as illustrated in Fig. 3), a case opening (the open upper end of Battery Holder 4, Fig. 3), and a flange (Channel Portions 4c, Fig. 7) that is located around the case opening and projects from the main body to a radially outer side (Channel Portions 4c projecting radially outwards from Battery Holder 4 as illustrated in Fig. 7), wherein a base (Leg Rear 2, Fig. 3) includes an eaves portion (Cover Side Front 6, Fig. 7) that covers the flange from above (Cover Side Front 6 at least partially covering the flange formed by Channel Portions 4c, as illustrated in Fig. 7) (note: these teaching relate to claim 7, as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of SATORU and Shinohara in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SATORU’s straddled vehicle to include a case with an inner lid as suggested by Shinohara. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing an extra layer of weather protection for a battery or other sensitive component that would beneficially make a vehicle more weather resistant.
Regarding Claim 7, SATORU, as modified by Shinohara, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 6 above for the teachings of Shinohara and motivation to combine them with SATORU’s straddled vehicle).
Regarding Claim 9, SATORU further teaches:
a case (Electrical Box 22, Fig. 5) including a bottom wall (Bottom Inner Surface 22a, Fig. 5) and a peripheral wall (the wall formed by at least Rack 31, Holders 34, and Enlarged Portion 51, as illustrated in Fig. 4) that extends upward from the bottom wall (22a) and surrounds the accommodating space and a case opening (the walls of Rack 31, Holders 34, and Enlarged Portion 51 extending upward from Bottom Inner Surface 22a and surrounding the space of Recess 24, and being open in an upward direction as illustrated in Fig. 4); and
the peripheral wall includes a peripheral wall drain hole through which water having entered the accommodating space is discharged from the accommodating space.
SATORU does not teach an inner lid, but Shinohara does (see the 103 rejection of claim 6 above for the teachings of Shinohara and motivation to combine them with SATORU’s straddled vehicle).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATORU in view of Kashiwai (US-20140318880-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, SATORU further teaches that the accommodating space (24) accommodates a battery (Battery 32, Fig. 7), and a driving wheel (illustrated in Fig. 1).
SATORU does not teach an electric motor that drives the vehicle.
Kashiwai, in another straddled vehicle (Scooter, Abstract and Fig. 1), teaches a battery (Battery 27, Fig. 1) that supplies electric power to an electric motor (Electric Motor 38, Fig. 1) that drives a driving wheel (Rear Wheel WR, Fig. 1) of the straddled vehicle (Para. [0077]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of SATORU and Kashiwai in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify SATORU’s straddled vehicle to include an electric motor that drives the vehicle as suggested by Kashiwai. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing drive power for the vehicle from the battery that would beneficially make a more versatile vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611