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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2023 is considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagimoto et al. (US 2021/0001945) in view of .Winter (US Pat 3,870,340).
Regarding claim 1, Hagimoto et al. disclose a straddle type vehicle, comprising:
a taillight arranged on a rear-carriage a support bracket mounted to the rear-carriage and arranged above said taillight, wherein the support bracket is shaped to define at least one grip portion for a passenger; a radar arranged on the rear-carriage ([0020]) and configured to detect the presence of other vehicles in a rear area of said straddle type vehicle wherein said radar is connected directly or indirectly to said support bracket and is arranged, according to a side view of the vehicle, in a position, below said support bracket, between said support bracket ([0026]- [0027].
However, Hagimoto et al. is silent about the taillight, cantilevered with respect to the taillight in a longitudinal extension direction towards the rear-carriage.
In the same field of endeavor, Winter (US Pat 3,870,340) discloses taillight, cantilevered with respect to the taillight in a longitudinal extension direction towards the rear-carriage (column 9, lines 16-43).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cantilever the taillight as taught by Winter in the system of Hagimoto et al. in order to support various range of the angles for various vehicles.
Regarding claim 2, for the same motivation as above, Hagimoto et al. disclose straddle type vehicle wherein the cantilevered position of the radar with respect to the taillight defines an open space below said radar ([0020]), which extends:- in said longitudinal direction ([0026]) between a distal end of said taillight and a distal end( of said radar and in a vertical direction orthogonal to said longitudinal direction (Winter Column 12, lines 1-30) between a lower end( of said radar up to extending to at least a lower end( of said taillight...
Regarding claim 3, Hagimoto et al. disclose a straddle type vehicle, wherein said radar is arranged onboard the support bracket (figure 1, element A).
Regarding claim 8, Hagimoto et al. disclose a straddle type vehicle wherein damping means are provided adapted to damp the vibrations during driving [0025].
Regarding claim 9, for the same motivations as in claim 1, Hagimoto et al. in view of Winter disclose a straddle type vehicle wherein the radar position means are provided wherein the position means comprise sliding guides which allow movement in horizontal and vertical direction (Winter, column 9, lines 46-67).
Regarding claim 10, for the same motivation as in claim 1, Hagimoto et al.in view of Winter disclose straddle type vehicle wherein said adjusting means comprises an actuator controlled by a control unit, which allows adjusting the position of the radar moving along said sliding guides (Winter, column 9, lines 46-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sing, Jasvir (US 20190198986 discloses a a Radar support Structure.
Yu Chen-Chih (EP 2397366 A1) discloses a structure of motorcycle taillight.
Nishijima Tomok (WO 2019064912) discloses a support member structure for saddled vehicles.
Lin,Sunkg-Kun et al. (TM M669390 U) discloses a motorcycle with a Radar sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-2988. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1667. 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.
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485 February 17, 2026