DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
The amended list of claims 1-12 is pending in this application. In the claim set filed 01/22/2026:
Claim(s) 2 and 4 has/have been indicated as originally presented.
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 9-11 has/have been indicated as previously presented.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 12 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 has/have been cancelled.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 01/22/2026; the Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. The Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Title Objection(s), the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Title Objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the Drawings Objection(s) of Fig. 5 and 6, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Drawings Objection(s) of Fig. 5 & 6 has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the Abstract Objection(s), the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Abstract Objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the objection(s) of claim(s) 3 and 8, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection(s) of claim(s) 3 and 8 has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the interpretation(s) of claim(s) 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the interpretation(s) of claim(s) 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 12 (claims 3 and 5, which were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have since been cancelled) under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Cominetti does not teach following claim limitations:
“wherein the second operation unit (2R) is an accelerator grip that is rotatable in a first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction, and at least while the first deceleration control and the second deceleration control are being canceled, the accelerator grip: generates a drive power to the saddled vehicle (100) when the rider rotates the accelerator grip in the first direction, and reduces the drive power when the rider rotates the accelerator grip in the second direction,”
“and wherein the accelerator grip (2R), in the reference state, is at a rotational position where the drive power generated to the saddled vehicle (100) is minimized while the first deceleration control and the second deceleration control are canceled.”
In particular the Applicant argues that Fig. 3 of Cominetti discloses that the free-wheeling mode “is applied when the accelerator grip is between the decelerator position D and in a position just before the neutral position N. In contrast, the claimed reference position is a rotational position of the accelerator grip where drive power generated to the vehicle is minimized while the first and second deceleration controls are cancelled.”
The Applicant then cites Fig. 4 of Cominetti and states: “It is only when the accelerator grip is at the neutral position that the motor is in the free-wheeling mode and, thus, is not subjected to the deceleration torque. Thus, Cominetti fails to teach or suggest the claimed termination of the first deceleration operation.”
This statement contradicts the Applicant’s own argument that Cominetti only discloses: “that the free-wheeling mode is applied when the accelerator grip is between the decelerator position D and in a position just before the neutral position N,” as a way to differentiate the disclosed invention from the claimed invention.
Furthermore, the Applicant’s interpretation of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 omits the following previously cited disclosure from Cominetti “In other words, the control device 12 switches off the electric machine 2 when the accelerator grip 7 is in the neutral position N so that the electric machine 2 does not generate nor absorb any mechanical torque and thus behaves as an inert rotating mass (“free-wheeling” condition).” The Applicant has provided no explanation as to why they believe this limitation should be interpreted as patentably distinct from “wherein the accelerator grip (2R), in the reference state, is at a rotational position where the drive power generated to the saddled vehicle (100) is minimized while the first deceleration control and the second deceleration control are canceled,” as the disclosure clearly states performing neither generating (acceleration) nor absorbing (decelerating) when the accelerator grip is in the neutral position.
One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret performing neither acceleration or deceleration as patentably indistinct from the Applicant’s broadly recited “where the drive power generated to the saddled vehicle (100) is minimized while the first deceleration control and the second deceleration control are canceled” respectively.
Finally, Cominetti discloses generating positive torque, i.e. accelerating the vehicle, when rotating from a neutral position to the acceleration position, denoted A in Fig. 4. In the region between the neutral and acceleration position, the driver has the rider has the ability increase acceleration by rotating in one direction (counter-clockwise in Fig. 2) up to a maximum torque when fully rotated. The rider further has the ability to decrease the amount of torque supplied by reducing the amount of torque by rotating in the opposite, clockwise direction. In view of the above interpretation, on of ordinary skill in the art would the at least cited figures and paragraphs of Cominetti as reasonably teaching: “the accelerator grip :generates a drive power to the saddled vehicle (100) when the rider rotates the accelerator grip in the first direction, and reduces the drive power when the rider rotates the accelerator grip in the second direction.”
Therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has/have been maintained.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the Final Office Action below.
Final Office Action
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4 is/are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Claim(s) 4, due to the most recent amendment cancelling claim 3 now references a cancelled claim as follows: “The controller according to claim 3…” Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s note: For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 4 has been interpreted as reciting: “The controller according to claim 1”, as claim 3 depended directly from claim 1 prior to cancellation.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YONEDA et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0326867 A1) in view of Cominetti (United States Patent Publication 2010/0042289 A1) and GUO et al. (Chines Patent Publication 111806609 A), referenced as Yoneda, Cominetti and Guo, respectively, moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, while Yoneda discloses:
“A controller (60) that is configured to maneuver a saddled vehicle (100), the saddled vehicle (100) including a first brake operation unit (11, 13) configured to accept a brake operation by a rider”[Yoneda; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yoneda discloses a control device, 20 in Fig. 2, configured to control an electric two-wheel vehicle such as a motorcycle, 1 in Fig. 1., including a brake lever, 5C in Fig. 2; Fig. 1, 2; ¶: 0045, 0048, 0051];
“the controller comprising: a control section (62) that is configured to control a deceleration of the saddled vehicle (100)”[Yoneda; "The control device 20 uses a control map, among the plurality of control maps, corresponding to a lever operation amount detected through the lever position sensor 28. The control device 20 refers to the control map and thereby calculates a driving force to be output from the electric motor 10 based on the actual accelerator operation amount and the actual vehicle speed. For example, when a lever operation amount detected through the lever position sensor 28 is 50%, the control device 20 refers to a control map (for example, the second control map illustrated in FIG. 3B) provided for the lever operation amount of 50%, to calculate a driving force corresponding to the actual accelerator operation amount and the actual vehicle speed. Hereinafter, the lever operation amount detected through the lever position sensor 28 is referred to as an “actual lever operation amount”;" Fig. 2; ¶: 0055; See also: ¶: 0053, 0054, 0056-0058];
“wherein the control section (62) is configured to: initiate a first deceleration control, to control the deceleration, according to a first operation, the first operation is an operation in which the rider operates a second operation unit (2R) to change a state of the second operation unit (2R) from a reference state to a different state that is different from the reference state, the second operation unit (2R) is different from the first brake operation unit (11, 13)”[Yoneda; "FIG. 6B illustrates another example of changes in an accelerator operation amount, lever operation amount, and a driving force and braking force output by the electric motor 10. As described above, the driving force defined by the plurality of control maps decreases in accordance with an increase in the lever operation amount. Therefore, as illustrated in FIG. 6B, when a driver gradually increases the lever operation amount at t1 while keeping the accelerator operation amount constant, the driving force output by the electric motor 10 gradually decreases. As described above, since the control device 20 performs the complementing process, the driving force continuously decreases in accordance with the increase in the lever operation amount. In addition, the force defined by the control map changes from a driving force (supplied current value) to a braking force (regenerative current value) in accordance with the increase in the lever operation amount, even if the accelerator operation amount is constant. Therefore, as illustrated in FIG. 6B, when the lever operation amount is increased, the control of the control device 20 is switched from the drive control that supplies electric power to the electric motor 10 to the braking control that causes the electric motor 10 to generate electric power;" Fig. 6B; ¶: 0093].
Yoneda does not specifically state:
“and a determination section (63) that is configured to determine possibility of causing a collision of the saddled vehicle (100) based on surrounding environment information of the saddled vehicle (100);”
“terminate the first deceleration control according to a second operation, the second operation is an operation in which the rider operates the second operation unit (2R) to return the state to the reference state during the first deceleration control;”
“and execute a second deceleration control, to control the deceleration, based on determination results of the determination section (63) about the possibility of causing the collision, the control section executes the second deceleration at least one point in a period from the termination of the first deceleration control to an initiation of operating the first brake operation unit (11, 13) by the rider;”
“wherein the second operation unit (2R) is an accelerator grip that is rotatable in a first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction, and at least while the first deceleration control and the second deceleration control are being canceled, the accelerator grip: generates a drive power to the saddled vehicle (100) when the rider rotates the accelerator grip in the first direction, and reduces the drive power when the rider rotates the accelerator grip in the second direction;”
OR “and wherein the accelerator grip (2R), in the reference state, is at a rotational position where the drive power generated to the saddled vehicle (100) is minimized while the first deceleration control and the second deceleration control are canceled.”
Guo, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for motorcycles, teaches:
“and a determination section (63) that is configured to determine possibility of causing a collision of the saddled vehicle (100) based on surrounding environment information of the saddled vehicle (100)” [Guo; "Two radars, a camera, a worm gear drive mechanism, an ABS brake mechanism and a weight measuring device are used. When the vehicle is running, the two distance measuring radars and cameras monitor the front of the motorcycle at any time. If there is an obstacle in front and the driver does not slow down and brake accordingly, the controller will respond immediately. According to the timely detection of the two distance measuring radars and cameras and the weight sensed by the weight sensor plus the weight of the frame and the size of the inertia force, the ABS brake mechanism is controlled to give the corresponding braking force to slow down the motorcycle to a safe speed. When approaching an obstacle, if the driver does not take corresponding action or is slow, the controller will immediately start the brake mechanism to stop according to the signals from the radar and camera, and lower the pitch rotation support mechanism to stabilize the vehicle body;" ¶: 0050];
“and execute a second deceleration control, to control the deceleration, based on determination results of the determination section (63) about the possibility of causing the collision, the control section executes the second deceleration at least one point in a period from the termination of the first deceleration control to an initiation of operating the first brake operation unit (11, 13) by the rider” [Guo; "Two radars, a camera, a worm gear drive mechanism, an ABS brake mechanism and a weight measuring device are used. When the vehicle is running, the two distance measuring radars and cameras monitor the front of the motorcycle at any time. If there is an obstacle in front and the driver does not slow down and brake accordingly, the controller will respond immediately. According to the timely detection of the two distance measuring radars and cameras and the weight sensed by the weight sensor plus the weight of the frame and the size of the inertia force, the ABS brake mechanism is controlled to give the corresponding braking force to slow down the motorcycle to a safe speed. When approaching an obstacle, if the driver does not take corresponding action or is slow, the controller will immediately start the brake mechanism to stop according to the signals from the radar and camera, and lower the pitch rotation support mechanism to stabilize the vehicle body;" ¶: 0050; See also: ¶: 0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling driving force of a motorcycle using an additional lever on a motorcycle steering as disclosed by Yoneda to incorporate the teachings regarding performing automated collision avoidance when the it is determined that the rider of the motorcycle does not decelerate appropriately as taught by Guo with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling driving force of a motorcycle that is more robust in its ability to reduce the occurrence of collisions as well as rollovers of a motorcycle [Guo; ¶: 0011, 0042].
Cominetti, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for motorcycles, teaches: “terminate the first deceleration control according to a second operation, the second operation is an operation in which the rider operates the second operation unit (2R) to return the state to the reference state during the first deceleration control” [Cominetti; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cominetti discloses a rotatable accelerator grip, Fig. 2 for example, with which the driver of a motorcycle may control the torque output from the motorcycle's electric machine, 2 in Fig. 3. Furthermore, Cominetti discloses that the driver may decelerate the vehicle by operating the rotatable grip in the range from the neutral position, position N in Fig. 2, to the maximum deceleration position, position D in Fig. 2, wherein the deceleration is cancelled upon the rotation angle of the rotatable device reaching the neutral position; Fig. 2-4; ¶: 0022-0025];
“wherein the second operation unit (2R) is an accelerator grip that is rotatable in a first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction, and at least while the first deceleration control and the second deceleration control are being canceled, the accelerator grip: generates a drive power to the saddled vehicle (100) when the rider rotates the accelerator grip in the first direction, and reduces the drive power when the rider rotates the accelerator grip in the second direction” [Cominetti; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cominetti discloses a rotatable accelerator grip with which the driver of a motorcycle may control the torque output from the motorcycle's electric machine. Cominetti discloses: "in this case, the value of the driving torque T varies according to the angular position α of the accelerator grip 7 and progressively increases with the increase of the angular position α of the accelerator grip 7." Cominetti further discloses: "According to the embodiment shown in FIG. 3, the control device 12 drives the electric machine 2 as a generator to absorb a mechanical torque T (i.e. performs a regenerative braking) when the accelerator grip 7 is in the neutral position N, and the control device 12 switches off the electric machine 2 when the accelerator grip 7 is in the deceleration position D; furthermore, the control device 12 progressively reduces (i.e. until the electric machine 2 is switched off) the mechanical torque T absorbed by the electric machine 2 operating as a generator to a zero value, as the accelerator grip 7 rotates from the neutral position N to the deceleration position D;" Fig. 2-4; ¶: 0021-0025];
“and wherein the accelerator grip (2R), in the reference state, is at a rotational position where the drive power generated to the saddled vehicle (100) is minimized while the first deceleration control and the second deceleration control are canceled” [Cominetti; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cominetti discloses: "According to the embodiment shown in FIG. 4, the control device 12 switches off the electric machine 2 when the accelerator grip 7 is in the neutral position N and the control device 12 drives the electric machine 2 as a generator for absorbing a mechanical torque T (i.e. performs a regenerative braking) when the accelerator grip 7 is between the neutral position N and the deceleration position D. In other words, the control device 12 switches off the electric machine 2 when the accelerator grip 7 is in the neutral position N so that the electric machine 2 does not generate nor absorb any mechanical torque and thus behaves as an inert rotating mass (“free-wheeling” condition); such an operating mode is used by the driver of the motorcycle 1 for more effectively exploiting the mechanical inertia owned by the motorcycle 1;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0023; See also: Fig. 2, 3; ¶: 0021, 0022, 0024, 0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling driving force of a motorcycle using an additional lever on a motorcycle steering as disclosed by Yoneda to incorporate the teachings regarding using a rotating actuator to control torque output of a motor as taught by Cominetti with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling driving force of a motorcycle that is more robust in its ability to operate the electric machine of the motorcycle as a free-wheel and therefore increasing efficiency of energy consumption of the motorcycle [Cominetti; ¶: 0006-0008].
With respect to claim 2, Yoneda does not specifically state: “wherein the second operation unit (2R) is movable to return to the reference state while being unloaded, and the rider cancels the first operation in the second operation so that the second operation unit (2R) becomes unloaded.”
Cominetti teaches: “wherein the second operation unit (2R) is movable to return to the reference state while being unloaded, and the rider cancels the first operation in the second operation so that the second operation unit (2R) becomes unloaded” [Cominetti; "The accelerator grip 7 is either directly or indirectly coupled to an elastic member 11 (typically a spring or a spring system), which tends to keep the accelerator grip 7 in the neutral position N; in other words, in the absence of external actions by the driver of the motorcycle 1, the accelerator grip 7 is kept in the neutral position N by the bias of the elastic member 11 and, in order to rotate the accelerator grip 7 towards the maximum acceleration position A or towards the deceleration position D, the driver of the motorcycle 1 needs to apply a twisting torque on the accelerator grip 7 itself;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling driving force of a motorcycle using an additional lever on a motorcycle steering as disclosed by Yoneda to incorporate the teachings regarding using a rotating actuator to control torque output of a motor as taught by Cominetti with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling driving force of a motorcycle that is more robust in its ability to operate the electric machine of the motorcycle as a free-wheel and therefore increasing efficiency of energy consumption of the motorcycle [Cominetti; ¶: 0006-0008].
With respect to claim 4, Yoneda does not specifically state: “wherein the first operation is an operation to rotate the accelerator grip (2R) in the second direction, and the second operation is an operation to rotate the accelerator grip (2R) in the first direction.”
Cominetti teaches: “wherein the first operation is an operation to rotate the accelerator grip (2R) in the second direction, and the second operation is an operation to rotate the accelerator grip (2R) in the first direction” [Cominetti; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cominetti discloses a rotatable accelerator grip with which the driver of a motorcycle may control the torque output from the motorcycle's electric machine. Cominetti discloses: "in this case, the value of the driving torque T varies according to the angular position α of the accelerator grip 7 and progressively increases with the increase of the angular position α of the accelerator grip 7." Cominetti further discloses: "According to the embodiment shown in FIG. 3, the control device 12 drives the electric machine 2 as a generator to absorb a mechanical torque T (i.e. performs a regenerative braking) when the accelerator grip 7 is in the neutral position N, and the control device 12 switches off the electric machine 2 when the accelerator grip 7 is in the deceleration position D; furthermore, the control device 12 progressively reduces (i.e. until the electric machine 2 is switched off) the mechanical torque T absorbed by the electric machine 2 operating as a generator to a zero value, as the accelerator grip 7 rotates from the neutral position N to the deceleration position D;" Fig. 2-4; ¶: 0021-0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling driving force of a motorcycle using an additional lever on a motorcycle steering as disclosed by Yoneda to incorporate the teachings regarding using a rotating actuator to control torque output of a motor as taught by Cominetti with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling driving force of a motorcycle that is more robust in its ability to operate the electric machine of the motorcycle as a free-wheel and therefore increasing efficiency of energy consumption of the motorcycle [Cominetti; ¶: 0006-0008].
With respect to claim 12, while Yoneda discloses:
“A control method for maneuvering a saddled vehicle (100) that includes a first brake operation unit (11, 13) configured to accept a brake operation by a rider”[Yoneda; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Yoneda discloses a control device, 20 in Fig. 2, configured to control an electric two-wheel vehicle such as a motorcycle, 1 in Fig. 1., including a brake lever, 5C in Fig. 2; Fig. 1, 2; ¶: 0045, 0048, 0051];
“the control method comprising: controlling, using a control section (62) of a controller (60), a deceleration of the saddled vehicle (100)”[Yoneda; "The control device 20 uses a control map, among the plurality of control maps, corresponding to a lever operation amount detected through the lever position sensor 28. The control device 20 refers to the control map and thereby calculates a driving force to be output from the electric motor 10 based on the actual accelerator operation amount and the actual vehicle speed. For example, when a lever operation amount detected through the lever position sensor 28 is 50%, the control device 20 refers to a control map (for example, the second control map illustrated in FIG. 3B) provided for the lever operation amount of 50%, to calculate a driving force corresponding to the actual accelerator operation amount and the actual vehicle speed. Hereinafter, the lever operation amount detected through the lever position sensor 28 is referred to as an “actual lever operation amount”;" Fig. 2; ¶: 0055; See also: ¶: 0053, 0054, 0056-0058];
“wherein the control section (62) is configured to: initiate a first deceleration control, to control the deceleration, according to a first operation, the first operation is an operation in which the rider operates a second operation unit (2R) to change a state of the second operation unit (2R) from a reference state to a different state that is different from the reference state, the second operation unit (2R) is different from the first brake operation unit (11, 13)”[Yoneda; "FIG. 6B illustrates another example of changes in an accelerator operation amount, lever operation amount, and a driving force and braking force output by the electric motor 10. As described above, the driving force defined by the plurality of control maps decreases in accordance with an increase in the lever operation amount. Therefore, as illustrated in FIG. 6B, when a driver gradually increases the lever operation amount at t1 while keeping the accelerator operation amount constant, the driving force output by the electric motor 10 gradually decreases. As described above, since the control device 20 performs the complementing process, the driving force continuously decreases in accordance with the increase in the lever operation amount. In addition, the force defined by the control map changes from a driving force (supplied current value) to a braking force (regenerative current value) in accordance with the increase in the lever operation amount, even if the accelerator operation amount is constant. Therefore, as illustrated in FIG. 6B, when the lever operation amount is increased, the control of the control device 20 is switched from the drive control that supplies electric power to the electric motor 10 to the braking control that causes the electric motor 10 to generate electric power;" Fig. 6B; ¶: 0093].
Yoneda does not specifically state:
“and determining, using a determination section (63) of the controller (60), possibility of causing a collision of the saddled vehicle (100) based on a surrounding environment information of the saddled vehicle (100);”
“terminate the first deceleration control according to a second operation, the second operation is an operation in which the rider operates the second operation unit (2R) to return the state to the reference state during the first deceleration control;”
“and execute a second deceleration control, to control the deceleration, based on determination results of the determination section (63) about the possibility of causing the collision, the control section executes the second deceleration at least one point in a period from the termination of the first deceleration control to an initiation of operating the first brake operation unit (11, 13) by the rider;”
“wherein the second operation unit (2R) is an accelerator grip that is rotatable in a first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction, and at least while the first deceleration control and the second deceleration control are being canceled, the accelerator grip generates a drive power to the saddled vehicle (100) when the rider rotates the accelerator grip in the first direction, and reduces the drive power when the rider rotates the accelerator grip in the second direction”
Or “and wherein the accelerator grip (2R), in the reference state, is at a rotational position where the drive power generated to the saddled vehicle (100) is minimized while the first deceleration control and the second deceleration control are canceled”
Guo teaches:
“and determining, using a determination section (63) of the controller (60), a possibility of causing a collision of the saddled vehicle (100) based on surrounding environment information of the saddled vehicle (100)” [Guo; "Two radars, a camera, a worm gear drive mechanism, an ABS brake mechanism and a weight measuring device are used. When the vehicle is running, the two distance measuring radars and cameras monitor the front of the motorcycle at any time. If there is an obstacle in front and the driver does not slow down and brake accordingly, the controller will respond immediately. According to the timely detection of the two distance measuring radars and cameras and the weight sensed by the weight sensor plus the weight of the frame and the size of the inertia force, the ABS brake mechanism is controlled to give the corresponding braking force to slow down the motorcycle to a safe speed. When approaching an obstacle, if the driver does not take corresponding action or is slow, the controller will immediately start the brake mechanism to stop according to the signals from the radar and camera, and lower the pitch rotation support mechanism to stabilize the vehicle body;" ¶: 0050];
“and execute a second deceleration control, to control the deceleration, based on determination results of the determination section (63) about the possibility of causing the collision, the control section executes the second deceleration at least one point in a period from the termination of the first deceleration control to an initiation of operating the first brake operation unit (11, 13) by the rider” [Guo; "Two radars, a camera, a worm gear drive mechanism, an ABS brake mechanism and a weight measuring device are used. When the vehicle is running, the two distance measuring radars and cameras monitor the front of the motorcycle at any time. If there is an obstacle in front and the driver does not slow down and brake accordingly, the controller will respond immediately. According to the timely detection of the two distance measuring radars and cameras and the weight sensed by the weight sensor plus the weight of the frame and the size of the inertia force, the ABS brake mechanism is controlled to give the corresponding braking force to slow down the motorcycle to a safe speed. When approaching an obstacle, if the driver does not take corresponding action or is slow, the controller will immediately start the brake mechanism to stop according to the signals from the radar and camera, and lower the pitch rotation support mechanism to stabilize the vehicle body;" ¶: 0050; See also: ¶: 0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling driving force of a motorcycle using an additional lever on a motorcycle steering as disclosed by Yoneda to incorporate the teachings regarding performing automated collision avoidance when the it is determined that the rider of the motorcycle does not decelerate appropriately as taught by Guo with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling driving force of a motorcycle that is more robust in its ability to reduce the occurrence of collisions as well as rollovers of a motorcycle [Guo; ¶: 0011, 0042].
Cominetti teaches: “terminate the first deceleration control according to a second operation, the second operation is an operation in which the rider operates the second operation unit (2R) to return the state to the reference state during the first deceleration control” [Cominetti; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cominetti discloses a rotatable accelerator grip, Fig. 2 for example, with which the driver of a motorcycle may control the torque output from the motorcycle's electric machine, 2 in Fig. 3. Furthermore, Cominetti discloses that the driver may decelerate the vehicle by operating the rotatable grip in the range from the neutral position, position N in Fig. 2, to the maximum deceleration position, position D in Fig. 2, wherein the deceleration is cancelled upon the rotation angle of the rotatable device reaching the neutral position; Fig. 2-4; ¶: 0022-0025];
“wherein the second operation unit (2R) is an accelerator grip that is rotatable in a first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction, and at least while the first deceleration control and the second deceleration control are being canceled, the accelerator grip generates a drive power to the saddled vehicle (100) when the rider rotates the accelerator grip in the first direction, and reduces the drive power when the rider rotates the accelerator grip in the second direction” [Cominetti; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cominetti discloses a rotatable accelerator grip with which the driver of a motorcycle may control the torque output from the motorcycle's electric machine. Cominetti discloses: "in this case, the value of the driving torque T varies according to the angular position α of the accelerator grip 7 and progressively increases with the increase of the angular position α of the accelerator grip 7." Cominetti further discloses: "According to the embodiment shown in FIG. 3, the control device 12 drives the electric machine 2 as a generator to absorb a mechanical torque T (i.e. performs a regenerative braking) when the accelerator grip 7 is in the neutral position N, and the control device 12 switches off the electric machine 2 when the accelerator grip 7 is in the deceleration position D; furthermore, the control device 12 progressively reduces (i.e. until the electric machine 2 is switched off) the mechanical torque T absorbed by the electric machine 2 operating as a generator to a zero value, as the accelerator grip 7 rotates from the neutral position N to the deceleration position D;" Fig. 2-4; ¶: 0021-0025];
“and wherein the accelerator grip (2R), in the reference state, is at a rotational position where the drive power generated to the saddled vehicle (100) is minimized while the first deceleration control and the second deceleration control are canceled” [Cominetti; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cominetti discloses: "According to the embodiment shown in FIG. 4, the control device 12 switches off the electric machine 2 when the accelerator grip 7 is in the neutral position N and the control device 12 drives the electric machine 2 as a generator for absorbing a mechanical torque T (i.e. performs a regenerative braking) when the accelerator grip 7 is between the neutral position N and the deceleration position D. In other words, the control device 12 switches off the electric machine 2 when the accelerator grip 7 is in the neutral position N so that the electric machine 2 does not generate nor absorb any mechanical torque and thus behaves as an inert rotating mass (“free-wheeling” condition); such an operating mode is used by the driver of the motorcycle 1 for more effectively exploiting the mechanical inertia owned by the motorcycle 1;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0023; See also: Fig. 2, 3; ¶: 0021, 0022, 0024, 0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling driving force of a motorcycle using an additional lever on a motorcycle steering as disclosed by Yoneda to incorporate the teachings regarding using a rotating actuator to control torque output of a motor as taught by Cominetti with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling driving force of a motorcycle that is more robust in its ability to operate the electric machine of the motorcycle as a free-wheel and therefore increasing efficiency of energy consumption of the motorcycle [Cominetti; ¶: 0006-0008].
Claim Objections/Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6-11 is/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. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666