DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference character “10” has been used to designate both an internal combustion engine and a motor. On page 5, the electric machine provided with the reference number 20 is recited to operate as an electric motor in reference to figures 1 and 2, an internal combustion engine is provided with the reference number 10. However, on page 8 in the description of the third plane PRX it is recited that the motor is assigned to the reference number 10, it is therefore unclear what the plane PRX is defined as.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “the electric machine” in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests correcting to “the electrical machine” as introduced in line 7 of claim 12.
Claim 12 line 17, claim 13 line 2, claim 14 line 2, and claim 20 line 2 each recite “the drive wheel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, the drive wheel should be “the at least one drive wheel” as is introduced in claim 12 line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the frame" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first transmission unit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the second transmission unit " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the transmission ratio developed by the second transmission…" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (“the transmission ratio”) in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the second gear transmission" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites “the electric machine” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests correcting to “the electrical machine” as introduced in line 7 of claim 12.
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.
Claim(s) 12, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 20120325571) and further in view of Honda (US 20120000720).
In regards to claim 12, Nomura discloses a saddle-ride motorcycle (fig. 8, 9, 4 hybrid saddle-type vehicle 1A) comprising: at least one drive wheel (WR) and a hybrid-type propulsion unit (120); wherein the propulsion unit comprises: a thermal combustion engine (E) including a drive shaft (150); a first transmission assembly (130) that mechanically connects the drive shaft (150) to the at least one drive wheel (WR); an electrical machine (63) configured to be driven independently or in combination with the thermal combustion engine (E); and a second transmission assembly (103) that mechanically connects a rotor (94) of the electric machine (63) to the at least one drive wheel (WR), wherein the second transmission assembly (103) separated from the first transmission assembly (130); wherein a support bracket (148, 110, 90) is configured to support the drive wheel (WR) in a rotatable manner, the electrical machine (63) being mounted on the support bracket (148, 110, 90); wherein a rotation axis of the rotor (94) of the electrical machine (63) is placed parallel with respect to a rotation axis of the drive wheel (WR) (see fig. 4, fig. 9). Nomura fails to disclose wherein a rotation axis of the rotor (94) of the electrical machine (63) is placed in an offset position with respect to, a rotation axis of the drive wheel.
Honda teaches a similar saddle ride vehicle to Nomura, wherein the rotation axis of a rotor of an electric machine placed in an offset position with respect to, a rotation axis of the drive wheel (see para. 0028 "electric motor is disposed at a position where a rotary saft of said electric motor is parallel to an axle of said rear wheel and is offset therefore in the width direction of the vehicle). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Nomura in view of Honda with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying Nomura to place the motor shaft offset as claimed, is a predictable packaging layout choice to enable a speed reduction mechanism selection and a motor with improve weight balance, takes up less space and is more versatile (see Honda para. 0028).
In regards to claim 16, Nomura and Honda in combination teach (see Nomura fig. 9, para. 0069-073) wherein the first transmission assembly (130) comprises a continuously variable transmission (CVT) (131) connecting the drive shaft (150) to a transmission shaft (136), wherein the CVT (131) comprises a drive pulley (151) and a driven pulley (137), respectively connected to the drive shaft (150) and the transmission shaft (136), the first transmission assembly (130) comprising a clutch (132) operatively interposed between the driven pulley (137) and the transmission shaft (136).
In regards to claim 17, Nomura as modified teaches wherein the first transmission assembly (130) comprises a gear transmission (133) that connects the drive shaft (150) to the at least one drive wheel (WR).
In regards to claim 18, Nomura as modified teaches wherein the second transmission (103) assembly comprises a second gear transmission (97, 98, 99, 102).
In regards to claim 19, Nomura as modified teaches wherein the first transmission assembly (130) and the second transmission assembly (103) are arranged on opposite sides with respect to a longitudinal plane of the Motorcycle (see fig.9).
In regards to claim 20, Nomura as modified teaches wherein the first transmission unit (130) develops a transmission ratio, between the drive shaft (150) and the drive wheel (WR), different from the transmission ratio developed by the second transmission unit (103) between the rotor of the electric machine (rotor 94) and the drive wheel (WR) (the second drive shaft is a speed reduction mechanism which develops a reduction ratio set by the gear sizes that is different from the engine to wheel transmission of the first unit).
In regards to claim 21, Nomura as modified teaches wherein the support bracket (148, 110, 90) defines a seat (90c) in which the second gear transmission (97, 98, 99, 102) is housed.
In regards to claim 22, Nomura teaches wherein the electric machine (63) is reversible (see para. 0075) and a battery (28b) on the motorcycle, but fails to teach wherein the electric machine (63) is connected to a battery of the motorcycle to charge the battery in a mode of operation of the electric machine. Honda teaches an electric straddles vehicle similar to Nomura wherein a high voltage battery (31) is supplying power to an electric motor (50). Honda also teaches a motor driver including a terminal connected with a power system harness supplying power to switching elements and a battery. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nomura further in view of Honda such that, when Nomura's electric machine (63) is operated in its generator/regenerative mode, the generated electrical energy is directed through the motor driver to charge the motorcycle battery because Hondas battery connected motor driver and battery supply design is known in the art for managing bidirectional power flow between an electric machine so as to reduce the need to have a separate charging power source, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 20120325571) and Honda (US 20120000720) as applied above, and further in view of Buell (US 20100270098).
In regards to claim 15, Nomura discloses a saddle ride vehicle with an exhaust muffler connected to the engine (muffler 8) but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the support bracket is configured to further support a muffler. Buell teaches a motorcycle including a swingarm that moveable mounts a rear wheel to a main frame (herein understood as a support bracket assembly) that defines a hollow portion through which exhaust gasses are passed before being expelled (a muffler) (see para. 0016, 0017, fig. 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nomura further in view of Buell such that the support bracket assembly (148/110/90) is configured to further support a muffler, as taught by Buell. Integrating and or mounting an exhaust silencing component on a rear wheel supporting member maintains exhaust routing while accommodating swing motion, improves compactness and component protect and can reduce interference between muffler and other rear mounted components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As recited in claim 13, the closest related prior art fails to teach or suggest wherein the rotation axis of the rotor is placed in a rear position with respect to the rotation axis of the drive wheel. Both Nomura and Honda teach the rotation axis of the rotor is placed aligned with or in front of the position with respect to the rotation axis of the drive wheel for an advantageous center of gravity. Likewise, the prior art alone or in combination fail to teach wherein a first place containing the rotation of axis of the drive wheel, a second plane containing the rotation axis of the rotor of the electrical machine and a third plane containing an axis around which the motor swings with respect to the frame are defined, wherein the first plane is completely comprised between the second plane and the third plane.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for a list of relevant prior art that teach similar motorcycle or saddle ride vehicles like that claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614