DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on August 7, 2026. Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are pending and examined below. Claim 7 has been canceled. Claims 15-16 have been added. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that Tsukada (US 2019/0300012 A1) fails to teach “acquiring the riding object information is based on information on detectability of the environment sensor”, asserting that Tsukada merely receives sensing results rather than evaluating of a sensor’s ability or capacity to detect. The examiner does not agree. First, claim 1 does not recite an evaluation of a sensor’s ability or capacity to detect. Second, Tsukada teaches that the riding object information is based on the detectability of the environment sensor because the riding information is derived from the sensing results produced by the environment sensors (¶ 52). For example, the sensing results depend on the line-of-sight obtained from the sensors (¶ 23, 43), which reflects the sensor’s detectability.
Regarding to claim 9, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., inter-vehicle distance of Tsukada is fundamentally different from the position of ground detection) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 1-4, 6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsukada et al., US 2019/0300012 A1.
As to claim 1, Tsukada teaches a controller for a straddle-type vehicle, the controller configured to (abstract and Figs. 1-2):
acquire riding object information as information on a riding object as an object, which is other than a rider of the straddle-type vehicle and rides on the straddle-type vehicle, on the basis of output of an environment information detection system that includes at least one environment sensor mounted to the straddle-type vehicle and detects information on a surrounding object as an object located around the straddle-type vehicle, wherein acquiring the riding object information based on information on detectability of the environment sensor (¶ 30-32, 41, 52 and Figs. 1-2); and
execute assistance operation for the rider based on the riding object information (¶ 30-31, 34, 43, 47; e.g. generating braking, prompting the rider to adjust posture).
As to claim 2, Tsukada teaches the riding object information includes information on presence or absence of the riding object (¶ 41, 43, 46).
As to claim 3, Tsukada teaches the riding object information includes information on a position of the riding object (¶ 43, 43, 46).
As to claim 4, Tsukada teaches the riding object information includes information on a type of the riding object (¶ 40 and Figs. 1-2; e.g. forces applied on different components of the vehicle).
As to claim 6, Tsukada teaches the riding object information includes information on weight of the riding object (¶ 40 and Figs. 1-2).
As to claim 8, Tsukada teaches the controller acquires the riding object information based on information on a distance and/or a direction from the environment sensor to the riding object (¶ 30-31 and Figs. 1-2).
As to claim 9, Tsukada teaches the controller acquires the riding object information based on information on a position of ground detected by the environment sensor (¶ 36, 61; e.g. inter-vehicle distance).
As to claim 10, Tsukada teaches the assistance operation includes notification operation to the rider (¶ 34).
As to claim 11, Tsukada teaches the assistance operation includes behavior control operation of the straddle-type vehicle (¶ 31, 34, 43 and Figs. 4-5).
As to claim 12, Tsukada teaches the controller acquires positional relationship information between the straddle-type vehicle and the surrounding object based on the output of the environment information detection system, and the controller executes the assistance operation based on the positional relationship information in addition to the riding object information (¶ 30-31, 36, 61; e.g. inter-vehicle distance).
As to claim 13, Tsukada teaches the controller acquires the positional relationship information with the surrounding object located in an area that is set according to the riding object information of an area around the straddle-type vehicle (¶ 30-31, 36, 61; e.g. an obstacle around the vehicle).
Claim 14 is rejected based on the same rationale used in claim 1 above.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada et al., US 2019/0300012 A1 in view of Griffith et al., US 2020/0398923 A1.
As to claim 5, Tsukada teaches riding object information such as weight of the object (¶ 40). However, Tsukada does not specifically disclose the riding object information includes the size of the riding object. Griffith, by contrast, teaches obtaining information regarding the size of a riding object (¶ 96, 108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Griffith’s teaching of riding object size information into Tsukada’s teaching, as doing so would provide more complete riding object characteristics and thereby improving control of the rider’s operation.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada et al., US 2019/0300012 A1 in view of Chen, DE 102020206882 A1 (see English translation).
As to claim 15, Tsukada teaches environment sensor as discussed in claim 1 above. Tsukada does not specifically teach determining information on detectability of the environment sensor includes determining whether at least a part of a field of view of the environment sensor cannot be detected based on an output of the environment information detection system. Chen, in contrast, expressly teaches that at least part of a sensor’s field of view maybe undetectable (see page 5 ¶ 7 of the English translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s teaching into Tsukada’s environment sensor to enable detection of sensor blind spots and thereby improve evaluation of the surrounding environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Cheung whose telephone number is (571) 272-6705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Christian Chace, can be reached on (571) 272-4190.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceedings is assigned are as follows:
(571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”)
(571) 273-6705 (Draft Communications)
/MARY CHEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights