DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 4 recites “vibration detector” and “vibration”, which should be changed to “a vibration detector” and “a vibration”, respectively; and
line 14 recites “…suppress vibration…”, which should be changed to “…suppress the vibration…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: line 3 recites “includes timer”, which should be changed to “includes a timer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: lines 3 – 4 recite “to suppress the vibration if vibration is applied”, which should be changed to “to suppress the vibration if the vibration is applied”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the new claim limitation in line 4, “vibration detector”, is not disclosed in the originally filed specification. Although, “a handle rotation angle detection means (vibration detection means) 32” is disclosed in the originally filed specification, e.g., see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0015, there does not appear to be an express support for “a vibration detector.” Noted as being related, although not currently claimed, if claim language were as originally filed – “vibration detection means” under a 112(f) interpretation the term would lack written description under 112(a) for failing to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In addition, the claim limitation would be considered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claimed subject matter, “vibration detector”, is considered new matter.
Regarding claims 2 – 4, they are also rejected as depending from rejected parent claim 1.
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, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102005047144 A1 to Wagner et al (hereinafter Wagner).
Regarding claim 1, Wagner discloses [a saddle-ride vehicle] (paragraph 0009; complete assembly shown in Annotated Fig. 1, below) comprising [a vehicle body (VR, 4, H, 12, A, 14) including:
a handle (H) that steers a steering wheel (VR)] (Ann. Fig. 1);
[vibration detector (12) that detects vibration of the handle] (Annotated Fig. 1, below; paragraph 0002 discloses the vibration of the handle as “handlebar flutter”: handlebar flutter (a natural oscillation of [element 4]…excited by [the saddle-ride vehicle]); the natural oscillation is understood as the vibration; paragraph 0012, [the vibration detector] 12 for detecting [the vibration] of [element 4]);
[a steering actuator (A) that applies torque in a steering direction to a suspension apparatus (4) supporting a steering wheel (VR); and
a control apparatus (14) that controls the steering actuator, wherein the control apparatus:
performs control to apply torque to the suspension apparatus to suppress the vibration, based on the vibration detected by the vibration detector] (Ann. Fig. 1; paragraph 0002, [the vibration of the handle] is typically prevented or counteracted through the appropriate tuning of [torque] (specifically, the [torque] of the steering system about the steering axis); paragraph 0013, [the control apparatus]...which, in response to signals from [the vibration detector], actuates [the steering actuator] in order to counteract [the vibration] occurring in [the suspension apparatus]; paragraph 0015, Depending on the detected [vibration] of [the suspension apparatus], [the control apparatus] generates an actuation signal... used to control...[the steering actuator], and [the control apparatus] can automatically generate [torque] that counteract[s] [the vibrations] occurring in [the suspension apparatus]); and
[applies torque to suppress vibration of the handle if a rotational angular velocity of the handle detected by the vibration detector is greater than a predetermined value] (paragraph 0006 discloses the control apparatus is configured to suppress vibration of the handle until the steering angle velocity…falls below a predetermined threshold which is understood as applying vibration suppression if the rotational angular velocity is greater than the predetermined threshold, which is understood as the predetermined value; paragraph 0007, [a torque] is automatically and actively generated, resulting in a reduction of [the rotational angular velocity] which is understood as applying torque to suppress vibration of the handle).
PNG
media_image1.png
633
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wagner further discloses the control apparatus:
[calculates a frequency of vibration of the handle; and
applies torque to suppress the vibration of the handle if the frequency of vibration of the handle is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold] (paragraph 0006, see claim 1 above regarding paragraph 0006; paragraph 0007, the vibration suppression applied is a torque; paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 4, Wagner further discloses the control apparatus:
[continuously performs control to apply torque to suppress the vibration if vibration is applied to the handle; and
ends control for applying torque to suppress the vibration if the vibration of the handle is no longer detected] (paragraph 0006, at least until a predetermined steering angle speed threshold value and/or oscillation value (amplitude value) of the natural oscillation is undershot).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of US 2012/0083957 A1 to Aoki et al (hereinafter Aoki), and further in view of US 2015/0314781 A1 to Klews et al (hereinafter Klews).
Regarding claim 3, Wagner further discloses in paragraph 0006: an associated evaluation unit designed to monitor steering angle deflections within a predefined time window (by evaluating [a] steering angle signal via [the control apparatus], and thus would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art as the control apparatus including a timer (e.g., the associated evaluation unit) that measures a vibration suppression time (e.g., the predefined time window) that is time elapsed after the control apparatus starts vibration suppression control. However, Wagner does not appear to explicitly disclose that the control apparatus includes the timer.
Aoki teaches that it was old and well known in the art of saddle-ride control apparatus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a control apparatus (108) of a saddle-ride vehicle (10) to include a timer (Aoki - Figs. 1, 6; paragraphs 0053, 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of saddle-ride control apparatus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control apparatus of Wagner to include the timer as taught by Aoki such that the timer of Aoki measures a vibration suppression time that is time elapsed after the control apparatus of Wagner starts vibration suppression control. Doing so would allow the Wagner/Aoki device to accurately determine durations of vibration suppression control providing for improved performance of the vibration suppression control. Furthermore, doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results. The modified device of Wagner/Aoki, however, does not seem to explicitly disclose reducing the threshold based on the vibration suppression time.
Klews teaches that it was old and well known in the art of saddle-ride vehicles (1) comprising a control apparatus (5) (Klews - paragraph 0019) wherein the control apparatus reduces a predetermined threshold based on a vehicle state variable (Klews - paragraph 0012, the predetermined threshold is disclosed as "a boundary value").
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the Wagner/Aoki device to include the teachings of Klews to advantageously provide better adaptation to driving states with precise, sensitive regulation as disclosed by Klews in paragraph 0010, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler Ferguson whose telephone number is (571) 272-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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 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 Ferguson/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights