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 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.
Claim(s) 1,2,9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tawarada (JP 2012207545).
Regarding claim 1, Tawarada discloses an installation structure of an accelerator position sensor (APS which is part of member 172, see Par. 0047) connected to an accelerator grip (grip on the opposite side of grip 22, see Par. 0047) via an accelerator cable (throttle cable, see Par. 0047) in a straddle-type vehicle (110), wherein
a seat (126) is supported from a lower side of the straddle-type vehicle by a pair of seat rails (115, see figure 7),
an air cleaner case (164) is installed below the pair of seat rails (see figures 6 and 8),
an outlet tube (163) extends forward from the air cleaner case (see figures 6 and 8),
an upper surface of the outlet tube is lower than an upper surface of the air cleaner case (see figures 6 and 8), and
the accelerator position sensor (APS which is part of member 172) is installed above the outlet tube between the pair of seat rails (see figures 6,8 and 9).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the accelerator position sensor (APS which is part of member 172, member 172 is a drive motor unit) is positioned inside both end positions of the outlet tube (163) in a vehicle width direction of the straddle-type vehicle (see figure 8).
Regarding claim 9, Tawarada discloses a straddle-type vehicle, comprising: a pair of seat rails (115); a seat (126) supported from a lower side of the straddle-type vehicle by the pair of seat rails (see figures 6 and 8; an air cleaner case (164) installed below the pair of seat rails; an outlet tube (163) extending forward from the air cleaner case (see figures 6 and 8); and an accelerator position sensor (APS, see Par. 0047, APS is part of member 172) connected to an accelerator grip via an accelerator cable (throttle cable, see Par. 0047) and installed above the outlet tube between the pair of seat rails (see figures 6 and 8), wherein an upper surface of the outlet tube is lower than an upper surface of the air cleaner case (see figures 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the accelerator position sensor (APS which is part of member 172, member 172 is a drive motor unit) is positioned inside both end positions of the outlet tube (163) in a vehicle width direction of the straddle-type vehicle (see figure 8).
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.
Claim(s) 3,4,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tawarada in view of Sasaki (US 2014/0032077).
Regarding claim 3,4 and 11, Tawarada discloses a winding member (see figure 9) where the throttle cable is wrapped (see figure 9); however Tawarada does not mention a pulley. However, Sasaki discloses a motorcycle with a pulley (33) where the throttle cable (34) is wound (see figure 2 in Sasaki). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tawarada by adding a pulley in order to wound the throttle cable, in order to allow the throttle cable to spin on the pulley freely when needed. Wherein the combination of Tawarada and Sasaki can be seen as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, wherein the combination of Tawarada and Sasaki can be modified to end with the axis of the pulley being directed in an upper-lower direction of the vehicle, in order to connect to the throttle cable coming from above on the hand grip on the handlebar.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 12-15 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the art of record did not include “the sensor element is covered with the pair of seat rails in a side view of the straddle-type vehicle, and the pulley is positioned below the pair of seat rails”.
Regarding claim 6 and 13, the art of record did not include “a rear suspension is installed in front of the air cleaner case, and the accelerator position sensor is positioned between a front surface of the air cleaner case and an upper end portion of the rear suspension”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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.
/MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/KEVIN HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights