Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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.
Claims 14-21, and 23-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111902334 A ("Nakashima") in view of EP 3539855 A1 ("Nishimura").
Claim 14: Nakashima teaches a straddled vehicle (1) comprising: a body frame (10) that includes a head pipe (15) supporting a steering device (11) (Figs. 1 and 2); a wire harness (60, 165d) that includes a main line (60), at least a portion of which is laid along the body frame, and a branch line (165d) branched from the main line (Fig. 4; “The wiring harness 165d of the accessory socket 165 merges with the main wiring harness 60 and is connected to the ECU 39 via the main wiring harness 60” para. 96, lines 1-2); and a vehicle controller (39 ECU) that is connected to the wire harness (Fig. 4); wherein the main line includes a first electric line (continuation electric line going through of main line 60) having one end connected to a first connector (front of vehicle, part of where main line 60 follows towards front of vehicle) and another end connected to a second connector (39c) and a second electric line (165d) having one end connected to a third connector (part of 165d that follows along first electric line to front of vehicle) and another end connected to a fourth connector (socket 165a connecting to connecting port 165b) (Figs. 4 and 5), the branch line includes a branch electric line (165d) branched from an intermediate portion of the first electric line (Fig. 4) and having a terminal (39 connected to mainline 60 from 60a and 60b) connected to the vehicle controller, and the fourth connector (165a, 165b) is disposed at a position more rearward than the head pipe (Fig. 4 is in regards to the area around seat 13 of Fig. 1) and the third connector is disposed at a position more forward than the fourth connector (third connector not shown but 165d follows in the forward direction in Fig. 4).
Although, Nakashima shows the wire harness lines of 60 and 165d going towards the front of the vehicle, the first and third connector are not shown at the front of the vehicle, However, Nishimura in a similar field of art teaches a first connector (48) and a third connector (49, 50) (Fig. 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Nakashima with the features of Nishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Nishimura teaches the wire harness connecting towards the front of the vehicle is able to power components such as the ECU, headlights and etc (col. 12, lines 21-30) and that the wire harness is able to branch into multiple cables towards different connectors at the front of the vehicle (Fig. 12; col. 13, lines 2-6).
Claim 15: Nakashima teaches the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Nakashima further teaches the straddled vehicle further comprising: a storage box (25) that is supported by the body frame and disposed at a position more rearward than the head pipe (Fig. 1); and an occupant seat (13) that is disposed above the storage box (Fig. 1); wherein the fourth connector (165a, 165b) is disposed below the occupant seat (Figs. 3-5).
Claim 16: Nakashima teaches the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Nakashima further teaches the straddled vehicle wherein the fourth connector (165b) is disposed in the storage box (25) (Figs. 3-5).
Claim 17: Nakashima teaches the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Nakashima further teaches the straddled vehicle wherein the fourth connector (165a) is disposed adjacent to the storage box (25) (Figs. 3-5).
Claim 18: Nakashima teaches the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Nakashima further teaches the straddled vehicle wherein the fourth connector (165) is configured to be connectable to a connector provided in an optional device that is configured to be disposed in the storage box ("An accessory socket 165 (power socket) is provided inside the storage box 25, which can supply power to other equipment (accessories) that are not the automatic two-wheeled vehicle 1. Other devices mentioned above include portable electronic devices such as smartphones” Para. 83, lines 1-4; optional devices being the accessories).
Claim 19: Nakashima teaches the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. Nakashima further teaches the straddled vehicle wherein the second connector (39c) is configured to be connectable to a connector provided in the optional device (Para. 83, lines 1-4; optional devices being the accessories, “The wiring harness 165d of the accessory socket 165 merges with the main wiring harness 60 and is connected to the ECU 39 via the main wiring harness 60” Para. 96, lines 1-2, the line of 165 merging with 60 to be able to connect to 39, which is connected to second connector 39c).
Claim 20: Nakashima teaches the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. Nakashima further teaches the straddled vehicle wherein the second electric line (165d) is electrically open when the optional device is not provided in the straddled vehicle ("An accessory socket 165 (power socket) is provided inside the storage box 25, which can supply power to other equipment (accessories) that are not the automatic two-wheeled vehicle 1. Other devices mentioned above include portable electronic devices such as smartphones” Para. 83, lines 1-4; optional devices being the accessories).
Claim 21: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Nakashima does not teach the straddled vehicle further comprising: a footboard that is supported by the body frame, wherein a portion of the main line is disposed lower than an upper surface of the footboard as seen in a vehicle side view.
However, Nishimura in a similar field of art teaches the straddled vehicle further comprising: a footboard (33) that is supported by the body frame (lower frame 13 of body frame 2) (Fig. 1), wherein a portion of the main line (71) is disposed lower than an upper surface of the footboard as seen in a vehicle side view (Fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Nakashima with the features of Nishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Nishimura teaches a fuel tank positioned beneath floorboards (33) with a wiring harness routed along the lower frame under the floorboards. This arrangement prevents interference with the fuel tank and uses the upper floorboards for protection
Claim 23: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Nakashima does not teach the straddled vehicle further comprising: an exterior cover that is supported by the body frame; wherein the exterior cover includes a head pipe storage portion including a front cover which is at least in part disposed in front of the head pipe and a back cover which is at least in part disposed in rear of the head pipe, the head pipe storage portion forms an inner space in which the head pipe is accommodated between the front cover and the back cover, and the third connector is disposed in the inner space of the head pipe storage portion.
However, Nishimura in a similar field of art teaches the straddled vehicle further comprising: an exterior cover (4) that is supported by the body frame (2) (Fig. 1); wherein the exterior cover includes a head pipe storage portion (22) including a front cover (27) which is at least in part disposed in front of the head pipe (11) and a back cover (28) which is at least in part disposed in rear of the head pipe (Fig. 3), the head pipe storage portion forms an inner space (S1, S2) in which the head pipe is accommodated between the front cover and the back cover (Figs. 10 and 11), and the third connector (61) is disposed in the inner space of the head pipe storage portion (Fig. 10).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Nakashima with the features of Nishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Nishimura teaches protecting electrical or connective components and to combine them to achieve a compact layout and shield the third connector.
Claim 24: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 23 as noted above. Nishimura further teaches the straddled vehicle wherein the third connector (49, 50; Fig. 12) includes a connector including a terminal (61 is the main switch connected to ecu 44; col. 13, lines 2-6) that is connected to a relay disposed in the inner space of the head pipe storage portion (Fig. 9). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Nishimura teaches the wire harness connecting towards the front of the vehicle is able to power components such as the ECU, headlights and etc (col. 12, lines 21-30) and that the wire harness is able to branch into multiple cables towards different connectors at the front of the vehicle (Fig. 12; col. 13, lines 2-6).
Claim 25: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Nakashima does not teach the straddled vehicle wherein the third connector includes a connector including a housing and a plurality of terminals held by the housing and the plurality of terminals are connected to each other inside the housing
However, Nishimura in a similar field of art teaches the straddled vehicle wherein the third connector includes a connector including a housing and a plurality of terminals held by the housing and the plurality of terminals are connected to each other inside the housing ("The harness 71 is connected to the main switch 61. The harness 71 is connected to the flasher lights 30R and 30L. The harness 71 is connected to the meter panel 25 and the headlight 26. The harness 71 is connected to the engine control unit 44." Col. 12, lines 25-30; the harness being indirectly connected to the other components and the housing being the cover of 27 and 28 of the head portion 22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Nakashima with the features of Nishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Nishimura a wire harness connected to multiple parts through a consolidated housing structure, which has the benefit of reducing wiring complexity, saving physical space within the head portion, and improving the organization and protection of electrical connections in a straddled vehicle.
Claim 26: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. Nishimura further teaches a main switch (61) for turning on power.
The claim differs only in that the main switch is connected to the first connector of the first electric line rather than the third connector (61) at the headpipe of the second electrical line (71). This is a rearrangement of parts, where the main switch would have been connected to the first electric line. Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of the In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) With the rearrangement of the first and second electric line the device would still work for its intended purpose.
Claim 27: Nakashima teaches the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. Nakashima further teaches the straddled vehicle wherein the fourth connector is configured to be connectable to a connector provided in an optional device that is configured to be disposed in the storage box ("An accessory socket 165 (power socket) is provided in the receiving box 25, which is capable of supplying power to other devices (accessories) that are not automatic two-wheeled vehicle 1. Said other devices are portable electronic devices such as intelligent mobile phones." Para. 83, lines 1-4; optional devices being the accessories).
Claim 28: Nakashima teaches the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Nakashima further teaches the straddled vehicle wherein the fourth connector is configured to be connectable to a connector provided in an optional device that is configured to be disposed in the storage box ("An accessory socket 165 (power socket) is provided in the receiving box 25, which is capable of supplying power to other devices (accessories) that are not automatic two-wheeled vehicle 1. Said other devices are portable electronic devices such as intelligent mobile phones." Para. 83, lines 1-4; optional devices being the accessories).
Claim 29: Nakashima teaches the limitations of claim 19 as noted above. Nakashima further teaches the straddled vehicle wherein the second electric line (165d) is electrically open when the optional device is not provided in the straddled vehicle (since optional device can be accessories like phones, it can be unplugged).
Claim 30: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Nakashima does not teach the straddled vehicle further comprising: a footboard that is supported by the body frame, wherein a portion of the main line is disposed lower than an upper surface of the footboard as seen in a vehicle side view.
However, Nishimura in a similar field of art teaches the straddled vehicle further comprising: a footboard (33) that is supported by the body frame (lower frame 13 of body frame 2) (Fig. 1), wherein a portion of the main line (71) is disposed lower than an upper surface of the footboard as seen in a vehicle side view (Fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Nakashima with the features of Nishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Nishimura teaches a fuel tank positioned beneath floorboards (33) with a wiring harness routed along the lower frame under the floorboards. This arrangement prevents interference with the fuel tank and uses the upper floorboards for protection
Claim 31: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. Nakashima does not teach the straddled vehicle further comprising: a footboard that is supported by the body frame, wherein a portion of the main line is disposed lower than an upper surface of the footboard as seen in a vehicle side view.
However, Nishimura in a similar field of art teaches the straddled vehicle further comprising: a footboard (33) that is supported by the body frame (lower frame 13 of body frame 2) (Fig. 1), wherein a portion of the main line (71) is disposed lower than an upper surface of the footboard as seen in a vehicle side view (Fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Nakashima with the features of Nishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Nishimura teaches a fuel tank positioned beneath floorboards (33) with a wiring harness routed along the lower frame under the floorboards. This arrangement prevents interference with the fuel tank and uses the upper floorboards for protection
Claim 32: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Nakashima does not teach the straddled vehicle further comprising: a footboard that is supported by the body frame, wherein a portion of the main line is disposed lower than an upper surface of the footboard as seen in a vehicle side view.
However, Nishimura in a similar field of art teaches the straddled vehicle further comprising: a footboard (33) that is supported by the body frame (lower frame 13 of body frame 2) (Fig. 1), wherein a portion of the main line (71) is disposed lower than an upper surface of the footboard as seen in a vehicle side view (Fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Nakashima with the features of Nishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Nishimura teaches a fuel tank positioned beneath floorboards (33) with a wiring harness routed along the lower frame under the floorboards. This arrangement prevents interference with the fuel tank and uses the upper floorboards for protection
Claim 33: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. Nakashima does not teach the straddled vehicle further comprising: a footboard that is supported by the body frame, wherein a portion of the main line is disposed lower than an upper surface of the footboard as seen in a vehicle side view.
However, Nishimura in a similar field of art teaches the straddled vehicle further comprising: a footboard (33) that is supported by the body frame (lower frame 13 of body frame 2) (Fig. 1), wherein a portion of the main line (71) is disposed lower than an upper surface of the footboard as seen in a vehicle side view (Fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Nakashima with the features of Nishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Nishimura teaches a fuel tank positioned beneath floorboards (33) with a wiring harness routed along the lower frame under the floorboards. This arrangement prevents interference with the fuel tank and uses the upper floorboards for protection
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111902334 A ("Nakashima") in view of EP 3539855 A1 ("Nishimura") and further in view of US 20170113634 A1 ("Tanaka").
Claim 22: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. The prior art does not teach the straddled vehicle wherein the footboard includes a pair of right and left footrests and a center tunnel that is provided between the pair of footrests, the center tunnel (42) protrudes higher than the pair of footrests and extends in a vehicle front-rear direction, and the main line is in part disposed inside the center tunnel.
However, Tanaka in a similar field of art teaches the straddled vehicle wherein the footboard includes a pair of right and left footrests (31) and a center tunnel that is provided between the pair of footrests, the center tunnel (42) protrudes higher than the pair of footrests and extends in a vehicle front-rear direction (Fig. 1), Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the cited prior art with the features of Tanaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Tanaka teaches the prominent center contour allows the driver to grip the vehicle better with their legs, improving control during turns.
The claim differs only in that the main line is in part disposed inside the center tunnel. This is a rearrangement of parts, where the main line (71) of Nishimura would be disposed in the center tunnel instead of beneath just the floor boards. Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of the In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) With the rearrangement of moving the main line into the center tunnel. the device would still work for its intended purpose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights