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 .
This communication is in response to application No. 18/871,868, filed on 12/5/2024. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 6-13 and 15-17 have been rejected as follows. Claims 2-5 and 14 are objected to.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0032], “upper side portion 9B” should read “upper side portion 9A” and “lower side portion 9A” should read “lower side portion 9B”;
Paragraph [0033], “upper side portion 9B” should read “upper side portion 9A” and “lower side portion 9A” should read “lower side portion 9B”.
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 11-13 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. The language of claim 11, lines 3-4 “so that the lower side portions are wider than the upper side portions” is inaccurate and misdescriptive. According to applicant’s Figures 1-2, the lower side portions (9B) are inclined in a V-shape where most of the lower side portion is narrower, not wider, than the upper side portions (9A). It is only at the uppermost part of the lower side portions (9B), where the connecting portions (9C) are located, that this wider relationship exists. Suggested claim language to use could be “so that an uppermost part of the lower side portions are wider than the upper side portions” or “so that the connecting portions are wider than the upper side portions”. Claims 12-13 are also rejected by virtue of dependency as they depend from claim 11 that is rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokokawa et al (EP 3 546 328 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yokokawa et al discloses a motorcycle (1, Fig. 1; para. [0021]) comprising a front steered wheel (3, Fig. 1), a rear driving wheel (4, Fig. 1), a saddle (9, Fig. 1) adapted to receive a rider (Fig. 12), a handlebar (5, Fig. 1) configured to steer said front wheel (3, Fig. 1), a fairing (7, Fig. 1-2) adapted to cover at least part of an engine (10, Fig. 1); said fairing (7, Fig. 1-2) comprising a bottom portion (7c, Fig. 1-2) to which two side portions (7b, Fig. 2) are connected, in turn comprising an upper side portion (7b above front wheel axle, Fig. 2; see annotated Figure 1 below) and a lower side portion (7b below front wheel axle, Fig. 2); each of said lower side portions (7b below axle) comprising an outer surface (Fig. 1-2) shaped so that first section profiles (see annotated Figure 1 below) according to transversal planes orthogonal to a midplane (Fig. 2) of the motorcycle (1, Fig. 2) are linear (sides 7b are straight lines); said lower side portions (7b below front wheel axle, Fig. 2) being shaped so that, observing the motorcycle (1, Fig. 2) from the front, they form a V-shaped profile (see annotated Figure 1 below) with the bottom portion (7c, Fig. 2).
Figure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
701
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Yokokawa et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein said first linear profiles (sides 7b are straight lines) are parallel to each other. Each side 7b has a depth of straight lines as seen from the formation of a V-shaped front profile (see annotated Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Yokokawa et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein, when the motorcycle (1, Fig. 2) is in a condition of maximum lateral inclination, said first linear profiles (sides 7b), of the side towards which the motorcycle (1, Fig. 2) is inclined, are substantially parallel to the ground. When the motorcycle (1, Fig. 2) leans into a turn at a maximum lean angle, the flat linear lower sides (7b, either side of V-shaped profile; see annotated Figure 1 above) would be inclined substantially parallel to the ground.
Regarding claim 15, Yokokawa et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein said lower side portion (7b below front wheel axle, Fig. 2; see annotated Figure 1 above) is devoid of openings. See also Fig. 1 of Yokokawa et al, where a portion of lower side 7b has no openings.
Regarding claim 16, Yokokawa et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and further discloses the motorcycle (1, Fig. 2) which, apart from the front and rear wheels (3, 4, Fig. 1-2), does not have elements adapted to touch or rub against the ground in the condition of maximum lateral inclination of the motorcycle when the motorcycle is in motion. This would intrinsically occur since the motorcycle of Yokokawa et al would not function in motion having elements scraping the ground.
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.
Claims 6-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokokawa et al (EP 3 546 328 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yokokawa et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, but Yokokawa et al does not explicitly disclose wherein said first linear profiles are inclined with respect to the midplane by an angle comprised between 25 and 35 degrees.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the first linear profiles (V-shaped straight sides) to be inclined with respect to the midplane (see annotated Figure 1 above) by an angle comprised between 25 and 35 degrees with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yokokawa et al would not operate differently with first linear profiles (V-shaped straight sides) inclined with respect to the midplane by an angle between the claimed angle range and since Yokokawa et al discloses a device that is substantially V-shaped in transversal planes orthogonal to a midplane (Fig. 2) of the motorcycle (1, Fig. 2) the device would function appropriately having an angle between 25 and 35 degrees.
Regarding claim 7, Yokokawa et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 6 above, and further discloses wherein said fairing (7, Fig. 2) comprises a windshield portion (7a, Fig. 2) adapted to frontally cover the handlebar (5, Fig. 2 & 12).
Regarding claim 8, Yokokawa et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 7 above, and further discloses wherein a maximum width (width at connecting portion, see annotated Figure 1 above) of said lower side portions (7b below front wheel axle, Fig. 2; see annotated Figure 1 above) is equal to or less than a maximum width (width of 7a near handlebars 5, Fig. 2) of the windshield portion (7a, Fig. 2; see annotated Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, Yokokawa et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 6 above, and further discloses wherein the first linear profiles are inclined with respect to the midplane by an angle equal to 30 degrees (angle of 30 degrees is included in the range of 25-35 degrees as discussed above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 14 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.
Claims 11-13 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:
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 2 is the fairing geometry defined to generate a ground effect venturi. In particular, the lower side portions’ combination of the outer surface having first section profiles according to transversal planes orthogonal to a midplane of the motorcycle that are linear combined with second section profiles that are convex as defined by the inclusion of the limitations “second section profiles according to longitudinal planes, incident to said midplane of the motorcycle and perpendicular to the outer surface, are convex”. The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claims 11 (as best understood) and 14 is the fairing geometry defined to generate a ground effect venturi. In particular, the claimed fairing shape of lower side portions that widen progressively from the bottom upwards until the V profile ends and, after a step at connecting portions, the profile of the fairing narrows at the upper side portions, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of Yokokawa et al (EP 3 546 328 A1) does not disclose a second convex profile on the outer surface or the shaped side portions as claimed. Applicant’s specially shaped lower side portions form a V-shaped front view profile and have an outer surface that is linear in the transverse direction and convex in the longitudinal direction which generates a ground effect when the motorcycle corners at a maximum lateral inclination. This geometry creates a venturi low pressure region near the ground adding downward force and improving grip thus making it possible to increase speed along a curve. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 3-5 contain allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency as they depend from claim 2. Claims 12-13 contain allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency as they depend from claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morelli (US Patent No. 3,971,452) in Fig. 3, Barg (US Patent No. 5,853,216) in Fig. 3-4, Seki et al (US Patent No. 7,370,902) in Fig. 5, Nakata et al (US Patent No. 7,850,221) in Fig. 8 and Yasuhara et al (US 2012/0061989) in Fig. 2 disclose aerodynamic motorcycle fairing structures that form a V-shaped front view profile and reduces the force necessary for inclining a vehicle body at the time of cornering.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights