DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites (emphasis added): “wherein the airbox includes a second air outlet”. However, a limitation of “a first air outlet” or “an air outlet” is not introduced in the claims. For the purposes of examination, claim 7 is interpreted as reciting -wherein the airbox includes an air outlet-.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites (emphasis added): “wherein a radiator fill neck may be mounted to the exterior of one of the left housing and the right housing”. The language “may be” makes it unclear if the limitation of claim 4 is required or not, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as reciting -wherein a radiator fill neck is mounted to the exterior of one of the left housing and the right housing -.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimomura et al. (US Pub No 2013/0192912).
In regard to claim 1, Shimomura discloses a two-wheeled vehicle (see Fig 1), comprising:
a frame (with at least vehicle body frame 11, see Figs 1 and 2 and Paragraph 0030);
a plurality of ground engaging members (front wheel 16 and rear wheel 24) for supporting the frame (see Fig 1 and Paragraph 0022); and
an airbox (67, see Figs 1-3 and detailed Fig 5; also see Paragraph 0021) including a left housing (92, Fig 5), a right housing (91, Fig 5) distinct from the left housing (Paragraph 0040: “air cleaner device 67 comprises the air cleaner case 93 composed of the case body 91 and the case cover 92”), and a vertical seam separating the left and right housings (defined between “installing portions” 92e and 91j, see Fig 5 and Paragraph 0042).
In regard to claim 3, Shimomura discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein at least one of the left housing and right housing has an internal rib structure (as can be seen in Figs 5 and 6, the left housing 92 contains a peripheral rib at installing portion 92e that fits into right housing 91).
In regard to claim 7, Shimomura discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the airbox includes an air outlet (78, see Fig 5 and Paragraphs 0033-0034).
In regard to claim 8, Shimomura discloses a two-wheeled vehicle (see Fig 1), comprising:
a frame (with at least vehicle body frame 11, see Figs 1 and 2 and Paragraph 0030);
a plurality of ground engaging members (front wheel 16 and rear wheel 24) for supporting the frame (see Fig 1 and Paragraph 0022); and
an airbox (67, see Figs 1-3 and detailed Fig 5; also see Paragraph 0021) including a first housing portion (92, Fig 5), a second housing portion (91, Fig 5) distinct from the first housing portion (Paragraph 0040: “air cleaner device 67 comprises the air cleaner case 93 composed of the case body 91 and the case cover 92”), and a filter (air cleaner element 101, see Figs 5 and 6 and Paragraph 0045) positioned within one of the first housing portion and the second housing portion (positioned within the second housing portion 91, see especially Fig 5 and the assembly step shown in Fig 10).
In regard to claim 9, Shimomura discloses the vehicle of claim 8, wherein the filter (101, Fig 5) is angled relative to the ground plane within the airbox (while the specific angle of the filter to the ground plane is not discussed, Examiner notes that ANY angle, even including 0° and 90° would meet the limitation of claim 9 as very broadly set forth; in other words, the filter inherently must be at some angle relative to the ground).
In regard to claim 10, Shimomura discloses the vehicle of claim 8, wherein the filter (101) is coupled to the airbox by a tray (element guard assembly 98, see Figs 5-7b; also see Paragraph 0044 (emphasis added: “The functions of the element guard assembly 98 reside in (1) preventing (extinguishing) backfire blowing back from a combustion chamber of the engine to the intake system side to protect the air cleaner element 101, (2) positioning the air cleaner element 101 in a fixed location to retain it”).
In regard to claim 11, Shimomura discloses the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the tray (98) is supported in the airbox by rails (the peripheral edges 131d on each side of the tray, that interact with housing 91, being considered to be “rails” as broadly claimed; see especially Figs 7A and 7B).
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 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura et al. (US Pub No 2013/0192912).
In regard to claim 2,
Shimomura discloses the vehicle of claim 1.
Shimomura does not positively disclose wherein the left housing is welded to the right housing at the vertical seam.
However, Shimomura does teach that it is known, in general, to assemble airbox components together via welding; see Paragraph 0055: “The element guard holder 131, the frame-shaped plate 132, and the element guard body 133 are integrated together by welding-formation, molding-formation, etc.”.
When assembling the components of Shimomura (specifically, in this case, the left and right housings), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use such a commonly known method, welding, especially as Shimomura itself teaches that such a method is known to be used when assembling airbox components.
In regard to claim 5,
Shimomura discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the airbox includes an inlet tube (72, see Fig 5 and Paragraph 0030) having an outlet opening (open to the first body-room 111, see Fig 5 and Paragraph 0041: “first body-room 111 communicating with the air intake port 72”) and an inlet opening (visible, facing the viewer in Fig 5).
Shimomura only fails to positively disclose wherein the inlet opening is smaller than the outlet opening.
However, simply determining a desired size of the inlet and outlet of the inlet tube would be easily accomplished through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 II) and thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Further, Examiner notes that as the only selectable options for the inlet opening, relative to the outlet opening, would be “bigger”, “smaller”, or “the same size”, selecting one option would be "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2141 III).
In regard to claim 6, Shimomura modified supra discloses the vehicle of claim 5, wherein the inlet tube (72) is angled between the inlet opening and the outlet opening (visible in Fig 5; also see Paragraph 0030 (emphasis added): “air-intake port 72 which extends between a main frame 71 (which is one of the components of the vehicle body frame 11) extending rearward and obliquely downward from the headpipe 12”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appears it would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and should the above noted 35 USC 112 rejection be overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ozaki (US Pub No 2017/0284350); especially Figs 5 and 6.
Ozaki et al. (US Pub No 2013/0220259); especially Figs 3 and 7.
Yoshida et al. (US Pub No 2008/0257160); especially Fig 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB M AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5790. The examiner can normally be reached Core Hours 10-6 M-F (First Fridays Off).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
