VEHICLE

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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed September 11th, 2026, has been entered. Amended Claims 1 and 3-7 are pending in the application. The §112(b) rejection of Claim 2 is moot as the claim is cancelled. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “battery case” is introduced with an indefinite article twice in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets both recitations of “battery case” to refer to the same structure. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2022/0111924 A1 to Aunkst et al., hereinafter Aunkst, in view of U.S. Pub. 2017/0282749 A1 to Yamamoto et al., hereinafter Yamamoto. Regarding Claim 1, Aunkst teaches a saddle-type electric vehicle comprising: a battery case (“battery housing” 54, Fig. 4, [0014]) mounted on a vehicle body frame (“frame” 14, mounting depicted in Fig. 2, [0012]) including; a head pipe (“steering head” 26, Figs. 1-2, [0012]), a pair of left and right main frames (Portion of frame at end of reference arrow of 14, or A1 in Diagram 1 below. Note Diagram 1 and annotated elements differ from those in the 06/16/2026 Office Action.) which extends rearward from the head pipe (14, depicted in Figs. 1-2), a pair of left and right seat rails (A2, Diagram 1); a battery unit (“battery assembly” 50, Fig. 2, [0013]) which is mounted inside the vehicle body frame (14, mounting depicted in Fig. 2) and supplies electric power to a power unit (“drive assembly” 46, Fig. 1, [0013]) for a traveling of the vehicle ([0013]); a seat (“straddle seat” 38, Figs. 1-2, [0012]) that is disposed above the pair of left and right seat rails (A2, Diagram 1) and on which an occupant is seated ([0012]); and a stay member (A3, Diagram 1) that receives a load applied to the seat (as being hinged on the frame 14, Fig. 1 and Diagram 1), wherein the battery unit (50) includes a battery cell (disposed in both “upper” 58 and “lower” 62 portions of housing 54, [0014]) and a battery case (54) accommodating the battery cell ([0014]), the battery case (54) has an upper protrusion portion (“upper portion” 58, Figs. 2 and 4, [0014]) protruding upward relative to the main frame (Figs. 2 and 4), a front portion of the seat (38) is disposed above the battery case (54, depicted in Figs. 1-2), and the stay member (A3, Diagram 1) is fixed to the upper protrusion portion (via connection to 14, Fig. 1 and Diagram 1). Aunkst does not teach a pair of left and right pivot frames, a down frame, or a lower frame. In the same field of endeavor as electrically powered motorcycles, Yamamoto teaches a pair of left and right pivot frames (17, Fig. 3, [0029]), a down frame (18, Fig. 3, [0029]), and a lower frame (19, Fig. 3, [0029]). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the electric motorcycle of Aunkst with the pivot, down, and lower frame components of Yamamoto, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize the increased frame rigidity/load absorption provided by a double cradle frame (Yamamoto – [0009-0010]) versus the frame of Aunkst, which uses the battery case as a stressed member and could cause unsafe cracking of the case and damage to the battery cells therein. The double cradle frame additionally provides beneficial grounding effects for static electricity generated within conductive members (Yamamoto – [0012]). Regarding Claim 3, Aunkst in view of Yamamoto further teaches wherein the stay member (Aunkst – A3, Diagram 1) is fixed to a base portion of a protrusion portion (“lower portion” 62, Fig. 4, [0014]) of the battery case (54, connection depicted in Diagram 1). Regarding Claim 4, Aunkst in view of Yamamoto further teaches a cover member (Aunkst – decorative faux fuel tank acting as a cover labeled A4, Diagram 1, additionally depicted in Fig, 2) that is disposed above the battery case (disposition depicted in Fig. 2) and in front of the stay member (A3) and abuts on the main frame (14, positioning and abutment depicted in Diagram 1, Fig. 2), wherein the cover member (A4) is fixed to the stay member (A3, connection depicted in Diagram 1). Regarding Claim 5, Aunkst in view of Yamamoto further teaches wherein the stay member (Aunkst – A3) includes a seat fixing portion (top side portion of A1 and upper side of 14, Diagram 1, Fig. 4) to which the seat is fixed near a portion fixed to the battery case with respect to a center of the stay member (portion where elements 38, A3, and 14/A1 are connected to each other). Regarding Claim 6, Aunkst in view of Yamamoto further teaches wherein the stay member (Aunkst – A3) includes a seat fixing portion (upper side of A1 and upper portion of frame 14) to which the seat (38) is fixed (connection depicted in Diagram 1), and a wiring support portion (“onboard charger” 150, Fig. 4, which is connected to seat stay via 58) configured to support a wiring (by supporting charging hardware, [0019]), and the wiring support portion (150) is disposed on an opposite side of the seat fixing portion (upper side of A1 and 14) with respect to a center of the stay member (150 disposed on underside of upper portion of 14, Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 7, Aunkst in view of Yamamoto further teaches wherein the battery case (Aunkst – 54) includes a strength member (“front side” 70f, Fig. 4, [0014]) at a center in the vehicle width direction (W, disposition depicted in Figs. 2, 4). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §102(a)(1) rejection of Claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 Eastern. 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. /Mitchell James Price/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611