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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-4,6,8,9,11,12 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,2,4,6,7,11-15 of copending Application No. 18913363 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the claimed subject matter has been anticipated by claim 1 of copending application 18/913363, to include the first detection device and restriction device.
Regarding claims 2,3,4, the claimed subject matter has been anticipated by claims 2,4 and 6 of copending application 18/913363, as they are similarly written and contain the same claimed subject matter.
Regarding claims 6,8,9,11,12 and 14 has been anticipated by claims 7,11,12,13,14 and 15 of copending application 18/913363 as they are similarly written and contain the same claimed subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-4,6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogahara (US 2022/0212746).
Regarding claim 1, Ogahara discloses a straddled vehicle (100) comprising:
a vehicle body frame (103);
a steering device (10) rotatably supported by the vehicle body frame (see figures 1-3);
a front wheel (101) that is steered by the steering device to thereby change a steering angle of the front wheel;
a first detection device (10a) that detects at least one of a steering angular velocity of the front wheel, an acceleration of the steering angle of the front wheel, and a steering torque of the front wheel (see Para. 0068-0071);
a restriction device (20) that is configured to restrict a change in the steering angle of the front wheel (see figures 3,9,10 and Para. 0033-0037); and
a controller (50) that causes the restriction device to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel when a value detected by the first detection device is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (see figures 3,5 and 7-10 and Para. 0033-0034, 0039-0041, 0044-0047 and 0055-0071).
Regarding claim 2, wherein when the value detected by the first detection device is smaller than the predetermined value, the controller causes the restriction device to allow the change in the steering angle of the front wheel (e.g., a counterclockwise roll direction is interpreted as being the same as the “direction opposite to the bank direction”) [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 3, 5 & 7-10 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0033-0034, 0036, 0039-0041, 0044-0047 & 0055-0071, the control unit 50 is structured to execute functions to cause the steering damper device 20 to variably generate the damping force working on the rotating action of the steering mechanism 10 (e.g., “allow the change in the steering angle of the front wheel”), at times including when the direction of the rotating action of the steering mechanism 10 corresponds to the counterclockwise roll direction (e.g., “in a direction opposite to the bank direction”), including when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is greater than zero OR when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is greater than the any non-zero non-maximum selectable value included by the diagram of Fig. 8 OR when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is equal to the any selectable value (from zero to the maximum value) included by the diagram of Fig. 8; note that the variably generated damping force working on the rotating action of the steering mechanism 10 simultaneously restricts the change in the steering of the front wheel AND allows the change in the steering angle of the front wheel, as “restrict the change…” and “allow the change…,” as claimed, are not mutually exclusive functions of the “controller” or the “restriction device” (e.g., as claimed: restricting change does not necessarily require total prevention of change, and allowing change does not necessarily require unrestricted change)].
Regarding claim 3, Ogahara teaches the straddled vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the controller causes the restriction device to allow the change in the steering angle of the front wheel when the straddled vehicle is traveling straight, and the value detected by the first detection device is equal to or greater than the predetermined value [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 3, 5 & 7-10 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0033-0034, 0036, 0039-0041, 0044-0047 & 0055-0071, the control unit 50 is structured to execute functions to cause the steering damper device 20 to variably generate the damping force working on the rotating action of the steering mechanism 10 (e.g., “allow the change in the steering angle of the front wheel”), at times including when a change amount of the steering torque is relatively low during travel of the straddle type vehicle 100 along a straight road (e.g., “when the straddled vehicle is traveling straight”), including when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is greater than zero OR when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is greater than the any non-zero non-maximum selectable value included by the diagram of Fig. 8 OR when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is equal to the any selectable value (from zero to the maximum value) included by the diagram of Fig. 8; note that the variably generated damping force working on the rotating action of the steering mechanism 10 simultaneously restricts the change in the steering of the front wheel AND allows the change in the steering angle of the front wheel, as “restrict the change…” and “allow the change…,” as claimed, are not mutually exclusive functions of the “controller” or the “restriction device” (e.g., as claimed: restricting change does not necessarily require total prevention of change, and allowing change does not necessarily require unrestricted change)], and the controller causes the restriction device to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when the straddled vehicle is turning on a curve, and the value detected by the first detection device is equal to or greater than the predetermined value [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 3, 5 & 7-10 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0033-0034, 0036, 0039-0041, 0044-0047 & 0055-0071, the control unit 50 is structured to execute functions to cause the steering damper device 20 to variably generate the damping force working on the rotating action of the steering mechanism 10 (e.g., “allow the change in the steering angle of the front wheel”), at times including when the direction of the rotating action of the steering mechanism 10 corresponds to the clockwise roll direction (e.g., “in the bank direction”), including when the change amount of the steering torque is relatively high during travel of the straddle type vehicle 100 along a curved road (e.g., “when the straddled vehicle is turning on a curve”), including when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is greater than zero OR when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is greater than the any non-zero non-maximum selectable value included by the diagram of Fig. 8 OR when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is equal to the any selectable value (from zero to the maximum value) included by the diagram of Fig. 8].
Regarding claim 4, Ogahara teaches the straddled vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising a speed detection device (e.g., 101a) that detects a speed of the straddled vehicle (as depicted by at least Fig. 9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0059-0060), wherein the controller causes the restriction device to allow the change in the steering angle of the front wheel when the speed detected by the speed detection device is lower than a speed threshold, and the value detected by the first detection device is equal to or greater than the predetermined value [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 3, 5 & 7-10 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0033-0034, 0036, 0039-0041, 0044-0047 & 0055-0071, the control unit 50 is structured to execute functions to cause the steering damper device 20 to variably generate the damping force working on the rotating action of the steering mechanism 10 (e.g., “allow the change in the steering angle of the front wheel”), at times including when an acquired traveling speed (e.g., “speed”) of the straddle type vehicle 100 is lower than a threshold (e.g., “speed threshold”) (e.g., “when the speed detected by the speed detection device is lower than a speed threshold”), including when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is greater than zero OR when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is greater than the any non-zero non-maximum selectable value included by the diagram of Fig. 8 OR when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is equal to the any selectable value (from zero to the maximum value) included by the diagram of Fig. 8; note that the variably generated damping force working on the rotating action of the steering mechanism 10 simultaneously restricts the change in the steering of the front wheel AND allows the change in the steering angle of the front wheel, as “restrict the change…” and “allow the change…,” as claimed, are not mutually exclusive functions of the “controller” or the “restriction device” (e.g., as claimed: restricting change does not necessarily require total prevention of change, and allowing change does not necessarily require unrestricted change)], and the controller causes the restriction device to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when the speed detected by the speed detection device is higher than the speed threshold, and the value detected by the first detection device is equal to or greater than the predetermined value [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 3, 5 & 7-10 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0033-0034, 0036, 0039-0041, 0044-0047 & 0055-0071, the control unit 50 is structured to execute functions to cause the steering damper device 20 to variably generate the damping force working on the rotating action of the steering mechanism 10 (e.g., “restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel”), at times including when the direction of the rotating action of the steering mechanism 10 corresponds to the clockwise roll direction (e.g., “in the bank direction”), including when the acquired traveling speed of the straddle type vehicle 100 is greater than the threshold (e.g., “when the speed detected by the speed detection device is equal to or greater than a speed threshold”), including when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is greater than zero OR when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is greater than the any non-zero non-maximum selectable value included by the diagram of Fig. 8 OR when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is equal to the any selectable value (from zero to the maximum value) included by the diagram of Fig. 8; because when the speed detected by the speed detection device is equal to the speed threshold and when the speed detected by the speed detection device is greater than the speed threshold are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
Regarding claim 6, Ogahara teaches the straddled vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined value is greater than an upper limit value of each of said at least one of the steering angular velocity of the front wheel, the acceleration of the steering angle of the front wheel, or the steering torque of the front wheel, with self-steering when the straddled vehicle turns on a curve [for example, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, and apparent from at least ¶ 0021-0022, 0033, 0060-0065, 0079, 0099 & 0102, such as when the “predetermined value” is greater than zero (e.g., “upper limit value”), where zero is an upper limit for negative values].
Regarding claim 8, Ogahara teaches the straddled vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first detection device detects rotation of the steering device with respect to the vehicle body frame (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Ogahara teaches the straddled vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first detection device is a torque sensor that detects twist of the steering device (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the steering device includes: front forks (11) that support the front wheel, a shaft member (such as the head tube or the shafts in the triple tree) coupled to the front forks, a handlebar (14) coupled to the shaft member, and the torque sensor detects a torque applied to the shaft member (see Para. 0069-0071).
Regarding claim 11, Ogahara teaches the straddled vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the restriction device restricts rotation of the steering device with respect to the vehicle body frame (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Ogahara teaches the straddled vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the restriction device includes a braking mechanism that applies a braking force for braking rotation of the steering device with respect to the vehicle body frame (see Para. 0035 and 0036 as the damper device 20 is able to have flow resistance, which acts a braking mechanism).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogahara.
Ogahara does not mention that the threshold speed is 40 KM/H, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the understanding that the threshold speed can be adjusted to any specific speed, wherein it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the threshold speed to be 40 KM/H, in order to fit a desired parameter which has been designed by the engineers, safety personnel and designers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogahara in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0008197 to Kamiya et al. (hereinafter: “Kamiya”).
With respect to claim 15, Ogahara teaches the straddled vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the restriction device is a steering damper that resists rotation of the steering device with respect to the vehicle body frame (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1), and the steering damper is an electrically controlled steering damper including a damping force adjustment device (21) that is configured to, according to control by the restriction device, adjust a hydraulic fluid (as depicted by at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0035-0036). Ogahara further teaches that the steering damper is alternatively a “cylinder type” and that the configuration of the steering damper is merely “given as an example” and is non-limiting (as discussed by at least ¶ 0037).
Kamiya teaches an analogous straddled vehicle (1) (apparent from at least Figs. 1-4 in view of at least ¶ 0025) including a restriction device (21) that is a steering damper that resists rotation of a steering device (e.g., 7) with respect to a vehicle body frame (2) (apparent from at least Figs. 1-4 in view of at least ¶ 0030), and the steering damper includes a cylinder tube (24), a piston (26) that moves by hydraulic pressure in the cylinder tube (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0030), a main shaft (27) integrated with the piston (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0030), at least a tip end of the main shaft protruding from one end of the cylinder tube (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0030), and a damping force adjustment device (e.g., 37, 38) that is configured to, according to control by the restriction device, adjust the hydraulic pressure (apparent from at least Figs. 1-4 in view of at least ¶ 0030-0035 & 0039-0043).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the straddled vehicle of Ogahara with the teachings of Kamiya such that the steering damper includes a cylinder tube, a piston that moves by hydraulic pressure in the cylinder tube, a main shaft integrated with the piston, at least a tip end of the main shaft protruding from one end of the cylinder tube, and a damping force adjustment device that is configured to, according to control by the restriction device, adjust the hydraulic pressure because, as discussed in detail above, Ogahara expressly indicates that the configuration of the steering damper is merely “given as an example” and is non-limiting and alternatively may be of a “cylinder type,” and Kamiya discloses a particular cylinder type steering damper that would be usable in place of the non-limiting steering damper of Ogahara. Therefore, such a modification would also amount to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7,13 and 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 claim 7, the art of record did not include “the controller determines that the detected value is greater than the predetermined value when a mean value of the steering angular velocity of the front wheel during a predetermined period is equal to or greater than the predetermined value, when a mean value of the acceleration of the steering angle of the front wheel during the predetermined period is equal to or greater than the predetermined value, or when a mean value of the steering torque of the front wheel during the predetermined period is equal to or greater than the predetermined value, and the predetermined period is 0.2 seconds or less”.
Regarding claim 13, the art of record did not include “wherein the braking mechanism includes: an actuator that generates the braking force, and a transmission mechanism that transmits the braking force from the actuator to the steering device”.
Regarding claim 15, the art of record did not include “the piston is installed inside the cylinder tube, the cylinder tube includes a first chamber and a second chamber partitioned by the piston, each of the first and second chambers has hydraulic oil stored therein, the steering damper has a first path that communicates the first chamber and the second chamber, the damping force adjustment device opens and closes the first path, the damping force adjustment device closes the first path when the restriction device restricts the change in the steering angle of the front wheel, and the damping force adjustment device opens the first path when the restriction device allows the change in the steering angle of the front wheel”.
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