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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/23/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, no copy of foreign patent document “JP 004997047 B” has been provided by Applicant, and “JP 004997047 B” does not appear to be a valid foreign patent document number.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 refers to “the direction opposite to the bank direction” in line 5, which should be amended to instead recite --[[the]] a direction opposite to the bank direction-- for proper antecedent basis, as none of claims 1, 4, and 5 previously introduces “a direction opposite to the bank direction.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “steering device” in claims 1-15, “first detection device” in claims 1-11 and 13-15, “posture detection device” in claims 1-15, “restriction device” in claims 1-13, “speed detection device” in line 6, and “damping force adjustment device” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0212746 to Ogahara et al. (hereinafter: “Ogahara”).
With respect to claim 1, Ogahara teaches a straddled vehicle (100) (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3 & 9) comprising: a vehicle body frame (e.g., 103); a steering device (10) rotatably supported by the vehicle body frame (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3 in view of at least ¶ 0025-0029); a front wheel (101) that is steered by the steering device, to thereby change a steering angle of the front wheel (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3 in view of at least ¶ 0029); a first detection device (e.g., 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 (apparent from at least Figs. 9 & 10 in view of at least ¶ 0068-0071; because detects a steering angular velocity of the front wheel, detects an acceleration of the steering angle of the front wheel, and detects a steering torque of the front wheel are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives); a posture detection device [e.g., 30d (or 30)] that detects a bank direction (e.g., a clockwise roll direction is interpreted as being the same as the “bank direction”) of the straddled vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 9 in view of at least ¶ 0043, 0049 & 0068); a restriction device (e.g., 20) that is configured to restrict a change in the steering angle of the front wheel [as depicted by at least Figs. 3, 9 & 10 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0033-0037, the steering damper device 20 is structured to execute functions to variably generate a damping force working on a rotating action of the steering mechanism 10 (e.g., “restrict a change in the steering angle of the front wheel”)]; and a controller (e.g., 50) that causes the restriction device to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when a value detected by the first detection device is equal to or greater than a 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 a direction of the rotating action of the steering mechanism 10 corresponds to the clockwise roll direction (e.g., “in the bank direction”), including when a value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is greater than zero (e.g., “predetermined value”) OR when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is greater than any non-zero non-maximum selectable value (e.g., “predetermined value”) included by the diagram of Fig. 8 OR when the value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is equal to any selectable value (from zero to the maximum value) (e.g., “predetermined value”) included by the diagram of Fig. 8].
With respect to claim 2, Ogahara teaches the straddled vehicle according to claim 1, wherein when the value detected by the first detection device is equal to or greater than the predetermined value, the controller causes the restriction device to allow the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in a direction opposite to the bank direction (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)].
With respect to claim 3, Ogahara teaches the straddled vehicle according to claim 1, 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 [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 value detected by the steering torque sensor 10a is smaller than the any non-zero non-maximum selectable 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)].
With respect to claim 4, 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].
With respect to claim 5, Ogahara teaches the straddled vehicle according to claim 4, wherein when the straddled vehicle is turning on the curve, and the value detected by the first detection device is equal to or greater than the predetermined value, the controller causes the restriction device to allow the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the direction opposite to the bank direction (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 the direction opposite to the bank direction”), including when the change amount of the steering torque is relatively high during travel of the straddle type vehicle 100 along the curved road, 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].
With respect to claim 6, 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].
With respect to claim 7, 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].
With respect to claim 8, Ogahara teaches the straddled vehicle according to claim 7, wherein 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 the self-steering depends on an angular velocity of a bank angle of the straddled vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, and apparent from at least Fig. 8 in view of at least ¶ 0050-0052).
With respect to claim 11, 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).
With respect to claim 12, 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).
With respect to claim 13, 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).
With respect to claim 14, 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 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
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.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogahara alone.
With respect to claim 9, Ogahara teaches the straddled vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the controller causes the restriction device to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when an angular velocity of a bank angle of the straddled vehicle is detected (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 2, in view of at least Fig. 9 and at least ¶ 0043 & 0049); however, Ogahara appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the controller causes the restriction device to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when the angular velocity of the bank angle of the straddled vehicle is 50 deg/s [note that Ogahara is silent to any particular value(s) of the roll angular velocity].
Even so, 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, if even necessary, such that the controller causes the restriction device to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when the angular velocity of the bank angle of the straddled vehicle is 50 deg/s, as well when the angular velocity of the bank angle of the straddled vehicle is different from 50 deg/s, as other because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.05), because causing the restriction device to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when the angular velocity of the bank angle of the straddled vehicle is one of a range of values (including 50 deg/s) would not be reasonably expected by one having ordinary skill in the art to prevent the controller and/or the restriction device of the straddled vehicle of Ogahara from achieving the inventive purpose of the straddled vehicle of Ogahara to suppress an oscillation of the steering device during operation of the straddled vehicle, and because and there is no evidence of record indicating that the angular velocity of the bank angle of the straddled vehicle is 50 deg/s is critical, as Applicant’s originally-filed specification differently discloses that the angular velocity of the bank angle of the straddled vehicle is 50 deg/s is a preference.
With respect to claim 10, 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 an angular velocity of a bank angle of the straddled vehicle is detected [as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 2, in view of at least Fig. 9 and at least ¶ 0043 & 0049; 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)]; however, Ogahara appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the controller causes the restriction device to allow the change in the steering angle of the front wheel when the angular velocity of the bank angle of the straddled vehicle is 10 deg/s [note that Ogahara is silent to any particular value(s) of the roll angular velocity].
Even so, 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, if even necessary, such that the controller causes the restriction device to allow the change in the steering angle of the front wheel when the angular velocity of the bank angle of the straddled vehicle is 10 deg/s, as well when the angular velocity of the bank angle of the straddled vehicle is different from 10 deg/s, as other because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (e.g., see: MPEP 2144.05), because causing the restriction device to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when the angular velocity of the bank angle of the straddled vehicle is one of a range of values (including 10 deg/s) would not be reasonably expected by one having ordinary skill in the art to prevent the controller and/or the restriction device of the straddled vehicle of Ogahara from achieving the inventive purpose of the straddled vehicle of Ogahara to suppress an oscillation of the steering device during operation of the straddled vehicle, and because and there is no evidence of record indicating that the angular velocity of the bank angle of the straddled vehicle is 10 deg/s is critical, as Applicant’s originally-filed specification differently discloses that the angular velocity of the bank angle of the straddled vehicle is 10 deg/s is a preference.
Claim 15 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).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 11-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2-4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 of copending Application No. 18/913,199 (published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0128781 to Konno) [hereinafter: “Konno (‘199)”] in view of Ogahara.
Claim 1 of the instant application is identical to claim 1 of Konno (‘199), except claim 1 of the instant application (1) includes an additional comma in line 4 which has no further limiting effect, (2) further requires inclusion of “a posture detection device that detects a bank direction of the straddled vehicle” in line 9, and (3) further includes the condition “in the bank direction” in “a controller that causes the restriction device to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when a value detected by the first detection device is equal to or greater than a predetermined value” (emphasis added).
Ogahara teaches a straddled vehicle comprising: a vehicle body frame; a steering device rotatably supported by the vehicle body frame; a front wheel that is steered by the steering device, to thereby change a steering angle of the front wheel; a first detection device 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; a posture detection device that detects a bank direction of the straddled vehicle; a restriction device that is configured to restrict a change in the steering angle of the front wheel; and a controller that causes the restriction device to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when a value detected by the first detection device is equal to or greater than a predetermined value [as discussed in detail above with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogahara].
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 claim 1 of the Konno (‘199) with the teachings of Ogahara to further include a posture detection device that detects a bank direction of the straddled vehicle, and such that the controller causes the restriction device to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when the value detected by the first detection device is equal to or greater than the predetermined value, to beneficially enable detection of behavior (including the bank direction) of the straddled vehicle via an inertial measurement unit (IMU) including the posture detection device for reasons including to vary control of the restriction device, via the controller, based on the detected behavior (including the bank direction) of the straddled vehicle.
Claim 3 of the instant application, which depends from claim 1, is identical to claim 2 of Konno (‘199), which depends from claim 1 of Konno (‘199).
Claim 4 of the instant application, which depends from claim 1, is identical to claim 3 of Konno (‘199), which depends from claim 1 of Konno (‘199).
Claim 6 of the instant application, which depends from claim 1, is identical to claim 4 of Konno (‘199), which depends from claim 1 of Konno (‘199).
Claim 7 of the instant application, which depends from claim 1, is identical to claim 6 of Konno (‘199), which depends from claim 1 of Konno (‘199).
Claim 11 of the instant application, which depends from claim 1, is identical to claim 8 of Konno (‘199), which depends from claim 1 of Konno (‘199).
Claim 12 of the instant application, which depends from claim 1, is identical to claim 9 of Konno (‘199), which depends from claim 1 of Konno (‘199).
Claim 13 of the instant application, which depends from claim 1, is identical to claim 11 of Konno (‘199), which depends from claim 1 of Konno (‘199).
Claim 14 of the instant application, which depends from claim 1, is identical to claim 12 of Konno (‘199), which depends from claim 1 of Konno (‘199).
Claim 15 of the instant application, which depends from claim 1, is identical to claim 14 of Konno (‘199), which depends from claim 1 of Konno (‘199).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747