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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 04/16/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-6 and 9-15 have been amended; no claims have been added, canceled, or withdrawn. Claim 1-15 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objection to claim 5 has been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claim.
Applicant asserts on pages 7-10 of the remarks that it would be improper to maintain the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0212746 to Ogahara et al. because Ogahara fails to teach the “controller” of the last three lines of amended claim 1 (e.g., see page 7 of the remarks), with Applicant citing to ¶ 0048-0050 and Figs. 6 & 8 of Ogahara as evidence that “Ogahara’s restriction logic is entirely direction-agnostic with respect to the bank direction” (e.g., see pages 7-9 of the remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in detail by the prior art rejection of claim 1 by the preceding non-final Office Action mailed 01/21/2026, Ogahara teaches, for example, inclusion of a control unit 50 (e.g., “controller”) that is structured to execute functions to cause a steering damper device 20 (e.g., “restrictor”) to variably generate a damping force working on a rotating action of a steering mechanism 10 (e.g., “steering”) (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 a steering torque sensor 10a (e.g., “first detector”) 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 (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 of Ogahara).
At least ¶ 0040 & 0044 of Ogahara expressly discloses that the control unit 50 controls the damping force of the steering damper device 20 at times including when a vehicle 100 (e.g., “straddled vehicle”) is braking while turning, and at least ¶ 0033 of Ogahara expressly discloses that the steering damper device 20 generates the damping force on a rotating operation of the steering mechanism against sudden oscillation (e.g., kickback) of handlebars 14 of the steering mechanism 10, when an external force from a road surface during traveling works on a front wheel 1010, to reduce said oscillation.
Therefore, Ogahara fully teaches inclusion of “a controller that causes the restrictor to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when a value detected by the first detector is equal to or greater than a predetermined value,” as recited by amended independent claim 1, under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant further asserts on page 9 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image1.png
84
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
110
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
158
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “bank direction” as a “known and active input to the restriction logic” and “use,” by the controller, of “directional information to condition the restriction”; and “[the] claimed restriction applies only to steering angle changes that move the front wheel further in the direction of the bank [and] does not restriction steering angel changes in the opposite direction”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is unmistakable that claim 1, which is open-ended in scope, more broadly requires “a controller that causes the restrictor to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when a value detected by the first detector is equal to or greater than a predetermined value,” which does not require: input of the “bank direction,” as detected by the “posture detector,” by the “controller”; or use of the “bank direction” by the “controller”; “restriction logic” that receives or uses the “bank direction.” It is also unmistakable that “a controller that causes the restrictor to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when a value detected by the first detector is equal to or greater than a predetermined value” is silent to each of the “controller” and the “restrictor” with respect to change(s) in the steering angle of the front wheel in a direction opposite to the “bank direction.”
The examiner also cannot agree with Applicant’s assertion on page 9 of the remarks that Ogahara does not “determine the direction of the bank,” as ¶ 0043 & 0049 of Ogahara expressly discloses such an operation by the control unit 50.
The examiner further acknowledges (and agrees with) the admission by Applicant on page 10 of the remarks that it is known in the art for a steering angle of a front wheel to be in a banking direction while cornering.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 has been maintained and updated in order to sufficiently address the amendments to the claim.
Applicant’s remarks (e.g., see page 11) are nonresponsive to the provisional rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 11-15 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. Applicant’s comments on page 11 of the remarks ignore the nonstatutory double patenting rejections and instead appear to differently assert that at least claim 1 of the instant application is not identical to the claims of Konno (‘199). Therefore, because Applicant’s remarks are nonresponsive, Applicant’s remarks are unpersuasive. Thus, the nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been maintained and updated in order to sufficiently address the amendments to the claims of the instant application.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, as amended, now recites inclusion of “a steering rotatably supported by the vehicle body frame” [and] “a front wheel that is steered by the steering, to thereby change a steering angle of the steering” in lines 3-5; however, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s specification sufficiently disclose that the “straddled vehicle” includes a “front wheel” that is steered by “a steering rotatably supported by the vehicle body frame” and “to thereby change a steering angle of the steering,” as Applicant’s specification differently discloses “a steering device including front forks, a handlebar stem, and a handlebar,” but not a “steering,” where a “front wheel” is steered by the “steering device,” to thereby change a steering angle of the “front wheel” (e.g., see the Abstract). Thus, the amendments to claim 1 improperly introduce “new matter” to the claim, such that the claim now fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1, such that claims 2-15 also include the “new matter” recited by claim 1 and are also rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1, as amended, now introduces the term “steering” via “a steering rotatably supported by the vehicle body frame” in line 3, further using the term “steering” in lines 4-5 of claim 1 via “a front wheel that is steered by the steering, to thereby change a steering angle of the steering”; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “steering” as newly used by Applicant in this context (note that Applicant has used claim amendments filed 04/16/2026 to remove recitation of the term “detection device” in connection with each original instance of “steering” or “the steering” throughout the claims). Where Applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “steering” in claim 1 appears to be used by the claim to mean “a steering device including front forks, a handlebar stem, and a handlebar” while the accepted meaning is “the action of steering a vehicle.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Additionally, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “a steering rotatably supported by the vehicle body frame” in the context of the “straddled vehicle” of claim 1 in view of “steering” being a verb. Furthermore, it is unclear how “the action of steering a vehicle” would be “rotatably supported by the vehicle body frame” as is now required by claim 1, especially in view of Applicant’s specification and drawings differently disclosing that “a steering device including front forks, a handlebar stem, and a handlebar” is what is “rotatably supported by the vehicle body frame” by the “straddled vehicle” of the claims.
Claim 1, as amended, now introduces the term “first detector” via “a first detector 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” in lines 6-8; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “detector” as newly used by Applicant in this context (note that Applicant has used claim amendments filed 04/16/2026 to remove recitation of the term “detection device” in connection with each instance of “steering” or “the steering” throughout the claims). Where Applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “detector” in claim 1 appears to be used by the claim to mean “one or more sensors and/or a calculator” while the accepted meaning is “a device or instrument designed to detect the presence of a particular object or substance.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For example, it is unclear how a detector, if implemented by a sensor, would detect all 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,” as is alternatively included by the scope of claim 1, given that each 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” is a different detectable vehicle condition, especially since Applicant discloses a “first detection unit” including a steering angle velocity detection unit 82, an acceleration sensor 84, and a torque sensor 85, where the steering angle velocity detection unit 82 is either implemented by a sensor that detects steering angle velocity or a rotary encoder that detects a steering angle of a front wheel 3 and a differential calculator that calculates the steering angle velocity based on a temporal change in the steering angle.
Claim 1, as amended, now refers to “the steering angle of the front wheel” in each of line 7, lines 10-11, and lines 12-13; however, claim 1 fails to previously introduce “a steering angle of the front wheel,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by each instance of “the steering angle of the front wheel” in the claim. Claim 1 does, however, now previously introduce “a steering angle of the steering” in lines 4-5, and it is unclear whether each instance of “the steering angle of the front wheel” is intended to be the same as or different from the “steering angle of the steering” previously introduced in lines 4-5 of the claim. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1, such that claims 2-15 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are also rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim limitations “first detector,” “restrictor,” and “damping force adjustor” have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the results are inconclusive in each case. Thus, it is unclear whether each of these limitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Firstly, claim 1, as amended, now introduces the term “first detector” via “a first detector 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” in lines 6-8; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “detector” as newly used by Applicant in this context (note that Applicant has used claim amendments filed 04/16/2026 to remove recitation of the term “detection device” in connection with each instance of “steering” or “the steering” throughout the claims). Applicant discloses a “first detection unit” including a steering angle velocity detection unit 82, an acceleration sensor 84, and a torque sensor 85, where the steering angle velocity detection unit 82 is either implemented by a sensor that detects steering angle velocity or a rotary encoder that detects a steering angle of a front wheel 3 and a differential calculator that calculates the steering angle velocity based on a temporal change in the steering angle. Applicant fails to disclose a single sensor that can detect all 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,” as is alternatively included by the scope of claim 1, and a differential calculator is not a “detector,” as the disclosed calculator does not detect and instead calculates to determine. Therefore, it appears that Applicant is using “detector” in the case of “a first detector 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” according to its broadest meaning of “one that detects…” (e.g., “means for detecting…”).
Next, claim 1, as amended, now introduces the term “restrictor” via “a restrictor that is configured to restrict a change in the steering angle of the front wheel” in lines 10-11; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “restrictor” as newly used by Applicant in this context (note that Applicant has used claim amendments filed 04/16/2026 to remove recitation of the term “restriction device” throughout the claims), as it is unclear whether “restrictor” is actually a term in the English language, and Applicant’s specification does not define, or even use, the term “restrictor.” Therefore, it appears that Applicant is using “restrictor” in the case of “a restrictor that is configured to restrict a change in the steering angle of the front wheel” as a substitute for “one that restricts…” (e.g., “means for restricting…”).
Furthermore, claim 15, as amended, now introduces the term “adjustor” via “a damping force adjustor that is configured to, according to control by the restrictor, adjust a hydraulic fluid” in lines 9-10; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “adjustor” as newly used by Applicant in this context (note that Applicant has used claim amendments filed 04/16/2026 to remove recitation of the term “adjustment device” in claim 15), as it is unclear whether “adjustor” is actually a term in the English language, and Applicant’s specification does not define, or even use, the term “adjustor.” Therefore, it appears that Applicant is using “adjustor” in the case of “a damping force adjustor that is configured to, according to control by the restrictor, adjust a hydraulic fluid” as a substitute for “one that adjusts…” (e.g., “means for adjusting…”).
For the reasons provided above, the boundaries of these claim limitations are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1, such that claims 2-15 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are also rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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 (e.g., 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, to thereby change a steering angle of the steering (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3 in view of at least ¶ 0029); a first detector (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 detector [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 restrictor (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 restrictor to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when a value detected by the first detector 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 detector is equal to or greater than the predetermined value, the controller causes the restrictor 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 “restrictor” (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 detector is smaller than the predetermined value, the controller causes the restrictor 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 “restrictor” (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 restrictor 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 detector 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 “restrictor” (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 restrictor 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 detector 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 detector is equal to or greater than the predetermined value, the controller causes the restrictor 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 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 detector (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 restrictor to allow the change in the steering angle of the front wheel when the speed detected by the speed detector is lower than a speed threshold, and the value detected by the first detector 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 detector 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 “restrictor” (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 restrictor to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when the speed detected by the speed detector is higher than the speed threshold, and the value detected by the first detector 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 detector 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 detector is equal to the speed threshold and when the speed detected by the speed detector 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 detector detects rotation of the steering 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 detector is a torque sensor that detects twist of the steering (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 restrictor restricts rotation of the steering 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 restrictor includes a braking mechanism that applies a braking force for braking rotation of the steering 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 restrictor 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 restrictor 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 restrictor 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 restrictor 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 restrictor of the straddled vehicle of Ogahara from achieving the inventive purpose of the straddled vehicle of Ogahara to suppress an oscillation of the steering 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 restrictor 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 “restrictor” (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 restrictor 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 restrictor 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 restrictor 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 restrictor of the straddled vehicle of Ogahara from achieving the inventive purpose of the straddled vehicle of Ogahara to suppress an oscillation of the steering 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 restrictor is a steering damper that resists rotation of the steering 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 adjustor (21) that is configured to, according to control by the restrictor, 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 restrictor (21) that is a steering damper that resists rotation of a steering (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 adjustor (e.g., 37, 38) that is configured to, according to control by the restrictor, 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 adjustor that is configured to, according to control by the restrictor, 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 detector 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 restrictor to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when a value detected by the first detector is equal to or greater than a predetermined value” (emphasis added).
Ogahara teaches a straddled vehicle comprising: a vehicle body frame; a steering rotatably supported by the vehicle body frame; a front wheel that is steered by the steering, to thereby change a steering angle of the steering; a first detector 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 detector that detects a bank direction of the straddled vehicle; a restrictor that is configured to restrict a change in the steering angle of the front wheel; and a controller that causes the restrictor to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when a value detected by the first detector 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 detector that detects a bank direction of the straddled vehicle, and such that the controller causes the restrictor to restrict the change in the steering angle of the front wheel in the bank direction when the value detected by the first detector 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 detector for reasons including to vary control of the restrictor, 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights