DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 6 July 2026. Claims 8-12, 23, and 25-28 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 8-12, 23, and 25-28 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.
The claims have been amended to require vertical channels and vertical movement from an entry portion of the docking station to an exit portion of the docking station, which is not adequately supported by the originally-filed disclosure. Vertical arrangements are discussed at ¶¶72-77 of the specification as filed and illustrated in corresponding Figs. 10A-10H. None of the disclosed vertical embodiments involve vertical channels or vertical movement “from an entry portion of the docking station to an exit portion of the docking station” as recited in claims 8 and 9; instead, all embodiments include horizontal and curved sections.
More importantly, persons having ordinary skill in the art, reading Applicant’s disclosure, would not recognize Applicant to have been in possession of the claimed vertical scooter docking. The disclosure states at ¶72 that “the electric scooters 210 can operate such that the wheels provide opposing forces to one another, increasing a level of friction and grip between the wheels and the channels. In such cases, the docking station, via the rails, can facilitate the movement of the scooter 210 up or down vertically within a station. In such cases, the scooter 210 controls the torque applied to the wheels (via internal wheel motors) to adjust the grip to the inside of a rail, channel, or other component.” Looking at Figs. 10A-H, it is implausible that the torque and friction of the wheels would be sufficient to allow the scooters to overcome gravity to climb the vertical portions of the rails, because there is no mechanism for pressing the wheels against the rails to provide friction, and gravity would be working to separate the wheels from the rails in the vertical section. Similarly, any side-to-side movement/tilting of the scooter would also reduce contact and friction between the wheel and rail.
Furthermore, the disclosed concept of “the wheels provide opposing forces to one another, increasing a level of friction and grip between the wheels” is also inapplicable around the curved portion of the rail, where gravity would change the angle of the scooter relative to the rails, thus separating at least one wheel from the rail. Thus, the disclosed basis for the scooters being able to move vertically would fail at the beginning of the vertical ascent. Rotation of the scooter around the curve would also be blocked by the handlebars of the scooter hitting the upper rail in all illustrated embodiments. There is also no disclosed mechanism for holding the scooters in place in their storage positions in the vertical section, and the weight of the scooter would cause the scooter to slide/roll back down the rail, particularly if there are vibrations or other disturbances to the dock, such as from new scooters entering the rails.
In short, even assuming, arguendo, that moving and storing scooters on vertical rails could be accomplished by some means, significant engineering challenges would remain beyond the disclosed strategy of relying on the grip and opposing force between the scooter wheels and the rail and controlling the torque of the wheels. Thus, the vertical dock embodiments are not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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.
Claim(s) 23 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchanan (US 5,941,397) in view of Fowler (US 2008/0231228).
Regarding claim 23, Buchanan discloses a docking station for electric scooters, comprising: one or more channels configured to receive one or more wheels of multiple electric scooters and an inner wheel track of the multiple channels configured to be gripped by the one or more wheels of the multiple electric scooters (Fig. 1, vertical channels with inner wheel track gripped by wheel; col. 1, lines 4-6). Buchanan does not appear to explicitly disclose charging rails configured to charge the multiple electric scooters via the charging rail within the one or more vertical channels; Fowler discloses these limitations (¶116). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Buchanan and Fowler, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of automatically charging scooters docked at the station. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Buchanan discloses a scooter docking station having rails for the scooter wheels. Fowler teaches that the rails of the docking station can charge the vehicle through the wheels. The teachings of Fowler are directly applicable to Buchanan in the same way, so that Buchanan’s docking station would similarly use the rails to charge the scooters.
Regarding claim 28, Buchanan discloses that the one or more vertical channels form a vertical column within which the electric scooters are stored (Fig. 1, vehicle stored within vertical column formed by channel).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchanan in view of Fowler, Wang (US 2019/0263281) and Marzocca (US 9,511,655).
Regarding claim 25, Buchanan does not appear to explicitly disclose a cleansing area positioned between an entry portion of the docking station and an exit portion of the docking station. However, Buchanan teaches a scooter dock (Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 4-6), Wang teaches a station that docks multiple scooters (any of Figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, or 14), and Marzocca discloses a cleansing area positioned between the entry portion of the docking station and the exit portion of the docking station (col. 6, line 62 to col. 7, line 2). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Buchanan, Fowler, Wang, and Marzocca, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of cleaning and storing multiple scooters for later use. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Buchanan discloses a scooter dock. Wang teaches arranging docks in a docking station to dock multiple scooters. Marzocca teaches that the docking station should have a cleaning area for cleaning the scooters. The teachings of Wang and Marzocca are directly applicable to Buchanan in the same way, so that Buchanan’s dock would similarly be used in a multi-scooter docking station with a cleaning area, in order to store and clean multiple scooters for later use.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchanan in view of Fowler and He (US 2010/0013183).
Regarding claim 27, Buchanan does not appear to explicitly disclose that the one or more vertical channels include at least two distinct channels configured to receive two front wheels of the multiple electric scooters. However, scooters with two front wheels are known, as taught by He (Abs), and Buchanan teaches vertical channels corresponding to the wheels of the scooters (Fig. 1), which would involve a channel for each of the front wheels. It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Buchanan, Fowler, and He, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, or the routine substitution of an element for a known alternative, to achieve the predictable results of docking different types of scooters. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Buchanan discloses docking scooters at a station having rails for receiving the wheels of a scooter. He teaches that the scooter is a three-wheel scooter having two front wheels. The teachings of He are directly applicable to Buchanan in the same way, so that Buchanan would similarly dock three-wheel scooters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claims have adequate written description support at ¶¶72-77 of the Specification and Figs. 10A-H, especially ¶72 which discloses that opposing wheel forces and torque control are the mechanism for achieve vertical movement inside the docking station. Remarks 6. The examiner disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, persons having ordinary skill in the art would not “immediately understand that the inventor possessed this subject matter” from the cited disclosure, but rather the opposite. Reading the Specification and looking at Figs. 10A-H, it would be immediately apparent to persons having ordinary skill in the art that ‘opposing wheel forces and torque control’ would not allow vertical movement inside the docking station, for the reasons discussed in the rejection. Simply stating a mechanism does not demonstrate possession when the stated mechanism does not, without more, credibly allow the claimed invention to function in the claimed manner.
Applicant asserts that “the written description requirement does not demand an embodiment showing exclusively straight vertical channels with no horizontal or curved sections at all”. Remarks 6. The examiner disagrees. The claims themselves pose that requirement, by reciting “self-propelled movement of the multiple electric scooters within the multiple vertical channels of the docking station in a vertical direction from an entry portion of the docking station to an exit portion of the docking station” (emphasis added). Movement in a vertical direction from an entry portion to an exit portion means moving from the entry portion to the exit portion in a vertical direction; as written, the claim does not permit the alternatives Applicant asserts. For example, the claims do not recite “vertical self-propelled movement as part of their path from entry portions toward storage and exit portions” (emphasis added), as Applicant suggests – that is a different sentence with a different meaning. And again, the original disclosure does not demonstrate Applicant’s possession of “the scooters’ ability to move vertically within the station using the disclosed opposing-force and torque-control mechanism”.
Applicant asserts that the examiner has improperly imported enablement considerations into written description analysis. Remarks 6. The examiner disagrees. Written description addresses whether Applicant has provided sufficient disclosure to demonstrate to persons having ordinary skill in the art that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The issue here is exactly that the disclosure fails to demonstrate possession, because the mere assertion of opposing wheel forces and torque control allowing vertical movement is insufficient due to all of the reasons the disclosed arrangements would not function according to the stated mechanism as written, as discussed in the rejection. Certainly, the claimed invention may be neither enabled nor adequately described, but the insufficiency of the disclosure for demonstrating possession is, itself, a clear issue.
Applicant asserts that “the specification need not provide a complete manufacturing blueprint or solve every edge-case physics problem to satisfy § 112(a)”. Remarks 7. The problem is that the specification has not provided even the bare minimum to demonstrate that they were in possession of an invention that works as stated. Being able to maintain contact between the tires and the rails, the handlebars being able to clear the rails as the scooter moves around the bend, damping vibrations, etc. are not “edge-case physics problems”, but basic issues that have to be addressed for the invention to even function as written, and Applicant has provided no explanations for any of it.
Notably, Applicant does not address the technical issues raised in the § 112 rejection, or otherwise provide any evidence or reasoning showing that the invention could, in fact, operate as described. Instead, Applicant simply states that all of those issues are “subjects of routine optimization well within the skill” of persons having ordinary skill in the art. What we are left with is a situation where the claims have been amended to recite limitations that are allegedly novel and non-obvious, but without sufficient disclosure to demonstrate to persons having ordinary skill in the art that Applicant actually had possession of the claimed embodiment. Adequate written description is required in any case, but it is especially egregious to hand-wave all of the details required for the very limitations that Applicant alleges distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding the § 103 rejections of claim 23, Applicant asserts that Buchanan fails to disclose a docking station for electric scooters, charging rails, self-propelled movement, torque-controlled wheel grip for vertical travel, or dispensing functionality. Remarks 7. The examiner disagrees. Buchanan’s col. 1, lines 4-6 explicitly disclose a scooter docking station, contrary to Applicant’s assertion; Buchanan is not relied upon the teach the charging rails, which are instead taught by Fowler; and claim 23 does not require self-propelled movement, torque-controlled wheel grip for vertical travel, or dispensing functionality, so it is irrelevant whether Buchanan teaches these limitations. Similarly, Applicant asserts that “None [of the prior art] suggests using the scooters' own wheel motors and opposing-force grip to achieve self-propelled vertical movement inside vertical channels of a compact docking station that automatically charges and dispenses scooters.” Remarks 8. But claim 23 does not recite these limitations.
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 ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 ET.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
19 September 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights