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 .
Restriction Election
Applicant elected Species C (Figure 3-5) Fig. 3-5 which is drawn to an electric scooter docking station that supports an electric scooter via one or more channels or rails. In order to facilitate removal of the scooter from the station, the rails include rail openings, which enable the scooter to move up and out of the station. The rails are configured to receive charging port/guiding pegs located on the base of the scooter. The Applicant also identified claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12-16, 17, and 21 to be directed to species C. Examiner disagrees with Applicants election of claims directed to Species C and will examine the claims that are directed to the elected Species C (Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, and 21). All other claims that encompass other species will be constructively withdrawn.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 3/18/2022. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, and 21 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/2022 and 8/29/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner note on Double Patenting rejections
The following DP rejections are stated below. Item to-item matching is abbreviated to identify the claims in the pending application that are analogous to the conflicting application. The Examiner has underlined the claim limitation that is not explicitly taught in the conflicting application.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,10, 11, 17, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,3-5,8-9 of U.S. Patent 11279250 . Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
App# 17/698562 U.S. Patent 11279250
2. (New) A docking station that dispenses electric scooters, the docking station comprising: an upper channel configured to receive a front wheel of an electric scooter; and a lower channel configured to receive a rear wheel of the electric scooter, wherein the upper channel is positioned with respect to the lower channel in a configuration that stores electric scooters within the docking station at an angle with respect to the ground.
3. (New) The docking station of claim 2, further comprising: a charging rail that contacts a charging port of the electric scooter when the scooter is docked within the apparatus and provides charge to an electric battery of the electric scooter.
5. (New) The docking station of claim 3, wherein the charging port is part of a guiding peg of the electric scooter that is configured to maintain a position of the electric scooter proximate to the charging rail when the guiding peg is disposed within the upper channel or the lower channel.
6. (New) The docking station of claim 3, wherein the charging rail is part of the upper channel of the docking station.
7. (New) The docking station of claim 3, wherein the charging rail is part of the lower channel of the docking station.
10. (New) The docking station of claim 2, further comprising: a Z-shaped exit section that facilitates the dispensing of the electric scooter out of the docking station, including a Z-shaped ramp that causes the scooter to move from an angled docked position to an exit position.
11. (New) The docking station of claim 2, further comprising: a cleansing section that cleanses handlebars of the electric scooter when the electric scooter is docked within the docking station.
17. (New) A docking station that dispenses electric scooters, the docking station comprising: a channel configured to receive a front wheel of an electric scooter; and a charging rail that contacts a charging port of the electric scooter when the scooter is docked within the apparatus and provides charge to an electric battery of the electric scooter.
21. (New) The docking station of claim 17, wherein the channel is positioned to store electric scooters within the docking station at an angle with respect to the ground, the docking station further comprising: a Z-shaped exit section having an Z-shaped ramp that causes the scooter to move from an angled docked position to an exit position.
1. A docking station that dispenses electric scooters, the docking station comprising: an upper channel configured to receive a front wheel of an electric scooter; a lower channel configured to receive a rear wheel of the electric scooter, wherein the upper channel is positioned with respect to the lower channel in a configuration that stores electric scooters within the docking station at an angle with respect to a ground upon which the docking station sits; and a charging rail that contacts a charging port of the electric scooter when the electric scooter is docked within the docking station and provides charge to an electric battery of the electric scooter.
3. The docking station of claim 1, wherein the charging port is a part of a guiding peg of the electric scooter that is configured to maintain a position of the electric scooter proximate to the charging rail when the guiding peg is disposed within the upper channel or the lower channel.
4. The docking station of claim 1, wherein the charging rail is a part of the upper channel of the docking station.
5. The docking station of claim 1, wherein the charging rail is a part of the lower channel of the docking station.
8. The docking station of claim 1, further comprising: a Z-shaped exit section that facilitates dispensing of the electric scooter out of the docking station, including a Z-shaped ramp that causes the electric scooter to move from an angled docked position to an exit position.
9. The docking station of claim 1, further comprising: a cleansing section that cleanses handlebars of the electric scooter when the electric scooter is docked within the docking station.
1. A docking station that dispenses electric scooters, the docking station comprising: an upper channel configured to receive a front wheel of an electric scooter; a lower channel configured to receive a rear wheel of the electric scooter, wherein the upper channel is positioned with respect to the lower channel in a configuration that stores electric scooters within the docking station at an angle with respect to a ground upon which the docking station sits; and a charging rail that contacts a charging port of the electric scooter when the electric scooter is docked within the docking station and provides charge to an electric battery of the electric scooter.
8. The docking station of claim 1, further comprising: a Z-shaped exit section that facilitates dispensing of the electric scooter out of the docking station, including a Z-shaped ramp that causes the electric scooter to move from an angled docked position to an exit position.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 3 and 17 recites “the apparatus” lacks antecedent basis.
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 20190263281).
As to claim 2, Wang discloses a docking station that dispenses electric scooters ([0095] FIG. 9 docking station 134), the docking station comprising: an upper channel configured to receive a front wheel of an electric scooter (upper portion of guiding chute 136); and a lower channel configured to receive a rear wheel of the electric scooter (lower portion of guiding chute 136 FIG. 9), wherein the upper channel is positioned with respect to the lower channel in a configuration that stores electric scooters within the docking station at an angle with respect to the ground (using BRI, Examiner interprets an angle as any angle between 0 to 360 degrees. See Fig. 9 of Wang).
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.
Claims 3,5-7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20190263281) in view of JP 4531321 (hereinafter ‘121).
As to claim 3, Wang does not disclose/teach a charging rail that contacts a charging port of the electric scooter when the scooter is docked within the apparatus and provides charge to an electric battery of the electric scooter
‘121 teaches a charging rail that contacts a charging port of the electric vehicle when the electric vehicle is docked within the apparatus and provides charge to an electric battery of the electric vehicle (Fig. 2 power supply side connector 30. [0020] when both connectors 30 and 40 are fitted, it is detected that they are fitted by a fitting detection switch (not shown), and a high frequency is supplied from the inverter (not shown) provided in the power supply device 14 to the primary coil 32 of the power supply side connector 30. Power is supplied).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the docking station of Wang to a charging rail that contacts a charging port of the electric scooter when the scooter is docked within the apparatus and provides charge to an electric battery of the electric scooter in order to supply power to the scooter for future use.
As to claim 5, Wang in view of ‘121 teaches the docking station of claim 3, wherein the charging port is part of a guiding peg of the electric scooter that is configured to maintain a position of the electric scooter proximate to the charging rail when the guiding peg is disposed within the upper channel or the lower channel (Fig. 2. [0020] of ‘121).
As to claim 6, Wang in view of ‘121 teaches the docking station of claim 3, wherein the charging rail is part of the upper channel of the docking station (Fig. 2. [0020] of ‘121).
As to claim 7, Wang in view of ‘121 teaches the docking station of claim 3.
Wang in view of ‘121 does not disclose/teach wherein the charging rail is part of the lower channel of the docking station.
However since Wang in view of ‘121 teaches wherein the charging rail is part of the upper channel of the docking station (Fig. 2. [0020] of ‘121), it would have been obvious to try to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the charging rail is part of the lower channel in order to mate the charging plug on a scooter that places the charging plug on the rear wheel.
As to claim 17, Wang discloses a docking station that dispenses electric scooters (Fig. 9), the docking station comprising: a channel configured to receive a front wheel of an electric scooter (Guiding chute 136, Fig. 9).
Wang does not disclose/teach a charging rail that contacts a charging port of the electric scooter when the scooter is docked within the apparatus and provides charge to an electric battery of the electric scooter.
‘121 teaches a charging rail that contacts a charging port of the electric vehicle when the electric vehicle is docked within the apparatus and provides charge to an electric battery of the electric vehicle (Fig. 2 power supply side connector 30. [0020] when both connectors 30 and 40 are fitted, it is detected that they are fitted by a fitting detection switch (not shown), and a high frequency is supplied from the inverter (not shown) provided in the power supply device 14 to the primary coil 32 of the power supply side connector 30. Power is supplied).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the docking station of Wang to include a charging rail that contacts a charging port of the electric scooter when the scooter is docked within the apparatus and provides charge to an electric battery of the electric scooter in order to supply power to the scooter for future use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10,11 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 10, Although the prior art discloses a docking station that dispenses electric scooters, the docking station comprising: an upper channel configured to receive a front wheel of an electric scooter; and a lower channel configured to receive a rear wheel of the electric scooter, wherein the upper channel is positioned with respect to the lower channel in a configuration that stores electric scooters within the docking station at an angle with respect to the ground, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the combination of:
“a Z-shaped exit section that facilitates the dispensing of the electric scooter out of the docking station, including a Z-shaped ramp that causes the scooter to move from an angled docked position to an exit position.”
Regarding dependent claim 11, Although the prior art discloses a docking station that dispenses electric scooters, the docking station comprising: an upper channel configured to receive a front wheel of an electric scooter; and a lower channel configured to receive a rear wheel of the electric scooter, wherein the upper channel is positioned with respect to the lower channel in a configuration that stores electric scooters within the docking station at an angle with respect to the ground, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the combination of:
“a cleansing section that cleanses handlebars of the electric scooter when the electric scooter is docked within the docking station.”
Regarding dependent claim 21, Although the prior art discloses a docking station that dispenses electric scooters, the docking station comprising: an upper channel configured to receive a front wheel of an electric scooter; and a lower channel configured to receive a rear wheel of the electric scooter, wherein the upper channel is positioned with respect to the lower channel in a configuration that stores electric scooters within the docking station at an angle with respect to the ground, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the combination of:
“wherein the channel is positioned to store electric scooters within the docking station at an angle with respect to the ground, the docking station further comprising: a Z-shaped exit section having an Z-shaped ramp that causes the scooter to move from an angled docked position to an exit position.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYNESE V MCDANIEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6579. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9am to 530pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TYNESE V MCDANIEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859