DETAILED ACTION
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catto US 5894898 A in view of Kramer US 20210171173 A1 and Kang KR 101390235 B1 and Wang US 20190248439 A1. (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the 01/08/2025 Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding independent claim 1, Catto discloses [a solar powered electric kick scooter for use with a battery 14,] (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 51-55) [the solar powered electric kick scooter consisting a base which includes sides,] (Fig. 1 & 4; As shown in Fig. 1 & 4, Catto illustrates the scooter consisting a base with sides.) [a foot pad 1, a plurality of solar cells 12 mounted on the upper surface of the foot pad,] (Fig. 1 & 4; Col. 3, lines 18-19) [an electric motor which is in electrical communication with the solar cells,] (Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 19-23) [a front wheel 4, a back wheel 3, the wheels rotatably disposed on the base and in motive communication with the motor,] (Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 19-23) [a steering tube 6 rotatably mounted to the base and attached to a bracket 2 that retains the axle 5 of the front wheel] (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 23-34) and [a handlebar 7, which terminates the steering tube.] (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 23-34)
Catto does not disclose a flexible foot pad which includes an upper surface; a margin directly attached to the base on one side; wherein the flexible foot pad is configured to flatten when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad and to otherwise curve upward in order to maximize collection of solar radiation; wherein the flexible foot pad is configured to autonomously increase a surface area of the upper surface when a user steps off the flexible foot pad; flexible solar cells; a multiplicity of fold lines in the upper surface of the foot pad which are configured to autonomously increase a surface area of the upper surface when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad.
One embodiment of Kramer teaches [a flexible foot pad 1003 which includes an upper surface;] (Fig. 10A; Paragraph 0246) [a margin directly attached to the base on one side;] (Fig. 10A; Paragraph 0246) wherein [the flexible foot pad is configured to flatten when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad;] (Fig. 10A & 10B; As shown in Fig. 10A & 10B the flexible foot pad 1003 is flattened under the weight of the user (shown in Fig. 10B) and curves upward when not under the weight of the user (shown in Fig. 10A).) [wherein the flexible foot pad is configured to autonomously increase a surface area of the upper surface when a user steps off the flexible foot pad.] (Fig. 10A; As shown in Fig. 10A, the first embodiment of Kramer illustrates wherein the flexible foot pad is configured to autonomously increase a surface area of the upper surface when a user steps off the flexible foot pad by curving upward when not under the weight of the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the flexible foot pad and margin configuration of Kramer with the kick scooter of Catto with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the foot pad to flex under the rider’s weight and return to a curved shape when not in use, thus improving rider comfort and allowing dynamic response to loading conditions.
Catto, as modified above, does not disclose flexible solar cells; a multiplicity of fold lines in the upper surface of the foot pad which are configured to autonomously increase a surface area of the upper surface when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad.
Kang et al. teaches [flexible solar cells.] (Fig. 1; Page 3, lines 23-25; Kang et al. discloses that a first solar module 630 is made of flexible thin-film solar cells that are attached along a curved surface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the flexible solar cells of Kang et al. with the kick scooter of Catto, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the solar power system to be integrated onto a non-rigid, movable surface like Kramer’s foot pad, thus maintaining energy generation functionality while enabling the desired flexing behavior.
Catto, as modified above, does not disclose a multiplicity of fold lines in the upper surface of the foot pad which are configured to autonomously increase a surface area of the upper surface when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad.
Wang teaches wherein [the foot pad further includes a fold line in the upper surface of the foot pad.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0084 & 0091)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the fold line of Wang with the solar electric scooter of Catto, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for more gradual or segmented bending, thus enhancing the flexibility of the foot pad and improving performance of the scooter.
Catto, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose multiple folding lines. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B) (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)), the mere duplication of known elements does not confer patentability unless it produces a new and unexpected result. In this case, Wang already discloses a fold line for facilitating folding. The extension of this configuration to include a multiplicity of fold lines would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, as it merely duplicates an existing structure without introducing an unexpected benefit. Additionally, providing a multiplicity of fold lines would have predictably allowed the surface to deform and unfold to a greater extent under load, thus increasing the surface area of the flexible foot pad. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Catto, as modified, to include a multiplicity of fold lines to allow for more controlled or progressive bending at the foot pad, without yielding an unexpected result.
Regarding independent claim 5, Catto discloses [a solar powered electric kick scooter for use with a battery 14,] (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 51-55) [the solar powered electric kick scooter consisting a base which includes sides,] (Fig. 1 & 4; As shown in Fig. 1 & 4, Catto illustrates the scooter consisting a base with sides.) [a foot pad 1 which includes an upper surface, a plurality of solar cells 12 mounted on the foot pad,] (Fig. 1 & 4; Col. 3, lines 18-19) [an electric motor which is in electrical communication with the solar cells,] (Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 19-23) [a front wheel 4, a back wheel 3, the wheels rotatably disposed on the base and in motive communication with the motor,] (Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 19-23) [a steering tube 6 rotatably mounted to the base and attached to a bracket 2 that retains the axle 5 of the front wheel] (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 23-34) and [a handlebar 7, which terminates the steering tube.] (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 23-34)
Catto does not disclose a slider in slidable engagement with the base; a flexible foot pad; a margin directly attached to the base on one side; wherein the flexible foot pad is configured to flatten when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad; a pair of sliders; flexible solar cells; a multiplicity of fold lines in the upper surface of the foot pad which are configured to autonomously increase a surface area of the upper surface when a user steps off the flexible foot pad.
The first embodiment of Kramer teaches [a slider 1006 in slidable engagement with the base and proximate to a side of the pair of sides;] (Fig. 10A-B of first embodiment; Paragraph 0246 of first embodiment; Kramer discloses a roller 1006 that slides relative to the base 1000. Additionally, the roller can be replaced by a convenient sliding joint.) [a flexible foot pad 1003 which has a margin;] (Fig. 10A of first embodiment; Paragraph 0246 of first embodiment) [the margin abutting the slider;] (Fig. 10A of first embodiment; Paragraph 0246 of first embodiment) wherein [the flexible foot pad is configured to flatten when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad.] (Fig. 10A & 10B of first embodiment; As shown in Fig. 10A & 10B the flexible foot pad 1003 is flattened under the weight of the user (shown in Fig. 10B) and curves upward when not under the weight of the user (shown in Fig. 10A).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the flexible foot pad and margin configuration of Kramer with the kick scooter of Catto with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the foot pad to flex under the rider’s weight and return to a curved shape when not in use, thus improving rider comfort and allowing dynamic response to loading conditions.
Catto, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a pair of sliders. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B) (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)), the mere duplication of known elements does not confer patentability unless it produces a new and unexpected result. In this case, Kramer already discloses a foot support that is movably supported relative to the base using sliding joints. The extension of this configuration to include a pair of sliders in slidable engagement with the base would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, as it merely duplicates an existing structure without introducing an unexpected benefit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kramer to include a pair of sliders to provide symmetrical or enhanced stability without yielding an unexpected result.
Catto, as modified above, does not disclose flexible solar cells; a multiplicity of fold lines in the upper surface of the foot pad which are configured to autonomously increase a surface area of the upper surface when a user steps off the flexible foot pad.
Kang et al. teaches [flexible solar cells.] (Fig. 1; Page 3, lines 23-25; Kang et al. discloses that a first solar module 630 is made of flexible thin-film solar cells that are attached along a curved surface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the flexible solar cells of Kang et al. with the kick scooter of Catto, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the solar power system to be integrated onto a non-rigid, movable surface like Kramer’s foot pad, thus maintaining energy generation functionality while enabling the desired flexing behavior.
Catto, as modified above, does not disclose a multiplicity of fold lines in the upper surface of the foot pad which are configured to autonomously increase a surface area of the upper surface when a user steps off the flexible foot pad.
Wang teaches wherein [the foot pad further includes a fold line in the upper surface of the foot pad.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0084 & 0091)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the fold line of Wang with the solar electric scooter of Catto, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for more gradual or segmented bending, thus enhancing the flexibility of the foot pad and improving performance of the scooter.
Catto, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose multiple folding lines. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B) (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)), the mere duplication of known elements does not confer patentability unless it produces a new and unexpected result. In this case, Wang already discloses a fold line for facilitating folding. The extension of this configuration to include a multiplicity of fold lines would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, as it merely duplicates an existing structure without introducing an unexpected benefit. Additionally, providing a multiplicity of fold lines would have predictably allowed the surface to deform and unfold to a greater extent under load, thus increasing the surface area of the flexible foot pad. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Catto, as modified, to include a multiplicity of fold lines to allow for more controlled or progressive bending at the foot pad, without yielding an unexpected result.
Catto, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the multiplicity of fold lines forming a reticulate network (absent an Applicant-provided definition of the term, “reticulate will be understood to mean a multiplicity of folding lines”). However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the rearrangement of know elements does not confer patentability when such a modification does not alter the function or operation of the system. In this case, arranging fold lines in any pattern (including, for example, a reticulate network) instead of a single fold line merely represents a rearrangement of folding structures which would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art as it merely reconfigures the known system without yielding an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 6, Catto, as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including [the battery being in electrical communication with the solar cells and with the motor.] (Fig. 12 of Catto; Col. 5, lines 18-30 of Catto)
Regarding independent claim 8, Catto discloses [a solar powered electric kick scooter for use with a battery 14,] (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 51-55) [the solar powered electric kick scooter consisting a base which includes sides,] (Fig. 1 & 4; As shown in Fig. 1 & 4, Catto illustrates the scooter consisting a base with sides.) [a foot pad 1 which includes an upper surface, a plurality of solar cells 12 mounted on the upper surface of the foot pad,] (Fig. 1 & 4; Col. 3, lines 18-19) [an electric motor which is in electrical communication with the solar cells,] (Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 19-23) [a front wheel 4, a back wheel 3, the wheels rotatably disposed on the base and in motive communication with the motor,] (Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 19-23) [a steering tube 6 rotatably mounted to the base and attached to a bracket 2 that retains the axle 5 of the front wheel] (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 23-34) and [a handlebar 7, which terminates the steering tube.] (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 23-34)
Catto does not disclose a flexible foot pad; a margin directly attached to the base on one side; wherein the flexible foot pad is configured to flatten when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad; flexible solar cells; a multiplicity of fold lines in the upper surface of the foot pad which are configured to autonomously increase a surface area of the upper surface when a user steps off the flexible foot pad, wherein each flexible solar cell of the plurality of flexible solar cells is bounded by a fold line.
One embodiment of Kramer teaches [a flexible foot pad 1003;] (Fig. 10A; Paragraph 0246) [a margin directly attached to the base on one side;] (Fig. 10A; Paragraph 0246) wherein [the flexible foot pad is configured to flatten when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad.] (Fig. 10A & 10B; As shown in Fig. 10A & 10B the flexible foot pad 1003 is flattened under the weight of the user (shown in Fig. 10B) and curves upward when not under the weight of the user (shown in Fig. 10A).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the flexible foot pad and margin configuration of Kramer with the kick scooter of Catto with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the foot pad to flex under the rider’s weight and return to a curved shape when not in use, thus improving rider comfort and allowing dynamic response to loading conditions.
Catto, as modified above, does not disclose flexible solar cells.
Kang et al. teaches [flexible solar cells.] (Fig. 1; Page 3, lines 23-25; Kang et al. discloses that a first solar module 630 is made of flexible thin-film solar cells that are attached along a curved surface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the flexible solar cells of Kang et al. with the kick scooter of Catto, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the solar power system to be integrated onto a non-rigid, movable surface like Kramer’s foot pad, thus maintaining energy generation functionality while enabling the desired flexing behavior.
Catto, as modified above, does not disclose a multiplicity of fold lines in the upper surface of the foot pad which are configured to autonomously increase a surface area of the upper surface when a user steps off the flexible foot pad, wherein each flexible solar cell of the plurality of flexible solar cells is bounded by a fold line.
Wang teaches wherein [the foot pad further includes a fold line in the upper surface of the foot pad.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0084 & 0091)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the fold line of Wang with the solar electric scooter of Catto, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for more gradual or segmented bending, thus enhancing the flexibility of the foot pad and improving performance of the scooter.
Catto, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose multiple folding lines. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B) (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)), the mere duplication of known elements does not confer patentability unless it produces a new and unexpected result. In this case, Wang already discloses a fold line for facilitating folding. The extension of this configuration to include a multiplicity of fold lines would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, as it merely duplicates an existing structure without introducing an unexpected benefit. Additionally, providing a multiplicity of fold lines would have predictably allowed the surface to deform and unfold to a greater extent under load, thus increasing the surface area of the flexible foot pad. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Catto, as modified, to include a multiplicity of fold lines to allow for more controlled or progressive bending at the foot pad, without yielding an unexpected result.
Catto, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the multiplicity of fold lines forming a reticulate network. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the rearrangement of know elements does not confer patentability when such a modification does not alter the function or operation of the system. In this case, arranging fold lines in a reticulate network instead of a single fold line merely represents a rearrangement of folding structures which would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art as it merely reconfigures the known system without yielding an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 9, Catto, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the multiplicity of fold lines forming a reticulate network about the flexible solar cells. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the rearrangement of know elements does not confer patentability when such a modification does not alter the function or operation of the system. In this case, arranging fold lines in a reticulate network instead of a single fold line merely represents a rearrangement of folding structures which would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art as it merely reconfigures the known system without yielding an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 13, Catto, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [a biasing member 1019 which is disposed between the flexible foot pad and the base and biases the flexible foot pad upward.] (Fig. 10C & 10D on second embodiment of Kramer; Paragraph 0247 on second embodiment of Kramer)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 06/23/2026 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 5, and 8 have been amended. In light of amendments, all 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Page 6 on Remarks) that Kramer merely teaches shifting weight between two boards rather than stepping off the foot pad. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kramer teaches that the foot support flexes downward when sufficient weight is applied and returns to its original configuration when that weight is removed (Paragraph 0246 of Kramer). Whether the rider completely steps off the foot support or simply removes the weight from it does not materially alter the operation of the foot support, as in either case the foot support returns to its unloaded configuration.
Applicant argues (Page 6 on Remarks) that Wang fails to disclose fold lines positioned between the flexible solar cells. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang is relied upon for teaching fold lines in a scooter deck, while Kang teaches flexible solar cells mounted to a flexible surface. Arranging the fold lines between adjacent flexible solar cells to accommodate deformation of the flexible surface would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues (Page 6 on Remarks) that Wang requires manual unfolding of the scooter deck, whereas the claimed fold lines autonomously increase surface area after the user steps off. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Once multiple fold lines are incorporated into the flexible foot pad, allowing the folds to return to their natural configuration upon removal of the user’s weight represents the predictable operation of a resilient flexible structure and does not patentably distinguish over the cited combination.
Applicant argues (Page 6 on Remarks) that Kramer does not teach stepping off the pad because the rider continuously keeps one foot on a paddle board. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection relies on Kramer’s disclosure that the foot support changes configuration based on the application and removal of user weight, not on the specific manner in which the rider transfers weight during use. The particular riding technique disclosed by Kramer is not limiting with respect to the claimed foot pad structure.
Applicant argues (Pages 6-7 on Remarks) that the flexible foot pad does not provide a dynamic response to loading conditions and therefore there is no reason to combine Catto and Kramer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kramer teaches the benefits of a resilient flexible foot support that deforms under load and returns to its original configuration when unloaded. Incorporating this known flexible support structure into Catto’s scooter would have predictably provided a resilient support surface for the rider while accommodating the flexible solar cells taught by Kang.
Applicant argues (Page 7 on Remarks) that combining Kramer with Catto would render Catto inoperable because Kramer’s thrust paddles would interfere with scooter operation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not propose incorporating Kramer’s thrust paddles into Catto. Rather, Kramer is relied upon only for its teaching of a flexible foot support and associated attachment structure. The thrust paddle mechanism is not relied upon and need not be incorporated into the proposed combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights