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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 6, 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections based on WALLIS (Sec. III) have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore the related rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections (Sec. IV) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, therefore the related rejections have been maintained:
In response to applicant's argument (Sec. IV, paras. 2-33) that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not replace the cylinder type joint of MANNING with the ball joint of WALLIS because MANNING’s joint serves a second purpose that the ball joint of WALLIS could not, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981), MPEP 2145 (III). In this case the ball joint taught by WALLIS suggests to a person having ordinary skill in the art an alternative method of constructing a joint that advantageously has more degrees of freedom, as discussed in related rejections in this and the previous office action.
In response to the applicant’s assertion (Sec. V) that any subsequent office action must be made non-final, the examiner notes that no new ground of rejection has been introduced, and therefore there is this action is made final, see MPEP 706.7(a), particularly the first paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-13, 15-20, 25-27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANNING (EP-3601031-B1) in view of WALLIS.
Regarding Claims 11 and 25, [differing in that claim 11 refers to a single wheel and a pair of wheels where claim 25 refers to a first, second, and third wheel; claim 11 calling for the pair of wheels to rotate about a common axis; and claim 25 calling for the second and third wheels to be coaxial], MANNING teaches a vehicle (Tricycle 101, Fig. 1) comprising:
a multi-part frame (Frame 103, Fig. 1, considered multi-part in that it comprises at least the parts Front Frame “F-F”, Rear Frame “F-R”, Struts 143, and Front Wall 145 as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated);
a [single (claim 11)/ first (claim 25)] wheel (Front Wheel 107, Fig. 1); and
a pair of wheels (Rear Wheels 113, Figs. 1 & 3) [having two mutually spaced-apart wheels / comprising a second wheel and a third wheel, the second wheel and the third wheel being coaxial and spaced-apart] (Rear Wheels 113 being a pair of wheels that are spaced apart horizontally as illustrated in Fig. 3; the left instance of Rear Wheels 113 as illustrated in Fig. 1 being considered a second wheel and the right instance a third wheel, the two wheels being coaxial along Axle 155 as illustrated in Fig. 1); wherein
the [single/ first] wheel (107) is connected to a first frame part (Front Wheel 107 being connected to the Front Frame F-F with Fork 109 as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated) of the frame (103); and wherein
[the two wheels of the pair of wheels are/ the second wheel and the third wheel are both] (113) mounted on a second frame part (Rear Wheels 113 being connected to the Rear Frame F-R with Axle 155 as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated) of the frame (103) [so as to be rotatable about a common axis/ (not taught in claim 25)] (Axle 155, Fig. 1), wherein
the first frame part (F-F) and the second frame part (F-R) are connected by at least two joints (Front and Rear Frames F-F & F-R being joined by Cylinder 137 and Collar 139 as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated; Para. [0032] teaches that the Cylinder 137 joint is supported rotatably by a bearing), wherein
the first frame part (F-F) and the second frame part (F-R) are rotatable relative to one another about a pivot axis (Axis 157, Fig. 2) defined by the at least two joints (Axis 157 being defined by Cylinder 137 and Collar 139 as illustrated in Fig. 2), wherein
the pivot axis (157) runs through a contact point (Contact Point “P”, Fig. 2 Annotated) of the [single/ first] wheel (Axis 157 running through Contact Point “P” of Front Wheel 107 as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated and described in Para. [0072]), and wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
737
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the at least two joints (137 & 139) are disposed on and along the pivot axis (157) and spaced apart from one another along the pivot axis (Cylinder 137 and Collar 139 being spaced apart along Axis 157 as illustrated in Fig. 2).
MANNING does not teach a ball joint.
WALLIS teaches, in another vehicle (Fig. 1), at least one ball joint (both Ball and Socket Joints 4 and 8 being considered ball joints).
The joints of WALLIS are arranged such that a first joint (Ball and Socket Joint 4) of the at least two joints (4 and 8) is a ball joint or an elastomer element and wherein a second joint (Ball and Socket Joint 8) of the at least two joints (4 and 8) is a ball joint, a radial bearing or an elastomer element (note: these teachings relate to claims 13 and 27 as discussed below.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the bearing of MANNING with the ball and socket joint of WALLIS as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent rotational joints recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In this case, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a ball joint/ ball and socket joint differs from a bearing joint in that it has more degrees of freedom, which means construction and/ or assembly of the vehicle can be less precise. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. It is further noted that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of using a joint with more degrees of freedom, as discussed above, that would beneficially make a vehicle that is easier to construct.
Regarding Claims 12 and 26, [having differing dependencies and claim 12 referring to the “single wheel’ of claim 11 where claim 26 refers to the “first wheel” of claim 25], MANNING further teaches that the single wheel (107) is a front wheel (Front Wheel 107 being named as such and as illustrated in Fig. 1), and wherein the front wheel (107) is coupled to a wheel fork (Fork 109, Fig. 1), the wheel fork (109) being connected to the first frame part (F-F) so that the front wheel (107) is pivotable about a steering axis (Para. [0059] and Fig. 1 teach Fork 109 being pivotally mounted to Frame 103 such that a steering axis is formed).
PNG
media_image2.png
421
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 13 and 27, [having similar limitations but differing dependencies], MANNING, as modified above by WALLIS, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claims 11 and 25 above for the teachings of WALLIS and motivation to combine them with the vehicle of MANNING).
Regarding Claims 15 and 29, [having similar limitations but differing dependencies], MANNING further teaches that each of the at least two joints (137 & 139) are configured to permit relative rotation of the first frame part (F-F) and the second frame part (F-R) about the pivot axis (Para. [0085] and Fig. 6 teach that Frame 203, which corresponds to First Frame Part F-F, rotates relative to Casing 235, which corresponds to Second Frame Part F-R, about Axis 257, about which Cylinder 137 and Collar 139 are aligned with).
Regarding Claims 16 and 30, [having similar limitations but differing dependencies], MANNING further teaches at least one (MANNING teaches the delimiting device as discussed below) of the following:
a delimiting device (Stops 158, Fig. 2) which is configured to restrict a rotatability of the first frame part (F-F) in relation to the second frame part (F-R) about the pivot axis (Para. [0073] teaches that Stops 158 limit the degree of a roll angle between Frame 103 and Rear Wheels 113); and
a restoring device which is configured to rotate the first frame part, from a position deflected in relation to a pre-defined central position, back to the central position.
Regarding Claim 17, MANNING further teaches:
at least one torque-generating drive device (Cranks 119, Fig. 1), wherein the at least one torque-generating device (119) is coupled to at least one of the first frame part (Cranks 119 being disposed on Front Frame F-F as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated) and the single wheel and is configured to transmit the torque to the single wheel (Paras. [0061]- [0066] teach Cranks 119 driving Rear Wheels 113 through Helical Gear Assembly 125, Drive Shaft 133, and Bevel Gear Wheels 151 & 153 and because both Front Wheel 107 and Rear Wheels 113 are in contact with the ground, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the driving of wheels Rear Wheels 113 would transmit a force through the ground to Front Wheel 107 such that a torque would be transmitted from the Cranks 119 to the Front Wheel 107).
Regarding Claim 18, MANNING further teaches:
at least one torque-generating drive device (Cranks 119, Fig. 1) that is disposed on the first frame part (Cranks 119 being disposed on Front Frame F-F as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated) and, via a torque transmission device (Helical Gear Assembly 125, Drive Shaft 133, and Bevel Gear Wheels 151 & 153, Fig. 1), is configured to transmit the torque to at least one of the wheels of the pair of wheels (Paras. [0061]- [0066] teach Cranks 119 driving Rear Wheels 113 through Helical Gear Assembly 125, Drive Shaft 133, and Bevel Gear Wheels 151 & 153).
Regarding Claim 19, MANNING further teaches that the torque transmission device (125, etc.) is a prop shaft (Para. [0063] and Fig. 1 teach a Drive Shaft 133 as a part of a torque transmission device, as discussed above in the 103 rejection of claim 18) which, at least in a region of a dividing plane (a plane extending into and out of Fig. 2 along Axis 157) between the first frame part (F-F) and the second frame part (F-R) that is defined by the at least two joints (137 & 139), extends from the first frame part (F-F) to the second frame part (F-R) so as to be coaxial with the pivot axis (Drive Shaft 133 being coaxial with Axis 157 as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 20, MANNING further teaches that the torque transmission device (125, etc.) is a chain gear (Primary Sprocket Wheel 375, Fig. 8) which has a chain (Chain 377, Fig. 8) and of which the chain permits and compensates a twisting about the pivot axis (Chain 377 being arranged along Axis 157 as illustrated in Figs. 2 & 8, and chain being a flexible component, Chain 377 would permit and compensate for at least some degree of twisting about Axis 157).
Claims 14 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANNING and WALLIS in view of Joachimsthaler (DE-10054273-A1).
Regarding Claims 14 and 28, [having similar limitations but differing dependencies], MANNING does not teach an adjustable joint.
Joachimsthaler teaches, in another vehicle (tricycle, Abstract), that a position of a first joint (Bearing Point 4, Fig. 1) and/or of a second joint (Bearing Point 5, Fig. 1) in relation to a first frame part (First Chassis Part 2, Fig. 1) and/or a second frame part (Second Chassis Part 3, Fig. 1) is adjustable (Paras. [0007]- [0008] and Figs. 3-6 teach that the First and Second Chassis Parts 2 & 3 are adjustable in length such that the Bearing Points 4 & 5 are adjustable relative to them).
Joachimsthaler further teaches that providing the adjustment mechanism as taught advantageously allows riders of different sizes to find good riding characteristics when using the same bearing elements (Para. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MANNING, WALLIS, and Joachimsthaler in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MANNING’s vehicle to include an adjustable joint as suggested by Joachimsthaler. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing good riding characteristics to riders of different sizes, as taught by Joachimsthaler and discussed above, that would beneficially make a vehicle which can be used by operators of various sizes.
Claims 17 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANNING and WALLIS in view of Liu (US-20160096574-A1).
Regarding Claim 17, if an argument may be made that the torque-generating drive device (Cranks 119) of MANNING is not configured to transmit torque to the single wheel (107), and therefore that limitation is not taught by MANNING, Liu teaches, in another vehicle (tricycle, Abstract), at least one torque-generating drive device (Hub Motor 34, Fig. 1), that is coupled to a single wheel (Front Wheel 26, Fig. 1) and is configured to transmit the torque to the single wheel (Hub Motor 34 being disposed on Front Wheel 26, it is understood to be configured to transmit torque to it).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MANNING, WALLIS, and Liu in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MANNING’s vehicle such that a torque-generating device is configured to transmit torque to the single wheel as suggested by Liu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing direct torque and propulsion to a vehicle wheel that would beneficially make a vehicle which requires fewer torque-transmission components and thus makes a lighter and easy to make vehicle.
Regarding Claim 21, MANNING does not teach a torque-generating device that is on the second frame part and transmits torque to the single wheel.
Liu teaches at least one torque-generating drive device (Motor 110, Fig. 3) that is disposed on a second frame part (Motor 110 being mounted to a Rear Frame 42 as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 3) and, via a torque transmission device (Chain 104, Fig. 3), is configured to transmit a torque to a single wheel (Para. [0117] and Fig. 3 teach Motor 110 driving Rear Wheels 92L & 92R through Chain 104, and because both Front Wheel 84 and Rear Wheels 113 are in contact with the ground, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the driving of wheels Rear Wheels 92L & 92R would transmit a force through the ground to Front Wheel 84 such that a torque would be transmitted from the Motor 110 to the Front Wheel 84 through Chain 104).
The at least one torque-generating drive device of Liu (110) is arranged such that it is disposed on the second frame part (Motor 110 being mounted to a Rear Frame 42 as illustrated in Figs. 1 & 3) or directly on one of the wheels of the pair of wheels and is configured to transmit the torque to at least one of the wheels (92l & 92R) of the pair of wheels (Para. [0117] and Fig. 3 teach Motor 110 driving Rear Wheels 92L & 92R) (note: these teaching relate to claim 24 as discussed below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of MANNING and Liu in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MANNING’s vehicle such that a torque-generating device that is on the second frame part which transmits torque to the single wheel as suggested by Liu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of mounting a torque generating device such as a motor and its associated components to the larger and more stable portion of a vehicle frame that would beneficially make a vehicle that is easier for an operator to handle.
Regarding Claim 22, MANNING further teaches that the torque transmission device (125, etc.) is a prop shaft (Para. [0063] and Fig. 1 teach a Drive Shaft 133 as a part of a torque transmission device, as discussed above in the 103 rejection of claim 18) which, at least in the region of a dividing plane (a plane extending into and out of Fig. 2 along Axis 157) between the first frame part (F-F) and the second frame part (F-R) that is defined by the at least two joints (137 & 139), extends from the first frame part (F-F) to the second frame part (F-R) so as to be coaxial with the pivot axis (Drive Shaft 133 being coaxial with Axis 157 as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 23, MANNING further teaches that the torque transmission device (125, etc.) is a chain gear (Primary Sprocket Wheel 375, Fig. 8) which has a chain (Chain 377, Fig. 8) and of which the chain permits and compensates a twisting about the pivot axis (Chain 377 being arranged along Axis 157 as illustrated in Figs. 2 & 8, and chain being a flexible component, Chain 377 would permit and compensate for at least some degree of twisting about Axis 157).
Regarding Claim 24, MANNING, as modified by Liu, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 21 above for the teachings of Liu and motivation to combine them with the vehicle of MANNING).
Conclusion
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 TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights