DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 1, “System for steering carts” is understood to refer to “A system for steering carts”.
Regarding claim 2, “System for steering carts” is understood to refer to “The system for steering carts”
Regarding claim 3, “Rolling chassis” is understood to refer to “A rolling chassis”.
Regarding claim 5, “Articulated vehicle” is understood to refer to “An articulated vehicle”.
Regarding claims 6-8, “Articulated vehicle” is understood to refer to “The articulated vehicle”.
Regarding all claims discussed above, correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Regarding claim 1: there is no antecedent basis for the limitation “the driver”, “its wheel”, “the forward direction”.
Further regarding claim 1, the phrase “rolling chassis in general, which we call cart” is indefinite because it fails to provide clear antecedent basis and structural boundaries for the claimed subject matter (no defined components like frame, wheels, or steering), further including subjective terms such as “we”, so a reader cannot tell what is included or excluded. It is vague and functional without corresponding structural details, leaving the claim scope ambiguous. Furthermore, the phrase ambiguously includes a broad limitation “a rolling chassis” followed by “cart" which has a narrower scope.
Regarding claim 5, line 8, there is no antecedent basis for the limitation “the vertical”.
Regarding claim 8, line 7: there is no antecedent basis for the limitations “the maneuverability” and “the cornering stability”. For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation in claims 8 is interpreted as “a maneuverability” and “a cornering stability”.
Further regarding Claims 1, 2 and 4, they repeatedly uses the pronoun “it” and “its” without clear antecedent basis, and in several instances the term “it” and “its” are reasonably capable of referring to more than one previously- recited elements. Because the claim includes multiple nouns – system, cart, pivoting handlebar, mechanical lilting linkage means, manual gripping members, wheel axis, center of rotation – the use “it” or “its” create uncertainty as to which structure is being referenced. Accordingly, the metes and bound of the claimed invention are not clear , thus indefinite.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 expressly recites that the cart “transporting the driver”, establishing a structural and functional limitation that the cart is a non-ride-on device. However, the parent claim 1 recites that the articulated vehicle “does not carry the driver”. The dependent claim therefore introduces a limitation that is inconsistent / contradictory to the limitations of the base claim. A dependent claim must further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends, it cannot broaden or contradict the limitations from parent claim. Because the cart that does not carry the driver cannot simultaneously be configured for “transporting the driver”, the scope of the claim subject matter is unclear, and one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bound of the invention with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the metes and bound of the claimed invention are not clear. Applicant is required to amend the claims to resolve the inconsistency.
Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(b).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LaBonty (US PAT. 9610998 B1).
Regarding claim 1, LaBonty discloses: a system for steering carts (a steering transmission arm and cart 10; figs. 1-8) by means of a pivoting (via 80, figs. 3-4) handlebar (“handlebar structure” 50 with top end 60, col 3, lines 30-35 and fig. 1),
applicable to a rolling chassis (via wheels 28, 36, fig. 1) in general, which we call cart (10, fig. 1), which does not carry a
by means of manual gripping members (grip 66, fig. 2; [col. 3, lines 30-35]); and where at least one of its wheels (28 left, 28 right; fig. 2) always rotates around a fixed axis ( wheel axis, fig. 5), so that it has a single forward direction (towards axis AX1, fig. 3) and a single center of rotation at standstill (RCVO; annotated fig. 1 below), which is located advanced in the forward direction (FWD; annotated fig. 1 below) of the cart (10) with respect to the manual gripping members (66); wherein said pivoting handlebar (50) comprises said manual gripping members (66) and also comprises mechanical tilting linkage means (80, 84, fig. 4) for incorporation into the frame (support frame 20) of the cart (10), characterized in that said mechanical tilting linkage means (54, 58) allow free lateral displacement of said manual gripping members (66) with respect to the cart (10), on both sides (via axis AX3, fig. 4) and substantially perpendicular (as depicted in fig. 4 via angle A2; thus, substantially perpendicular) to (FWD along axis AX1, see annotated fig. 1 below for the direction FWD) of the cart (10), so that said pivoting handlebar (50) biunivocally (as shown in figs. 2 and 4) restricts the yaw of the cart (10), the yaw of the cart (10) being thus independent of the lateral displacement (“extends lateral to ends 24”; [col. 2, lines 49-50]) of the pivoting handlebar (50) [col 4, lines 42-46 discloses: “the front wheels 28 are turned so that the axis AX3 is at an angle A3 to the axis AX1 of the scooter deck 30”; note that at an angle A3; thus, restricts the yaw of the cart.]
PNG
media_image1.png
633
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of LaBonty
Regarding claim 2, LaBonty further discloses a pivoting handlebar according to claim 1, wherein said mechanical tilting linkage means (80, 84, fig. 4) comprise a steering column (52, 56 and 60, fig. 1) and a pivot joint (at 58 and 54), and wherein said steering column (52,56), at its upper end (60), provides fixed support (62) to the manual gripping members (66), and at its lower end (60) is connected to the frame (support frame 20) of the cart (10) by means of said pivot joint (80, fig. 3) whose axis (AX1 and AX2, fig. 3) is substantially parallel (fig. 4 shows parallel) to the forward direction (FWD) of the cart (10).
Regarding claim 3, LaBonty further discloses a system for steering carts (“scooter and steering system”; “Title’) by means of a pivoting handlebar (50, figs. 1-2) according to claim 1, which we call cart (scooter 10) provided with a pivoting handlebar (50).
Regarding claim 4, LaBonty further discloses Cart (10) provided with a pivoting handlebar (50), characterized in that it comprises at least one wheel (36) driven by a motor [col. 3, lines 34-36 teaches that in the present embodiment, the scooter 10 includes a motor (not shown) so that the scooter 10 is powered], which we call motorized wheel (36).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LaBonty, and in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over LaBonty in view of. Carraso (WO 2020/008018 A1).
Regarding claim 5, LaBonty further discloses an articulated vehicle (motorized vehicle 10) with a system (“steering system”; [‘Title’]) for steering carts by means of a pivoting handlebar (50), comprising two main elements: a cart (deck 30; fig. 1) provided with a pivoting handlebar (50), and a driven element (motorized rear wheel 36) coupled from behind to said cart (30) for transporting the driver; wherein said driven element (driven element of motorized wheel 36) has at least one wheel (36) that always rotates around a fixed axis (wheel axis of wheel 36); and wherein both main elements are connected by means of an articulated structure (via U-shaped lock 110 and fender 112, col. 5, lines 25-30), which is hinged (at rear end) around the cart (10) so that said driven element (motorized rear wheel 36) can swivel relative (via wheel pivots 26, col. 2, lines 65-67) to may include a pin (as illustrated), or any other form of hinge, joint, articulation, swivel, or pivotal connector known in the art that enable the front wheels 28 to turn”; thus, said driven element can swivel relative to the vertical by an articulation center of the vehicle.
Therefore, LaBonty anticipates the claimed invention.
Additionally, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that articulated vehicle must be a separate vehicle which LaBonty’s cart or scooter might not meet, then Labonty teaches the pivoting handlebar; however, Carraso in another cart similar to Labonty teaches articulated vehicle (“hoverboard” 2, fig. 1) with a system for steering carts (1) by means of a pivoting handlebar comprising two main elements: a cart (1) provided with a pivoting handlebar (“handle bar”), and a driven element (driven element of 2) coupled from behind (fig. 1) to said cart (1) for transporting the driver; wherein said driven element (driven element of 2) has at least one wheel ( wheel of self-balancing scooter as depicted in fig. 1) that always rotates around a fixed axis [page 14, lines 15-20 teaches that hoverboard (2) to the back of a cart (1), e.g. a wheelchair, to propel it by pushing and, in turn, to transport the driver-user. In this preferred embodiment, the cart to be pushed has two parallel rear wheels that rotate about a same axis]; and wherein both main elements are connected by means of an articulated structure (via 31 and 32, fig. 1), which is hinged around the cart (1) so that said driven element (driven element of 2) can swivel relative to the vertical by an articulation center of the vehicle (at two anchor points 11, 2131 and 2132 as depicted in figs. 1-2 and [page 13, lines 20-25]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified LaBonty to integrate the teaching of Carraso and thereby incorporate articulated driven element of a vehicle, such that it is hinged to a cart and connected by means of an articulated structure so that driven element can swivel relative to the vertical by an articulation center of the vehicle. In doing so, providing stability, being connected to the hoverboard (2) by articulated joints (123l, 1232) located above each corresponding foot placement platform and pointing to the rotation center of the cart when the cart is stationary, control the direction of the articulated vehicle [‘Abstract’ of Carraso]. The cited reference collectively teaches or suggest those features and no criticality or unexpected results have been demonstrated for the particular arrangement claimed.
Regarding claim 6, LaBonty further discloses articulated vehicle (motorized vehicle 10) with a system for steering carts (“steering system”; [‘Title’]) by means of a pivoting handlebar (50), characterized in that said center of articulation of the vehicle (at 80, fig. 3) is positioned slightly ahead of the center of rotation at standstill (RCVO) of the cart (10). See annotated fig. 3 below where articulation is positioned ahead of the center of rotation at standstill (RCVO) of the cart.
PNG
media_image2.png
766
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3 of LaBonty
Regarding claim 7, LaBonty further discloses articulated vehicle (motorized vehicle 10) with a system for steering carts by means of a pivoting handlebar (50), characterized in that said driven element (driving element of motorized 36) comprises at least one motorized wheel (wheel 36, fig. 1).
Therefore, LaBonty anticipates the claimed invention.
Additionally, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that articulated vehicle must be a separate vehicle which LaBonty’s cart or scooter might not meet, then LaBonty teaches the pivoting handlebar; however, Carraso teaches articulated vehicle (“hoverboard” 2, fig. 1) with a system for steering carts (1) by means of a pivoting handlebar (“handlebar”, [‘Abstract’]) characterized in that said driven element (driving element of hoverboard) comprises at least one motorized wheel (wheel of hoverboard as depicted in fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the articulated vehicle to include a driven element comprising at least one motorized wheel as recited in claim 7. The use of motorized wheels in articulated vehicle was well known, and incorporating such a driven element represents a predictable design choice that would have yielded the expected benefit of providing propulsion or assisted movement to the cart system. The cited reference collectively teaches or suggest those features and no criticality or unexpected results have been provided for the specific configuration claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaBonty in view of Carraso.
Regarding claim 8, LaBonty further discloses articulated vehicle (motorized vehicle 10) with a system for steering carts (“steering system”; [‘Title’]) by means of a pivoting handlebar (50), characterized in that said driven element (driven element of 36) has the shape of a rolling platform ( it has rolling platform as depicted in fig.3), but fails to explicitly teach that it comprises two motorized wheels, where each of them is driven by a corresponding electric motor, and where an electronic control manages both motors independently, applying torque or power to both motorized wheels in a differential manner to improve both
Carraso teaches that driven element (driven element of hoverboard 2) has the shape of a rolling platform (fig. 1), comprises two motorized wheels (two wheels of hoverboard as depicted in fig. 1), where each of them is driven by a corresponding electric motor [page 2-, lines 29 onward teaches “a self-balancing scooter, or simply hoverboard, is understood to be an electric vehicle in the form of a board on which a person stands, which is placed according to a longitudinal axis that is perpendicular to its direction of travel, and which has two motorized wheels, one at each of its ends”], and where an electronic control (hoverboard is electronic control device) manages both motors independently ( for speed control independently), applying torque or power to both motorized wheels in a differential manner to improve both the maneuverability and the cornering stability of the articulated vehicle [page 3 teaches: “It is also usually known as a two-wheel self-balancing board since when leaning forward or backward according to the axis, the motors exert a torque to counter the tilting; thus, electronic control and applying torque or power to both motorized wheels in a differential manner to improve both the maneuverability and the cornering stability of the articulated vehicle.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the articulated vehicle to employ a driven element in the form of a rolling platform having two motorized wheels, each powered by a corresponding electric motor and apply differential torque or power. The use of dual independently driven wheels and differential motor control to enhance maneuverability and cornering stability were well known in the art of motorized platform, robotics carts, and articulated drive systems, and incorporating such features into the known cart-steering arrangement would have constituted a predictable variation yielding expected performance benefits. The cited reference collectively teaches or suggest these aspects, and no evidence of criticality or unexpected results have been provided for the specific configuration claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to implement the articulated vehicle in the same manner as shown in reference to Carasso into the invention of LaBonty to achieve predictable results using a known technique for a known purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PAT. 6179315 A to Boriack discloses: a steerable machinery trailer (1) has a chassis (2, 33, 35, 36) intermediate a pivotal towing attachment (26, 29, 30, 46) and trailer wheels (3) proximate a rear portion of the chassis. The trailer wheels have pivotal attachment to the trailer and are pivotal for steering with a steering shaft (4) that is length-controllable intermediate rigid positioning on the chassis and a steering arm (6) attached to a steering rod (7) that is connected to a pivotal attachment of the trailer wheels to the chassis.
US 20140091551 A1 to Christopher discloses: the apparatus is steerable using the handlebars and fork on the existing bicycle frame and is configured for stability when cornering.
US 8014923 B2 to Shinji discloses: a travel device includes a plurality of wheels disposed parallel to one another, a step plate mounted between the wheels, a handle mounted to the step plate, and a driving motor that allows the step plate and handle to tilt in a roll axis direction. The device further includes a control unit that drives the motor so as to maintain the step plate horizontal or the handle vertical.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Neacsu Valentin can be reached on (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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611