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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11634188 (hereinafter “reference”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 in the current application is anticipated by (was previously disclosed in) claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11634188;
Claims 2-9 in the current application was previously disclosed in claims 2-9 of U.S. Patent 11634188;
Claim 10 in the current application was previously disclosed in claim 10 of U.S. Patent 11634188;
Claims 11-14 in the current application was previously disclosed in claims 11-14 of U.S. Patent 11634188;
Claims 15-17 in the current application have been disclosed by claim 10 in U.S. Patent 11634188, as the claims are just different variations of what claim 10 states a swivel bar, which is similar to claim 16, claims 15 and 17 mention a connecting rod and a link, wherein the swivel bar of claim 10 of U.S. Patent discloses a similar type of member (swivel bar), which can be referred as a connecting rod or link.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the one or more external charging ports" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12 and 13, the limitation “the other electric scooters” in line 4 of claim 12 and in lines 5 to 6 in claim 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally examiner is unsure if there is more than 3 scooters being mentioned in the claims, is applicant referring to a 4th and 5th scooter or is applicant referring to the third and second scooters.
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.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 2006/0249925) in view of Dadoosh (US 9440698). Yan discloses a scooter (5000,9002,9004,9006,9008) comprising one or more attachment components (5016a,5016b,5016c,9010) that facilitate attachment of the scooter to another scooter (FIGS. 1 and 7, Par. 0020). The apparatus disclosed by Yan ends with the method as claimed being performed, wherein Yan discloses
a method of operating a group of scooters (see figure 7) coupled to one another, the method comprising: operating a first scooter in a leader collection mode of operation(scooter 9002) when attached to the other scooters of the group of scooters; and, operating a second scooter and a third scooter (9004) in a follower collection mode of operation when attached to the other scooters of the group of scooters (see figure 7).
Yan does not mention electric scooter however, Dadoosh (US 9440698) discloses an electric scooter. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to utilize the same type of scooter towing or train on electric scooters, wherein, it would have been obvious to modify Yan by having electric scooters instead of regular scooters being towed one behind the other.
Regarding claim 20, wherein the combination of Yan and Dadoosh ends with, operating the second electric scooter and the third electric scooter in the follower collection mode includes operating the second electric scooter and the third electric scooter to perform certain scooter functions (such as rolling down the road while being towed) in response to the first electric scooter performing the certain scooter functions (towing the other scooters).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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 and any intervening claims. The art of record does not include the third scooter is not laterally attached to the second scooter.
Claims 1-17 would be allowed, once the double patenting rejection has been addressed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record did not include “a vertical link bar that attaches to the steering tube and can be moved to a collection position as it extends in a horizontal direction away from the steering tube and, a ride position”
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record did not include “a third electric scooter being able to attach to a second electric scooter by laterally attaching a chassis of the third electric scooter to a chassis of the second electric scooter”.
Since the prior art Yan teaches mechanical scooters that are able to connect to each other (back to front) that lack the features of having a vertical link attached to the steering tube or a third scooter connecting its chassis to the chassis of a second scooter, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter.
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 Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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.
/MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611