DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
Claims 1 and 4-9 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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
The applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) made in the non-final rejection (02/17/2026) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection (02/17/2026) have been considered and are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Essinger (US 20020158441 A1) does not disclose “a footboard is fixedly mounted” because foot peg (105) is adjustable. However; Essinger also discloses locking the footrests in a fixed position (see “capable of being locked into position by tightening a single screw on each footrest”, abstract). In the locked position, the footrests are considered “fixedly mounted” because they are mounted in a manner in which they do not move.
The applicant argues that the footrest disclosed by Essinger does not, “serve to cover or protect other components of the vehicle”. However; claim 1 does not claim that the footboard serves this function. Claim 1 does claim a “protective shell” and claims its function as connecting the footboard to the connecting tube. Claim 1 does not require that the “protective shell” provide protection to any specific component. Furthermore, the examiner points to feature (129) of Essinger as providing a protective shell. The applicant does not state or otherwise argue that feature (129) cannot be considered a “protective shell”.
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 and 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apollo in view of Urabe (US 20070024105 A1), Essinger (US 20020158441 A1) and Calfee (US 20120313407 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Apollo discloses: A shared electric bicycle (see screenshot below) comprising: a frame comprising a support tube (see annotated figure below), a handle connected at an end of the support tube, a first frame tube securely connected to the support tube, and a second frame tube, wherein a front lamp is embedded in one end of the first frame tube, the other end of the first frame tube is securely connected to one end of the second frame tube, and the other end of the second frame tube is securely connected to a seat tube, and wherein a rear lamp is embedded in an end of the seat tube, a set of wheels comprising a front wheel and a rear wheel, wherein the support tube is provided with a connecting tube connected to an axle of the rear wheel; and a battery (“low battery indicator”, Apollo; 5:00/6:58).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
485
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Apollo does not disclose that the seat tube is provided with a mounting base for receiving the battery and wherein the connecting tube is provided with a limiting groove, in which the axle of the rear wheel is engaged and secured by a nut, and wherein the connecting tube is further provided with a clamping groove proximal to the limiting groove, a footboard is fixedly mounted in the clamping groove, the footboard covers the limiting groove and the nut, and a protective shell securely connects the footboard to the connecting tube.
Urabe teaches a bicycle comprising a connecting tube (24, Fig. 1) provided with a limiting groove (24a) in which an axle (42, Fig. 2) of a rear wheel is engaged and secured by a nut (43).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Apollo in view of Urabe to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide means for securely attaching the rear wheel of the bicycle.
Essinger teaches a two-seat saddle-type vehicle comprising a footboard (105, Fig. 6), wherein the footboard is mounted in a clamping groove (121) and a protective shell (129) securely connects the footboard to the frame of the vehicle.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Apollo in view of Urabe in further view of Essinger to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a person would have been motivated to add the footboard to improve rider comfort of a second rider and motivated to add the protective shell to protect components of the bicycle from damage.
Calfee teaches an e-bike having a seat-tube (12, Fig. 1), wherein the seat tube is provided with a mounting base (16) for receiving the battery (20).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Apollo in view of Urabe and Essinger in further view of Calfee to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide compact means for retaining the battery of the e-bike.
With respect to claim 8, Apollo in view of Urabe, Essinger, and Calfee as modified above discloses: the shared electric bike according to claim 1, wherein a bike seat is arranged above the mounting base (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
338
528
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Apollo in view of Urabe, Essinger, and Calfee as modified above teaches the shared electric bike according to claim 1, wherein the connecting tube is provided with a kickstand to provide support (see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image4.png
338
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 4, 5, and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Apollo in view of Urabe (US 20070024105 A1), Essinger (US 20020158441 A1) and Calfee (US 20120313407 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Iteya (US 20060163961 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Apollo in view of Urabe, Essinger, and Calfee as modified above teaches the shared electric bike according to claim 1 and further discloses that the connecting arm is provided with a mudguard (see annotated figure below). Apollo is silent in teaching that the connecting arm is provided with a groove, in which the axle of the front wheel is engaged and secured by a first nut
PNG
media_image5.png
338
530
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Iteya teaches a bicycle comprising a connecting arm (102a, Fig. 2) provided with a groove (illustrated at 102a, Fig. 4) in which the axle (15) of a front wheel is engaged and secured by a nut (25).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Apollo in view of Urabe, Essinger, and Calfee in further view of Iteya to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide means for securely attaching the front wheel to the bike.
With respect to claim 5, Apollo in view of Urabe, Essinger, Calfee, and Iteya as modified above teaches the shared electric bike according to claim 1, wherein the seat tube is securely connected to a mudguard at its bottom part, and wherein both sides of the second mudguard are provided with a reinforcing tube (see annotated figure below) for connecting the seat tube with the connecting tube. Note, two reinforcing tubes can be seen on either side of the mudguard at 3:35/6:58 in “Veo Launches Apollo - A Shared Two-Wheeler Designed to Carry Two Passengers”.
The annotated figure below comes from “Veo Launches Apollo - A Shared Two-Wheeler Designed to Carry Two Passengers” at approximately 4:16/6:58.
PNG
media_image6.png
338
528
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Apollo in view of Urabe, Essinger, Calfee, and Iteya as modified above discloses: the shared electric bike according to claim 5, wherein the seat tube is provided with a U-shaped rear support structure (see annotated figure below). Note, the U-shaped rear support structure is also shown at timestamp 3:35/6:58 in “Veo Launches Apollo - A Shared Two-Wheeler Designed to Carry Two Passengers”.
PNG
media_image7.png
340
528
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Apollo in view of Urabe, Essinger, Calfee, and Iteya as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of JP H078183 U; hereinafter, JP’183
With respect to claim 6, Apollo in view of Urabe, Essinger, Calfee, and Iteya as modified above teaches: the shared bike according to claim 1, and a mudguard (see annotated figure below) between the two connecting tubes. Apollo is silent in teaching a reinforcing block between the two connecting tubes securely connecting the second mudguard.
PNG
media_image6.png
338
528
media_image6.png
Greyscale
JP’183 discloses a bicycle comprising two connecting tubes (R, Fig. 2) connected to an axle of a rear wheel, and wherein a reinforcing block (23) between the two connecting tubes is securely connected to a mudguard (20).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Apollo in view of Urabe, Essinger, Calfee, and Iteya in further view of JP’183 to arrive at the claimed invention and to provide means for securely attaching the mudguard.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Matthew D Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6087. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (7:30 - 5:00 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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571) 272-2706. 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.
/MATTHEW D LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights