DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden to examine all groups together. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require different search strategies to capture different concepts. For example, a search for portable power sources housed in a canister may not uncover useful prior art for a personal transportation vehicle with a seating area and a receptacle disposed in a console of the vehicle, or vice versa. A search for an electric brake with a portable power source may not uncover useful prior art for portable power sources housed in a canister or a personal transportation vehicle with a seating area and a receptacle disposed in a console of the vehicle, or vice versa.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/26/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/31/2025 has been considered.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites, “the cavity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear where the cavity is, whether in the receptacle , the vehicle, or both.
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 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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haffelder et al. (U.S. 2005/0000763) in view of Clark et al. (U.S. 2009/0114461).
Regarding claim 1, Haffelder discloses (figs. 2 and 5) A personal transportation vehicle (abstract at least), comprising:
a seating area (pgh. 0030, “passenger compartment”) within which a driver is disposed during operation of the personal transportation vehicle (pgh. 0011 at least, “driver”);
at least one electric brake (abstract at least, “electrically controlled parking brake”) that, in an engaged position, prevents the personal transportation vehicle from moving (standard operation of a parking brake);
a receptacle (24) containing electrical connectors (21) to the at least one electric brake, the receptacle being accessible from the seating area during operation of the personal transportation vehicle (see pgh. 0030, receptacle 24 arranged in the passenger compartment).
Haffelder does not appear to disclose the brake being engaged due to insufficient power and disengaged due to sufficient power (i.e. a normally engaged brake). In the same field of endeavor of manual release mechanisms for parking brakes within personal transportation vehicles, Clark teaches (figs. 1-3) a personal transportation vehicle (10) including an electric brake 14 that is applied by a spring (90) and released by force of an electromagnet (94) (see pgh. 0020-0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brake as normally engaged by spring force and released by electric force to provide a predominant operation mode for the brake, particularly such that the brake is engaged with insufficient power supplied thereto, as this results in the brake becoming engaged automatically when the vehicle is shut off. This prevents inadvertent rollaway of the vehicle in the event that the driver forgets to engage the parking brake.
Regarding claim 2, Haffelder as modified teaches (figs. 2 and 5) aside from being electrically connected to the at least one electric brake, the receptacle is electrically isolated from operating components of the personal transportation vehicle (pgh. 0023, “Additional users, e.g., the vehicle's electrical system, are not supplied with auxiliary energy in this context”).
Regarding claim 3, Haffelder as modified teaches (figs. 2 and 5) the personal transportation vehicle operates in a tow mode when a portable power source (20) is electrically connected to the receptacle and delivering the sufficient amount of power to move the at least one electric brake to the disengaged position (see pgh. 0005, releasing the brake when parked in order to tow it, which is considered a “tow mode”).
Regarding claim 4, Haffelder as modified teaches (figs. 2 and 5) the personal transportation vehicle is unable to operate in a drive mode while the portable power source is a sole source of power delivering the sufficient amount of power to disengage the at least one electric brake (see pgh. 0022, auxiliary battery 20 is connected to the terminal 21 when the vehicle battery power 8 has failed or is defective. In conjunction with pgh. 0023, “Additional users, e.g., the vehicle's electrical system, are not supplied with auxiliary energy in this context”, the vehicle is not able to operate in a drive mode while the portable power source 20 is the sole source of power due to the failure of the vehicle battery 8).
Regarding claim 5, Haffelder as modified teaches (figs. 2 and 5) the receptacle is located in a console of the personal transportation vehicle (the location of the connecting part 24 within the passenger part corresponds to the “console”).
Regarding claim 6, Haffelder as modified teaches (figs. 2 and 5) a portable power source (20) that is removably installable in the receptacle (see pgh. 0022 at least).
Regarding claim 7, Haffelder as modified teaches (figs. 2 and 5) the receptacle is configured to removably, electrically connect to the portable power source (battery 20 can be connected and disconnected to the receptacle 24)
Regarding claim 8, Haffelder as modified teaches (figs. 2 and 5) the receptacle removably, mechanically couples the portable power source to the personal transportation vehicle (see pgh. 0009 at least, battery adapter plugs into a plug connection, such plug connection considered to mechanically couple the power source and vehicle).
Regarding claim 9, Haffelder as modified teaches (figs. 2 and 5) the portable power source is contained within a canister (pgh. 0009, “battery adapter”); the canister having a handle on at least one side that is not adjacent to the receptacle upon when the canister is installed in the cavity (e.g. back side of the battery adapter constitutes a “handle” that user holds when installing the battery adapter into the plug 25.
Regarding claim 10, Haffelder as modified teaches (figs. 2 and 5) one or more main power sources (8) configured to operate the at least one electric brake to move the at least one electric brake between the engaged position and the disengaged position unless prevented by a fault or by lack of available power (see pgh. 0022 at least).
Regarding claim 11, Haffelder as modified teaches (figs. 2 and 5) (see fig. 1 at least) the at least one electric brake is a parking brake (e.g. locking device 12) and the personal transportation vehicle comprises additional brakes (wheel brakes 11).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the PTO-892 disclose various electric parking brake devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571) 272-7124. 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.
/DAVID MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights