DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 11 September 2023.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted, no information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted to be considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in People’s Republic of China on 31 March 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202320676297.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Non-Patent Literature “HydroFlyer Tech – The HydroFlyer,” from the Wayback Machine Capture of 07 August 2022, hereafter referred to as HydroFlyer.
Regarding Claim 1, HydroFlyer discloses the following:
An electric surfboard with a handrail bracket, comprising
a board body (body as shown in the picture on page 4),
a bracket (bracket shown in the pictures on page 4) being installed at the front end of the board body (body as shown in the picture on page 4),
a handrail (handlebars, as shown in the pictures on pages 2, 4) being arranged at the top of the bracket (bracket shown in the pictures on page 4) (the height of the handrail (handlebars, as shown in the pictures on pages 2, 4) can be adjusted), and
a remote control holder (as best seen on page 7; also see Bluetooth Controller section on page 14) being arranged at one side of the handrail (handlebars, as shown in the pictures on pages 2, 4).
Regarding Claim 3, HydroFlyer discloses the following:
The electric surfboard with a handrail bracket according to claim 1,
wherein the handrail (handlebars, as shown in the pictures on pages 2, 4) has a locking mechanism (see the structure between the bracket and handrail comprising a screw and nut in the bottom, as seen in the picture on page 2), and when unlocking is performed, the height of the handrail can be adjusted (via the angle of the structure between the bracket and handrail).
Regarding Claim 4, HydroFlyer discloses the following:
4. The electric surfboard with a handrail bracket according to claim 1,
wherein the board body (body as shown in the picture on page 4) and the bracket (bracket shown in the pictures on page 4) are fixed by screws and nuts (see picture on page 19 which shows the screws/nuts in in cooperation to connect the bracket to the body; note, the picture from page 19 is from 0:09 seconds into the flash video of the website) and the positions of the board body (body as shown in the picture on page 4) and the bracket (bracket shown in the pictures on page 4) can be adjusted (one of ordinary skill in the art would see that page 1 shows the bracket with the screw holes and the body with two parallel grooves with a gap for a nut head to enter the grooves, and screw would be provided on top of the bracket through the bracket bolt hole and threaded into the nut).
Regarding Claim 5, HydroFlyer discloses the following:
5. The electric surfboard with a handrail bracket according to claim 4,
wherein the board body (body as shown in the picture on page 4) is provided with two parallel grooves (see pages 1, 4), the nuts (if nuts weren't in the grooves, the screws wouldn't work) are installed in the grooves (see pages 1, 4), and the groove (see pages 1, 4) is provided with a gap (as best seen on page 1) whose width is greater than the width of the nut (if nuts weren't in the grooves, the screws wouldn't work).
Regarding Claim 6, HydroFlyer discloses the following:
The electric surfboard with a handrail bracket according to claim 5, wherein
the groove (see pages 1, 4) is provided with a cavity inside, the nut (if nuts weren't in the grooves, the screws wouldn't work) includes a shoulder (if the nut didn't provide a shoulder the assembly would not work, thus the structure must certainly be present), and the cavity can accommodate the shoulder of the nut, so that the nut can slide within the groove (see pages 1, 4) without detachment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HydroFlyer, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Non-Patent Literature, “Amazon.com_ ROCKBROS 360° Rotatable Waterproof Phone Holder,” First Available June 14 2022, hereafter referred to as Rockbros.
Regarding Claim 2, HydroFlyer discloses the following:
The electric surfboard with a handrail bracket according to claim 1,
HydroFlyer does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the handrail (3) is further provided with an accommodating box (32), and the accommodating box (32) is waterproof.
However Rockbros teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to provide handlebars with waterproof boxes (see for example page 1).
HydroFlyer as modified teaches the following:
wherein the handrail (handlebars, as shown in the pictures on pages 2, 4) is further provided with an accommodating box (waterproof phone holder of Rockbros), and the accommodating box is waterproof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handrail as disclosed by HydroFlyer, wherein a waterproof phone holder is attached to the handrail, as taught by Rockbros, with the reasonable expectation of being able to protect a phone (see Rockbros, about this item, first bullet).
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar surfboard arrangements see Pages 1-2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745