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 .
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 2-4, 6-7, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Regarding Claim 2, directed to the offset distance (d), the broad recitation of the limitation is “between 70mm and 140mm” and the narrow recitations are “between 70mm and 130mm” and “between 70mm and 120mm”.
Regarding Claim 3, directed to the offset distance (d), the broad recitation of the limitation is “between 80mm and 110mm” and the narrow recitation is “between 90mm and 110mm”.
Regarding Claim 4, directed to the offset distance (d), the broad recitation of the limitation is “between 80mm and 110mm” and the narrow recitation is “between 90mm and 110mm”.
Regarding Claim 6, directed to the angle (β), the broad recitation of the limitation is “between 22° and 42°” and the narrow recitation is “between 27° and 42°”.
Regarding Claim 14, directed to the diameter of the front and rear wheels, the broad recitation of the limitation is “at least equal to 150mm” and the further narrow recitations are “between 150mm and 400mm” and “between 250mm and 350mm”.
Regarding Claim 16, directed to the angular range of the pivot axis (C-C”) relative to the front frame, the broad recitation of the limitation is “less than 360°” and the further narrow limitations are “between 170° and 90°” and “between 160° and 120°”.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 is further rejected as indefinite, as a dependent of a rejected parent claim (see above).
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahan et. al, hereinafter Kahan – US Pub 20200246678 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Kahan teaches a vehicle of the skateboard type comprising a platform (Kahan – Paragraph [0027] – “center section” element 116) intended to receive the feet of a user and extending longitudinally (Fig. 2 – orientation of 116) between a front end (Paragraph [0027], Fig. 2 – area towards “first extension” 110) to which is connected a support assembly (Paragraph [0040] – “fork” 144, which is assembled with at least one “fork blade” 148, “crown” 149, and “steerer” 147, and as a whole assembly, also comprises “first extension” 110) of at least one front wheel (Paragraph [0040] – “first wheel” 106) and an opposite rear end (Paragraph [0027], Fig. 2 – area towards “second extension” 112) to which is connected a support assembly (Fig. 2 – second “rail” 114 supporting rear wheel 108) of at least one rear wheel (108), characterized in that said support assembly (144, comprising 148, 149, 147 as an assembly) of the front wheel (106) comprises a front frame (110) and at least one front arm (148) for fixing at least said front wheel (106), said front arm (148) and said front frame (110) being connected by a front pivot (147) which allows a pivoting of the front wheel (106) relative to the front frame (110) along a pivot axis (STA, also note the configuration of all previous limitations is apparent in Fig. 2) orthogonal to a rotation axis (Fig. 3 – center rotational axis of front wheel 106) of the front wheel (106), said support assembly (144, comprising 148, 149, 147 as an assembly) of the front wheel (106) being designed and configured so that, when the front (106) and rear wheels (108) are in contact with the ground (Fig. 2 – line extending left to right colinear with TR),
the pivot axis (STA) of the front wheel is inclined relative to a mean plane (G – Diagram 1 – annotated inset of Fig. 2 below) of the ground (colinear with G), the orthogonal projection of said pivot axis (STA) in a plane (extending orthogonally into and out of the figure) orthogonal to the mean plane of the ground (G) forming with said mean plane of the ground an angle α (complement of angle θ represented in Diagram 1 – element A1, Paragraph [0048] – “The steerer 147 may rotate about and defined the steering axis (STA) which may be positioned at an angle theta (θ) relative to a vertical axis VA.”) open towards the front of the vehicle of a value comprised between 65° and 85° (Paragraph [0048] – “In some embodiments the angle θ may be less than thirty degrees. However, in yet other embodiments, the angle θ may be greater than thirty degrees.” Therefore, for example, if the angle is less than 30°, e.g. 25°, the complement would equal 65°.)
PNG
media_image1.png
347
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diagram 1 – Annotated inset of Kahan Fig. 2
the front wheel (106) being in contact with the mean plane of the ground (Diagram 1 – G) at a contact point (P1) which is offset towards a rear of the vehicle by an offset distance (TR) relative to a point of intersection (P2) of the pivot axis (STA) with the mean plane of the ground (G).
Kahan discloses the claimed invention, including an offset distance of the claimed order of magnitude (given that the skateboard is configured for use by a human with a foot of commensurate size, as depicted in Diagram 1 above). However, Kahan is silent as to the specific numerical dimension range, 60mm to 150mm, of the offset distance (TR). Recognizing that the offset distance, also known in the art as trail, (as a result effective variable) is directly correlated to the stability and controllability of the present vehicle and two-wheeled vehicles in general, which is a desirable characteristic, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to optimize the offset distance/ trail to provide desired handling and stability characteristics (also note that in Kahan, the offset distance is adjustable by the end user through removing the front wheel and fixing the central rotation axis into any of the spaced openings 145) since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. See MPEP 2144.05 - II - Routine Optimization.
Additionally, to the extent an argument may be made that Kahan’s complementary angle (A1) is disclosed within a range (60-90°) substantially overlapping the claimed range (65-85°), but not precisely identical, similar routine optimization considerations apply as detailed above, as it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the angle disclosed by Kahan to provide desired handling and stability characteristic.
Regarding Claims 2-4, Kahan teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, but does not teach the explicit numerical dimension ranges of the inclination of the pivot axis (Diagram 1 – A1) or the offset distance (TR). As discussed above, the offset distance (as result effective variable) is directly correlated to the stability and controllability of the present vehicle and two-wheeled vehicles in general. One ordinarily skilled in the art of two-wheeled vehicle design would also recognize the inclination angle of the pivot axis relative to the ground, well-known in the art as the rake angle, correlates significantly with two-wheeled vehicle stability and handling characteristics, and that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to optimize this angle along with the offset distance through routine skill. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Again, note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed “inclination angle” and “offset distance” limitation.
Regarding Claim 5, Kahan teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, further characterized in that the support assembly (144, including subcomponent “steerer” 147, which is connected to the rest of the vehicle via “head tube support” 152, see Fig. 1) of the front wheel (106) is removably connected to the platform (Paragraph [0042] – “The head tube support 152 may include one or more openings to receive and/or couple to the steerer 147.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Kahan teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, further characterized in that the front pivot (147) comprises a first front pivot element (“crown” 149) movable relative to the front frame (160), said arm (144 as a whole, which also comprises 148) fixing the front wheel (106) extending longitudinally, between a first end (Fig. 1, the end towards 154) at which the arm is secured to said first front pivot element (Fig. 1, via 148 which is connected to 149) and a second end (towards the hub of front wheel 106) opposite the level at which the arm (via 148) is fixed to a hub (center of 106) of the front wheel (106) along an extension axis (Diagram 1 – element E) which forms with the pivot axis (STA) of the front wheel at an angle (Diagram 1 – element A2). Kahan discloses an angle (β) of the claimed order of magnitude (Diagram 1 depicts an angle A2 of approximately 30-40°), however Kahan does not disclose specifically an angular range of 22-42° or 27-42° as claimed.
This angle is directly correlated to the two-wheeled vehicle’s offset (differing from the offset distance as in Claim 1), which is the distance between the pivot axis and a parallel line extending through the front wheel’s hub. Just like the offset, this angle (A2) is a result effective variable that significantly affects the handling and stability of a two-wheeled vehicle, and it would have been obvious for one ordinarily skilled in the art to optimize this angle through the vehicle’s geometry as a result of routine skill and experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed extension axis angle limitation.
Regarding Claim 7, Kahan as above teaches the vehicle according to Claim 6, further characterized in that said first front pivot element (149) comprises an offset portion (Fig. 1, upward extending portion of 148) via which said front arm (144, as a whole) is secured to said first front pivot element (149) at a point of connection of the first end (rightmost portion of 148) of the front arm (148) to said offset portion (upward extending portion of 148) which is offset rearwardly relative to the pivot axis (STA) of the front wheel (Fig. 1, apparent rearward offset of upward extending portion of 148 relative to STA).
Regarding Claim 8, Kahan teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, further characterized in that the front pivot (147) is arranged forward and above the rotation axis (axis extending orthogonally into and out of the center of front wheel 106) of the front wheel (106, spatial orientation apparent in Fig. 2, 147 is disposed above center of 106).
Regarding Claim 9, Kahan teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, characterized in that it comprises a single front wheel (Fig. 3 – single front wheel 106 is apparent).
Regarding Claim 10, Kahan teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, further characterized in that it comprises a single rear wheel (Fig. 3 – single rear wheel 108 is apparent).
Regarding Claim 11, Kahan teaches the vehicle according to Claim 9, further characterized in that said front (106) and rear (108) wheels are arranged in line along a longitudinal extension axis (Fig. 3 – axis colinear with cross-section line 4) of the platform (116).
Regarding Claim 12, Kahan teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, further characterized in that said at least one rear wheel (108) is non-steerable (Paragraph [0098] – “a cross skate having a powered fixed rear wheel…”).
Regarding Claim 13, Kahan teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, further characterized in that said at least one rear wheel (108) is steerable (Paragraph [0098] – “… the rear wheel may include a swivel-type wheel.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Kahan teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, including wheel diameters of the claimed order of magnitude (given that the skateboard is configured for use by a human with a foot of commensurate size, as depicted in Fig. 2 above), but does not teach specific values for the diameters of the front (106) and rear (108) wheels. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that the size of the wheels is a result effective variable and is directly correlated to the desirable characteristic of vehicle handling, and would find it obvious to accordingly size the wheels, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, through routine skill and experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed wheel diameter limitation.
Regarding Claim 15, Kahan teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, further characterized in that it is provided with a propulsion motor, preferably electric (Paragraph [0030] – “The second wheel 108 may form a second wheel 108 including the electric motor 132 (e.g., a hub motor, a traction motor, etc.) …”).
Regarding Claim 16, Kahan teaches the vehicle according to Claim 1, further characterized in that the support assembly (144) of the front wheel (106) is designed and configured to allow the pivoting of the front wheel relative to the front frame (110) along said pivot axis (STA) in a limited predetermined angular range (Paragraph [0044] – “A steering damper… may be coupled to… the fork…” and Paragraph [0045] – “…the steering damper may include an electronic actuator… which may actively dampen and/or control rotation of the fork… so as to control steering angle.”). Kahan does not teach that the angular range is less than 360°, preferably comprised between 170° and 90°, and even more preferably comprised between 160° and 120°.
Recognizing that the steering angle range (as result effective variable) is directly correlated to the controllability of the vehicle, which is a desirable characteristic, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to physically limit the rotation of the steering assembly with the steering damper as taught by Kahan or through any other mechanical means, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed steering angle limit limitation. MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 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, 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.
/Mitchell James Price/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611