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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 24, 25, and 27-30 are directed to an invention and/or species that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claims 24 and 25 are specific to non-elected species while claims 27-30 are drawn to a method restrictable from the elected product. Note that while claim 23 is also apparently drawn to a non-elected species, as similar subject matter was handled in the 12 February 2026 office action, this claim has been examined here.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention and species, this invention and species has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 24, 25, and 27-30 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 9-18 are 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 9 recites the limitation "the seat cushion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites “a protruding portion extending… and a corresponding mounting portion.” It is unclear if the mounting portion relates to the extension of the protruding portion or is a separate part of the rail mount.
Claims 10-18 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 15-18, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN 216508759; copy and machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses a scooter comprising: a main body including a seat assembly that includes a support member (of 100), a seat frame portion (lower portion of 110 and/or frame immediately beneath), and a seat cushion portion (at least upper portion of 110); and a storage component (200) positioned below the seat cushion and attached to the support member or the seat frame portion (this is the general arrangement; see figures).
Regarding claim 10, Wang further discloses the storage component is configured to be removable from the main body (200 is removably mounted).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Wang further discloses the seat frame portion includes a protruding portion such that the storage component is configured to be attached to the protruding portion of the seat frame portion, wherein the storage component includes a mounting portion such that the protruding portion of the seat frame portion mechanically couples to the mounting portion (sliding part 210 forms a mounting portion for joining with the seat frame, which would necessarily have a mating protruding potion based on the shape; that is, while not clearly show, a protruding portion of the seat frame portion would need to be present for the disclosed slide to function as described).
Regarding claim 17, Wang further discloses the storage component and the seat frame portion form a water-resistant container when the storage component is in a closed position (this is the general arrangement; i.e. the seat frame and storage component, when closed, would be water-resistant at least based on shape and position).
Regarding claim 18, Wang further discloses the storage component is accessible for insertion of objects when the storage component is in an open position (i.e. by sliding 200 forward, objects could be inserted).
Regarding claim 21, Wang discloses a scooter assembly comprising: a main body including a deck (a lower portion for instance), and a seat assembly, wherein the seat assembly includes a support member (of 100), a seat frame portion (lower portion of 110 and/or frame immediately beneath), and a seat cushion portion (at least upper portion of 110); and a storage component (200) positioned below the seat cushion and attached to the support member or the seat frame portion (this is the general arrangement; see figures).
Regarding claim 22, Wang further discloses the storage component is configured to transition from a closed position to an open position using a rail mount (including 210), the seat cushion portion covering a top side of the storage component when the storage component is in the closed position (this is the general arrangement; see figures).
Regarding claim 23, Wang further discloses the storage component and the seat frame portion form the rail mount, the rail mount including a protruding portion extending from the seat frame portion and a corresponding mounting portion of the storage component (210 and a mating portion of the seat frame as explained above; see the rejection of claims 15 and 16).
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(s) 11, 12, 14, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Regarding claim 11 and 12, Wang discloses a scooter as explained above and would appear to disclose receipt of safety equipment (storage of a helmet is disclosed; see at least the next to last paragraph of the fourth page of the translation), but this may not be clear (i.e. the helmet is discussed primarily in relation to 130 rather than 200). However, even if safety equipment/helmet storage with the storage component were not clear, as duplication and rearrangement of components requires only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide helmet storage with the storage component based on normal variation to improve comfort and convenience for various users.
Regarding claim 14, Wang, modified as described, discloses a scooter as explained above including a retention portion (at least the magnetic part described in the section noted above) configured to retain safety equipment, but may not clearly associate it with the storage component (i.e. it is described with 120 rather than 200). However, as duplication and rearrangement, and/or reversal of components requires only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a retention portion with the storage component based on normal variation to improve comfort and convenience for various users.
Regarding claim 26, Wang discloses a scooter assembly as explained above but does not specify materials. The use of the claimed materials is old and well-known and material selection is a routine design choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use materials as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort or safety for various users.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Liu (WO 2021/169629; copy and machine translation attached). Wang discloses a device as explained above but does not disclose instruction via a mobile network. Liu discloses a related device including locking configured to be locked or unlocked in response to an instruction received via a mobile network (see at least the paragraph beginning “FIG. 2 is an overall…” on page 9 of the translation). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide instruction via mobile network as taught by Liu in Wang’s device because this could increase user convenience and security.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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 PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights