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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 13 have been examined.
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.
(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.
Claims 1 – 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kirchschlager et al. (10,723,405). In regard to claim 1, Kirchschlager discloses a scooter comprising a seat unit (Fig. 3, item 12), rotatably arranged on a main body of the scooter (Fig. 3, item 1) and comprising a first position as a seat after being unfolded (Fig. 3) and a second position as a handrail after being folded (Fig. 4), and a locking unit, arranged on the main body of the scooter, the locking unit positioning the seat unit when the seat unit is in the first position and the second position (Fig. 3, item 15).
In regard to claim 2, Kirchschlager discloses wherein front and rear ends of the seat unit comprise mounting openings for mounting a handrail unit, the handrail unit being mounted at the mounting opening at the front end of the seat unit when the seat unit is in the first position, and the handrail unit being mounted at the mounting opening at the rear end of the seat unit when the seat unit is in the second position (Figs. 3 and 4, unnumbered receptacles into which item 9 is mounted).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchschlager et al. (10,723,405) as applied to claims 1 – 2 above, and further in view of Wang (CN218085862). Kirchschlager does not disclose the use of an elastic unit in the locking unit. In regard to claim 3, Wang discloses a locking unit comprising a lock head movably arranged on the main body of the scooter (Fig. 4, item 32), a first elastic unit is arranged between the lock head and the main body of the scooter (Fig. 4, item 44), and the seat unit comprises a cavity body for at least part of the lock head to enter (Fig. 4, item 22), the seat unit being positioned when the lock head enters the cavity body (Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the elastic unit of Wang, to the scooter of Kirchschlager, in order to provide a secure and easily releasable locking mechanism to the seat/body joint.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Kirchschlager et al. (10,723,405) discloses a scooter similar to the instant invention; however Kirchschlager, either alone or in combination, neither discloses nor suggests a scooter comprising (in regard to claim 4) an upper cavity body, a lower cavity body and a plurality of holes, at least one of the holes is a through-penetration hole, and a lock pin is mounted at the through-penetration hole, and the lock pin is mounted on a cover body of the main body of the scooter after passing through the upper cavity body, and the lock pin comprises a limiting head for limiting the seat unit, wherein (in regard to claim 11) the handrail unit comprises a built-in cavity and a through hole communicating with the built-in cavity, and a second elastic unit is arranged in the built-in cavity, the second elastic unit comprises a pin head arranged at the through hole, and the pressing unit comprises a raised head matching with the pin head. These limitations, in combination with each and every other independent claim limitation, are not shown in the currently cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rudell et al. (6,089,586) disclose a convertible scooter;
Berndorfer et al. (9,254,883) disclose a scooter;
Wang (D908,808) discloses a scooter;
Hu et al. (CN215826901) disclose a multifunctional scooter;
Lin (CN217198494) discloses a three wheeled scooter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DANIEL WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (PT).
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at 303.297.4337. 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.
/JOHN D WALTERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613