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 .
Claims 2 and 11 have been canceled.
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.
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.
Claim(s) claims 1, 3-6, 10, 12, 13, 18, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN202806968) in view of Yen (USPN 8,417,404).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 10, Yu teaches a powered unicycle (Figure 1), comprising: a central wheel 5 comprising a frontmost point; a motor (hub motor 6) to power the central wheel; a control system 7 configured to control the application of power from the motor to the central wheel according to a lean of a center of gravity of the powered unicycle relative to an axis of rotation of the central wheel (Yu, Figure 2 and the paragraph that spans pages 2 and 3 of translation, describes the motor control being responsive to a vehicle body posture sensing system 71 including an acceleration sensing chip and a gyroscope, and a vehicle posture control system 72 that activates motor drive in accordance with vehicle body tilt); a body portion (not shown, but referred to throughout the specification, para [0015] refers to vehicle protective shell, not shown); a first platform 4 and a second platform 4 for supporting a user in a standing position; and a handle 2 that extends upwardly from the frame 1 to a position that the handle can be grasped by the user of the unicycle. The handle 2 is on a front end of the powered unicycle and comprises a central longitudinal axis (vertical axis through vertical handle support, seen in Figure 1), wherein the central longitudinal axis is positioned forward of the frontmost point of the wheel (see Figure 1).
Yu teaches outrigger wheels but fails to teach the first outrigger wheel under the first platform, the second outrigger wheel under the second platform; a first swing arm and a second swing arm, the first swing arm connecting the first outrigger wheel to the body, the second swing arm connecting the second outrigger wheel to the body, the first swing arm pivotal relative to the body and the first platform along a first axis, the second swing arm pivotal relative to the body and the second platform along a second axis, the first axis and the second axis generally parallel to the forward direction of travel.
Yen teaches a powered unicycle including a central wheel 13, a motor driving the wheel and two outrigger wheels 191 positioned on opposite sides of the central wheel and comprising a first swing arm 192 and a second swing arm 192 (see Figure 5), the first swing arm connecting the first outrigger wheel to the body, the second swing arm connecting the second outrigger wheel to the body, the first swing arm pivotal relative to the body and the first platform along a first axis, the second swing arm pivotal relative to the body and the second platform along a second axis, the first axis and the second axis generally parallel to the forward direction of travel (Figure 5 shows outrigger wheels 191 on opposite sides of central wheel 13, and connected to the central wheel axle about parallel, longitudinal axes against the resistance of springs 193).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the outrigger wheels of the unicycle of Yu on respective swing arms centered in the fore-aft direction relative to the central wheel, as taught by Yen, which would position the outrigger wheels below the footboards of Yu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide enhanced stability for the safety of a rider who is learning to operate the unicycle.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, both references teach the first outrigger wheel positioned on a first axial side of the central wheel and the second outrigger wheel is positioned on a second axial side of the central wheel (see Yu, Figure 1 and Yen, Figure 4).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Yu shows the first outrigger wheel 11 coupled to the first platform 4 and the second outrigger wheel 11 coupled to the second platform 4 (Yu, Figure 1 and paragraphs [0010] and [0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Yu teaches the outrigger wheels mounted to the lower end of the platforms.
Regarding claim 18, Yu shows a T-shaped handle with a handlebar portion at the upper end but it is not clear if the handlebar width is greater than the distance between the outrigger wheels. However, Yen also shows a T-shaped handle and the handlebar at the upper end is clearly wider than the distance between the outrigger wheels, as seen in Figure 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a handlebar than has a wider span than the distance between the outrigger wheels, as taught by Yen, in order to provide the rider with a wide range of handhold positions for rider comfort.
Regarding claim 22, Yu teaches the central longitudinal axis is substantially perpendicular to the first platform 4 and the second platform 4, and wherein the central longitudinal axis laterally centered on the unicycle.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 202806968 to Yu and Yen (USPN 8,417,404) and further in view of Chen (PGPub 2011/0220427).
Regarding claims 16, the combination lacks a carrying handle comprising a through hole in the body portion and the handle is directly above a center of gravity of the powered cycle.
Chen teaches a unicycle having a body portion with a carrying handle 190 comprising a through hole in the body portion (see Figure 2; para [0025], “carrying handle 190 formed as part of the casing 160’ and “cut into the abovementioned hollow space provided in the top of casing 160”). The handle is also directly above the center of gravity of the powered unicycle (vertically aligned with the axle of the central wheel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position a carrying handle of the combination unicycle directly above the center of gravity of the unicycle and as a through hole in the body portion, as taught by Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a convenient handle that poses no obstruction to operation of the vehicle and adds minimal weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10, 12, 13, 16-18, and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 14, 15, and 19-21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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 on 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/