Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/635,013

ELECTRIC BALANCE BIKE

Final Rejection §102§112
Filed
Apr 15, 2024
Examiner
WEHRLY, CHRISTOPHER B
Art Unit
3611
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hl CORP (Shenzhen)
OA Round
2 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
100 granted / 194 resolved
-0.5% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
224
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
§103
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 194 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Status of the Claims Applicant’s amendment filed 1/10/26 (hereinafter Response) has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1 and 3 have been amended, claims 10-16 have been cancelled, and claim 18 is new. Claims 1-9 and 17-18 remain pending in the application. Claim Objections Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 17: “the electric balance bike of claim 10” should be and is interpreted as “The electric balance bike of claim [[10]1” Regarding claim 18: “informing the users” should be and is interpreted as “informing [[the]] users” Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-9 and 17-18 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. Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein the electric balance bikecontroller further comprises a power abnormality response system”. Regarding claims 4 and 17, the phrase “a buzzer” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks clear antecedent basis. Specifically, “a buzzer” lacks clear antecedent basis because claim 1, which claims 4 and 17 depend from also introduce “a buzzer”. Therefore it is unclear if the buzzer recited in claims 4 and 17 are intended to be additional buzzers or referring back to the previously introduced buzzer. Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(b). Allowable Subject Matter In view of the amendments to claim 1 and the remarks included in the Response the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0222549 to Ragland et al (hereinafter Ragland) in view of US 2021/0061409 A1 to Ricco et al (hereinafter Ricco) is withdrawn. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art of record. Every element of the claims are not taught by any of the references individually and the prior art of record fails to permissibly teach the overall combination as claimed. Even if one could construe the prior art of record such that the combination disclosed each and every limitation of the claims, the ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references in reference to themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The closest prior art of record Ragland and Ricco generally disclosed the limitations of the originally filed claims 1 and 8. However, as presently amended and argued by the Applicant, at a minimum neither Ragland nor Ricco specifically disclose the various specific warning sound arrangements. Even if each and every element of the present invention were taught individually by the aforementioned references, combining the references as an ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references present in the aforementioned references themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. For at least these reasons, a rejection of the claims under 35 USC §§102/103 is not made. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT. 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. /CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 15, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jan 10, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 27, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599109
DUALLY DRIVE WHEEL ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600430
A TORQUE SUPPORT ASSEMBLY, A TORQUE SUPPORT DEVICE, A WHEEL SECURING DEVICE, A REAR AXLE ASSEMBLY AND A BICYCLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583551
CARGO BICYCLE CONVERSION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570115
OFFSET MULTI-POINT UNDER BED HITCH MOUNTING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559197
ELECTRIC BICYCLE DRIVE UNIT FASTENING ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+17.4%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 194 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month