9DETAILED 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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "the group" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by A. Polutnik, U.S. 2011/0056757 (“Polutnik”). Polutnik discloses a self-balancing single wheeled electric vehicle (abstract) comprising:
a seat (6) attached to a frame (7) wherein the seat is positioned to be low enough that a user (paragraph [0002]) can set a tilt of the seat (lean, [0006]) with a foot of the user;
a motorized hub ([0012], [0029]) attached to the frame;
a wheel (4, [0015]) attached to the motorized hub;
a controller [0019] attached to the frame that activates operable to activate the motorized hub to move forward when the seat is tilted forward and activates to activate the motorized hub to slow when the seat is tilted backward [0020].
In reference to claim 3, Polutnik further discloses [[claim 3]] no footpad provisions for a foot of a rider (no footpad described).
In reference to claim 19, Polutnik discloses a method of operating a self-balancing single wheeled electric vehicle (abstract), comprising:
positioning a user [0002] on a seat (6) attached to a frame (7), wherein the seat is positioned to be low enough that the user can set a tilt of the seat (lean) using a foot of the user;
tilting the seat forward to activate a controller (control system) attached to the frame, the controller operable to activate a motorized hub [0029] attached to a wheel (4) and attached to the frame to move the vehicle forward;
tilting the seat backward to activate the controller to slow the motorized hub [0006], reducing the speed of the vehicle [0006]; maintaining balance of the vehicle during operation through activation of the motorized hub by the controller [0008].
In reference to claim 20, Polutnik discloses a system [0007] for a self-balancing singled wheeled electric vehicle [0008], the system comprising:
a seat (6) configured to be attached to a frame (7) and positioned low enough to allow a user [0006] to set a tilt of the seat (lean) with a foot of the user;
a motorized hub (electromotor integrated into the wheel) operatively connected to a wheel (4) and configured to be attached to the frame;
a controller [0006] configured to detect a forward tilt of the seat [0006] and activate the motorized hub to move the vehicle forward and detect a backward tilt of the seat [0006] and activate the motorized hub to slow the vehicle [0006].
Claim(s) 1, 6 – 8, 11, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoffmann et al. U.S. 2014/0058600 (“Hoffmann”). Hoffmann discloses a self-balancing single wheeled electric vehicle (abstract) comprising:
a seat (fig. 6) attached to a frame (fig. 7) wherein the seat is positioned to be low enough that a user (rider) can set a tilt of the seat [0029] with a foot of the user [0075];
a motorized hub [0076] attached to the frame;
a wheel [0079] attached to the motorized hub;
a controller [0082] attached to the frame that activates operable to activate the motorized hub to move forward when the seat is tilted forward and activates to activate the motorized hub to slow when the seat is tilted backward [0092].
In reference to claims 6 – 8, 11, 17, and 18, Hoffmann further discloses [[claim 6]] a brake lever (C8) operatively coupled to the controller to signal the controller to slow the motorized hub when the brake lever is activated;
[[claim 7]] further comprising a control lever [0032] attached to the frame which allows the user to tilt the seat (tilt input 18 that includes attitude input 20, and tilt adjust input 22);
[[claim 8]] wherein the control lever has features selected from a group of being hinged to fold up and being removeable by the user (fig. 17, [0074]);
[[claim 11]] wherein the seat may be detached from the frame (fig. 13, 17); and
[[claim 17]] further comprising an armrest (128) attached to the seat.
In reference to claim 19, Hoffmann discloses a method of operating [0090] a self-balancing single wheeled electric vehicle (abstract), comprising:
positioning a user on a seat [0002] attached to a frame (abstract), wherein the seat is positioned to be low enough that the user can set a silt of the seat (tilt) using a foot of the user [0067];
tilting the seat forward to activate a controller (control system) attached to the frame, the controller operable to activate a motorized hub (14, fig. 13) attached to a wheel (abstract) and attached to the frame to move the vehicle forward;
tilting the seat backward to activate the controller to slow the motorized hub [0024], reducing the speed of the vehicle [0027];
maintaining balance of the vehicle during operation through activation of the motorized hub by the controller [0034].
In reference to claim 20, Hoffman discloses a system [0036] for a self-balancing singled wheeled electric vehicle [0045], the system comprising:
a seat (130) configured to be attached to a frame (106) and positioned low enough to allow a user [0075] to set a tilt of the seat [0046] with a foot of the user [0067];
a motorized hub [0046] operatively connected to a wheel [0048] and configured to be attached to the frame;
a controller [0061] configured to detect a forward tilt of the seat [0087] and activate the motorized hub to move the vehicle forward and detect a backward tilt of the seat (204, 206) and activate the motorized hub to slow the vehicle [0058].
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polutnik in view of H. Lin, CN 112590989 (“Lin”). Polutnik does not disclose the seat height from the ground in level riding position. Lin teaches a seat height of less than 22 inches (40 - 50 cm). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find modifying Doerksen such that it comprised the seat height less than 22 inches in view of the teaching of Lin obvious so as to reduce the whole gravity of the vehicle, the rider sitting posture is more comfortable, and improves the driving safety and stability (page 2, 3rd paragraph).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polutnik in view of Y. Peng, CN 107719540 (“Peng”). Doerksen does not disclose the wheel outer diameter. Peng teaches a wheel outer diameter less than 16 inches (31cm). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find modifying Doerksen such that it comprised a wheel outer diameter less than 16 inches in view of the teaching of Polutnik obvious so as to provide a tire readily available for small motor vehicles (abstract).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann in view of C.B. Yuan CN112793691 (“Yuan”). Hoffmann does not disclose a seat pad detection sensor. Yuan teaches [[claim 5]] a seat detection sensor (abstract) operatively coupled to a controller (abstract) and configured to indicate to the controller when the seat is occupied by the user; and [[claim 14]] wherein the controller is unable to activate a motor (abstract) to move forward when a user (driver) is not sitting on a seat (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find modifying Hoffmann such that it comprised the seat pad detection sensor and controller to deactivate a motor in view of the teaching of Yuan obvious so as to prevent accidental while a ride is not present (abstract).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polutnik in view of Staal et al. U.S. 11,827,300 (“Staal”). Polutnik does not disclose that the seat folds up. Staal teaches a seat that folds up (126). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find modifying Polutnik such that it comprises the seat folding in view of the teaching of Staal obvious so as to transition and improve a compact personal transport device that can be set up and collapsed quickly (“Advantage”).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann in view of Chen et al. U.S. 2018/0037293 (“Chen”). Hoffmann does not disclose the controller indicating to the user an overspeed warning by activating an audible indicator. Chen teaches a controller (abstract) indicating to a user of an overspeed warning ([0003], [0027]) by activating an audible indicator (alarm sound, warning alert). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would find modifying Hoffmann such that it comprised the overspeed warning in view of the teaching of Chen obvious so as to alert a rider to shut down [0045].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, first paragraph, filed 19 October 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Polutnik.
Applicant's arguments regarding reference Hoffmann have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hoffmann does not disclose the seat positioned low enough that a user can set a tilt of the seat with a foot of the user, but Hoffmann discloses the tilt adjust input 22 can be manipulated by foot [0024]. The rejection stands.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 12, 15, and 18 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Prior art references do not disclose or teach a self-balancing single wheeled electric vehicle comprising, inter alia, a seat attached to a frame wherein the seat is positioned low enough that a user can set a tilt of the seat with a foot of the user; a motorized hub attached to the frame; a controller attached to the frame operable to activate the motorized hub to move forward when the seat is tilted forward and to activate the motorized hub to slow when the seat is tilted backward; [[claim 9]] a foot wheel that may be attached to the foot of the user, wherein the foot wheel is automatically mechanically braked upon the user standing;
[[claim 12]] wherein the seat is attached to the frame with a slotted clamp and a bear clamp;
[[claim 15]] wherein the controller indicates to the user a maximum duty cycle of the motorized hub by causing the motorized hub to accelerate further than the tilt of the seat would ordinarily control; or
[[claim 18]] wherein the control lever may be detached from the frame while the controller activates the motorized hub based upon rider tilt with or without lever or throttle.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN BECK whose telephone number is (571)272-6212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30AM - 4:00PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. 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.
KAREN BECK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3614
/KAREN BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614