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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, Claims 8-14 in the reply filed on 12/1/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions “substantially overlap in scope” and that the different subject matter between the invention groups is “interrelated”. This is not found persuasive because Examiner asserts that even though inventions I and II can be used together (i.e. the vehicle of invention II can utilize the gearing of invention I, the subject matter of invention I requires possible search in completely different areas including gearing systems of vehicles. Note that “manually operable control system” does not impart any specific structure including gear systems.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 11 the offense system is referred to in the plural. However, claim 8 indicates a single offense system with multiple deterrants. 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.
Claim 10 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. In claim 10, “strategically positioned along a central vertical axis of a front side’s lower half” does not define the part or portion of the invention that the descriptive limitation is intended. Is the “front side’s lower half” of a specific part of the vehicle or the vehicle in general?
In claim 13, “accommodate users of various physical attributes” does not adequately indicate how the
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) 8, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Woo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0366712).
In regards to claim 8, Woo et al (henceforth referred to as Woo) disclose an emergency response vehicle with human-powered operation and indoor and outdoor adaptability, capable of being utilized in high-risk areas for protection during an emergency. Woo teaches a vehicle that has some human powered operation (steering etc.) and is capable of use as claimed (see figure 1), comprising:
a manually operable control system for navigation. Woo teaches operating a steering joystick;
an integrated defense mechanism consisting of bullet-resistant materials. Woo teaches that the vehicle is armored; and
a built-in offense system with multiple non-lethal deterrents. Woo teaches using a taser (item 11) built into the vehicle along with a flash-bang feature (item 9).
In regards to claim 12, Woo discloses that the multiple non-lethal deterrents are positioned to allow for the use of the vehicle as a mobile shield. The positioning of the non-lethal deterrents in the Woo vehicle allows use of the vehicle as a mobile shield.
In regards to claim 13, Woo discloses that the control system for navigation includes an adjustable interface to accommodate users of various physical attributes. The collapsible seat (item 19) allows for different people to use the vehicle.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0366712) in view of Halliwell et al. (Great Britain Patent Document GB 2,468,501).
In regards to claim 9, Woo discloses that the offense system includes taser gun shooting systems (par. 34), but does not explicitly teach pepper spray. However, Halliwell et al (henceforth referred to as Halliwell) teaches a vehicle with a pepper spray non-lethal option and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to include multiple different non-lethal weapons in/on the Woo vehicle including pepper spray as taught by Halliwell, to target different kinds of threats.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0366712).
In regards to claim 10, Woo discloses that the at least one taser gun is strategically positioned on a front side’s lower half (see position of item 11), but fails to disclose that the taser gun is positioned along a central vertical axis of the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide various non-lethal weapons at various locations and to place the taser at locations including the along the vertical axis as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0366712) in view of Lucas et al. (U.S. Patent 9,072,289).
In regards to claim 11, Woo does not disclose that the multiple non-lethal deterrents of the offense systems are actuated by a pull of a metal rope by a rider. However, Lucas et al (henceforth referred to as Lucas) teaches a metal rope (i.e. cable) actuation for a chemical spray (bear spray) pulled by a user (col. 1, lines 12-15) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide any of various initiation means for the non-lethal deterrents of Woo including a metal rope (cable) as taught by Lucas, to allow for a strong easily accessible triggering device.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0366712) in view of Fonarov et al. (U.S. Patent 11,667,345).
In regards to claim 14, Woo fails to disclose that the built-in offense system includes sensory technology to automatically target and engage with potential threats. However, Fonarov et al (henceforth referred to as Fonarov) teaches an armored vehicle with threat assessment sensor mounted in/on the frame (items 198) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide sensors in/on the Woo vehicle like that of Fonarov, to determine possible threats/targets.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 8-14 are rejected and claims 1-7 and 15-20 are withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641