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 57 – 100 have been examined. Claims 1 – 56 have been canceled by Applicant.
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 57 – 71 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.
Claim 57 positively recites “a tiller” twice in the claim. Based on the specification and figures, it appears that only one tiller is intended as part of the apparatus. Appropriate correction is required.
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 57, 62 – 63, 66 – 75, 78, 85 – 87, 89 – 90, 94 – 98, and 100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kosco et al. (10,479,436). In regard to claims 57, 72, and 89 – 90, Kosco discloses a vehicle comprising a frame having a first portion coupled to a front wheel and coupled to a tiller (Fig. 1, items 14, 22, and 28), and a second portion coupled to a rear wheel and coupled to the first portion (Fig. 1, items 12 and 16), a hinge coupled to each of the first portion and the second portion such that the first portion is rotatable relative to the second portion about the hinge to transition the vehicle between a folded configuration and an unfolded configuration (Fig. 1, item 34), and wherein the tiller is pivotably coupled to the first portion over a pivot range, the tiller including a tiller clutch engageable to selectively fix the tiller relative to the first portion at a plurality of locations in the pivot range when the vehicle is in at least one of the folded configuration and the unfolded configuration (Fig. 1, item 32).
In regard to claim 62, Kosco discloses wherein the first portion has a first portion longitudinal axis and the second portion has a second portion longitudinal axis, and wherein vehicle is configured such that the first portion longitudinal axis that second portion longitudinal axis are substantially coaxial in an unfolded configuration and substantially parallel in a folded configuration (Figs. 1 and 6).
In regard to claims 63, Kosco discloses wherein the vehicle includes a vehicle longitudinal axis extending from a front of the vehicle to a rear of the vehicle, wherein the first portion longitudinal axis and the second portion longitudinal axis are substantially parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis when the vehicle is in an unfolded configuration, and wherein the first portion longitudinal axis and the second portion longitudinal axis are laid off relative to a plane perpendicular to a ground surface when the vehicle is in a folded free-standing configuration (Figs. 1 and 12).
In regard to claim 66, Kosco discloses wherein the tiller includes a tiller actuator configured to transition the tiller clutch between an engaged configuration at which the tiller is prevented from pivoting relative to the first portion and a disengaged configuration at which the tiller is not prevented from pivoting relative to the first portion (column 6, lines 24 – 26).
In regard to claim 67, Kosco discloses wherein the first portion is configured to pivotably lock to the second portion when the vehicle is transitioned from the unfolded configuration to the folded configuration (Fig. 9).
In regard to claim 68, Kosco discloses wherein the tiller is pivotable relative to the first portion as the vehicle is transitioned between the folded configuration and the unfolded configuration (Figs. 7 and 9).
In regard to claim 69, Kosco discloses wherein the tiller is rotationally fixed relative to the first portion as the vehicle is transitioned between the folded configuration and the unfolded configuration (Figs. 1 and 6, lower portion of item 28).
In regard to claim 70, Kosco discloses wherein the tiller includes a first tiller portion and a second tiller portion telescopically nested with the first tiller portion (Fig. 1, item 33).
In regard to claim 71, Kosco discloses wherein the second portion is detachably coupled to the first portion (inherent – any grouping of assembled components is capable of being disassembled).
In regard to claim 72, Kosco discloses a hinge having a knuckle (Fig. 7, item 172) engageable with a hub bolt to secure the first portion to the second portion(Fig. 7, item 162).
In regard to claim 73, Kosco discloses wherein the knuckle is fixed to one of the first portion or the second portion and the hub bolt is fixed to the other of the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 7).
In regard to claims 74 and 94, Kosco discloses a lock having a manual actuator selectable to an unlocked state and a locked state, wherein the vehicle automatically transitions the actuator from the unlocked state to the locked state in response to the vehicle transitioning to an unfolded configuration (Fig. 7, item 174 & column 7, line 64 to column 8, line 13).
In regard to claims 75, 96, and 100, Kosco discloses wherein the manual actuator is selectable to the locked state when the vehicle is in the folded configuration and when the vehicle is in the unfolded configuration (column 7, line 64 to column 8, line 13).
In regard to claim 78, Kosco discloses wherein the hub bolt has a longitudinal axis, a first cross- section width at a selected point along the longitudinal axis and a second cross-section width at the selected point along the longitudinal axis, the second cross-section width being larger than the first cross-section width (inherent – wherein non-specified “selected” points along an axis can be selected wherein segments bound by said selected points are sized differently).
In regard to claim 85, Kosco discloses wherein the first portion is rotatable relative to the second portion about the hub bolt (Figs. 7 and 9).
In regard to claim 86, Kosco discloses wherein the first portion has a first portion longitudinal axis and the second portion has a second portion longitudinal axis, and wherein the hub bolt is detachable from the knuckle when the first portion and the second portion are pivoted about the hinge such that the first portion longitudinal axis and the second portion longitudinal axis form an acute angle therebetween (Fig. 9, wherein bolt 162 can be disassembled from the assembly when in the configuration shown).
In regard to claims 87 and 98, Kosco discloses wherein the second portion is detachably coupled to the first portion, and wherein the second portion is detachable from the first portion when the vehicle is in a folded configuration (Fig. 9, wherein bolt 162 can be disassembled from the assembly when in the configuration shown).
In regard to claim 95, Kosco discloses wherein one of the first portion and the second portion moves the lock from the unlocked state to the locked state (Figs. 7 and 9 & column 7, line 64 to column 8, line 13).
In regard to claim 97, Kosco discloses wherein transitioning the lock from the unlocked state to the locked state includes rotating a portion of the lock relative to at least one of the first portion and the second portion (Figs. 7 and 9).
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.
Claims 64 – 65, 88, and 99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosco et al. (10,479,436) as applied to claims 57, 62 – 63, 66 – 75, 78, 85 – 87, 89 – 90, 94 – 98, and 100. Kosco does not disclose the dimensions of the unfolded and folded vehicle. In regard to claims 64 – 65, 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 frame components sized as recited, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Kosco does not disclose the specific angular relation of components when the vehicle is folded. In regard to claims 88 and 99, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to lock the components in an acute angle as recited, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 76 – 77, 79 – 84, and 91 – 93 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.
Claims 58 – 61 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Kosco et al. (10,479,436) discloses a vehicle similar to the instant invention; however Kosco, either alone or in combination, neither discloses nor suggests a vehicle comprising (in regard to claim 58) a disk fixed to one of the tiller and the first portion, a shoe coupled to the other of the tiller and the first portion, the shoe configured to engage the disk, an actuator configured to selectively move the shoe into and out of engagement with the disk, and a caliper configured to move the shoe relative to the disk, (in regard to claim 76) wherein the knuckle defines a receiving area to receive the hub bolt to couple the first portion to the second portion, (in regard to claim 79) wherein the hinge includes a leaf and an open keyway between the knuckle and the leaf, the open keyway having an open keyway dimension larger than the first cross-section width of the hub bolt and smaller than the second cross-section width of the hub bolt such that the hub bolt is moveable into and out of the knuckle when the first portion of the hub bolt is aligned to pass through the open keyway and the knuckle prevents the hub bolt from entering or leaving a receiving area when the second portion of the hub bolt is aligned to pass through the open keyway, (in regard to claim 91) transitioning the vehicle from the unfolded configuration toward the folded configuration by rotating the tiller relative to a ground surface while the tiller clutch is engaged such that the first portion of the frame rotates about a frame rotation axis thereby causing an end of the first portion to be raised vertically, (in regard to claim 92) transitioning the vehicle from the unfolded configuration toward the folded configuration by simultaneously disengaging the tiller clutch and lifting, relative to a ground surface, a handle coupled to the second portion while the tiller clutch is disengaged such that the first portion pivots about the front wheel thereby causing an end of the first portion to be raised vertically, and (in regard to claim 93) wherein the tiller includes a handhold and the method includes engaging the handhold with a user's hand, and wherein disengaging the tiller clutch and pivoting the tiller are both performed without removing the user's hand from the handhold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Flowers et al. (7,451,848) disclose a foldable personal mobility vehicle;
Chan (9,533,729) discloses a foldable electrically powered vehicle;
Kano et al. (10,463,547) disclose a compact electric vehicle;
Davies et al. (10,919,443) discloses a vehicle integrated storage power management system;
Cheng (2016/0089285) disclose a folding device for power scooters;
Wang (2018/0271726) discloses a manual electric folding scooter;
Zhang (2019/0168837) discloses a folding vehicle frame;
Ransenberg et al. (WO2014/013486) disclose a motorized vehicle.
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
Prosecution Insights