Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on (1/17/25) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claims 2-13 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US PG PUB NO 2012/0098222).
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Chan discloses a personal mobility vehicle comprising: a deck (11) comprising a top surface that is configured to support a user's foot; a steering assembly (13) connected with a front of the deck, the steering assembly comprising a handlebar (14), a support (Chan FIG 1), a head tube (Chan FIG 1), and a front wheel(Chan FIG 1) that is rotatable about a front wheel axis; an angled rear portion connected with a rear of the deck, the angled rear portion (Treadle 50 is selectively angled) extending upward and rearward at an angle relative to the top surface of the deck (Chan FIG 1); and a rear swivel wheel assembly (Chan FIGS 1-3) pivotably connected to an underside of the angled rear portion, the rear swivel wheel assembly comprising a swivel fork (Chan FIG 3) and a rear swivel wheel (32), the rear swivel wheel rotatable about a rear wheel axis and swivelable about a swivel axis (Chan, FIG 3); wherein, with the front wheel and the rear swivel wheel on a riding surface, the top surface of the deck is positioned at a lower elevation than where the rear swivel wheel assembly is pivotably connected to the underside of the angled rear portion (Chan is exemplary and illustrates conventional scooter components which can be formed/arranged to have a predetermined elevation for each of the front, middle and rear of the scooter/deck. Regarding a change in shape (elevation), see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed Chan to have particular shapes and angles for specific scooter applications by with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase utility of the scooter and appeal to a wider range of riders).
PNG
media_image1.png
757
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
759
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 2.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein the top surface of the deck is further positioned at a lower elevation than a topmost point of the front wheel.
-Nevertheless, it is conventional to form/arrange scooter portions to have predetermined elevations for each of the front, middle and rear of the scooter/deck based on the particular rider “class/group” and use e.g. tricks, transport, ergonomic concerns.
- Regarding a change in shape (elevation), see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed Chan to have particular shapes and angles for specific scooter applications by with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase utility of the scooter and appeal to a wider range of riders).
[CLAIM 4] Regarding claim 4, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 2.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein a topmost point of the front wheel is positioned at a higher elevation than where the rear swivel wheel assembly is pivotably connected to the underside of the angled rear portion.
--Nevertheless, it is conventional to form/arrange scooter portions to have predetermined elevations for each of the front, middle and rear of the scooter/deck based on the particular “rider class/group” and use e.g. tricks, transport, ergonomic concerns.
- Regarding a change in shape (elevation), see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed Chan to have particular shapes and angles for specific scooter applications by with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase utility of the scooter and appeal to a wider range of riders).
[CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 2.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein the front wheel axis is positioned at a lower elevation than where the rear swivel wheel assembly is pivotably connected to the underside of the angled rear portion.
-Nevertheless, it is conventional to form/arrange scooter portions to have predetermined elevations for each of the front, middle and rear of the scooter/deck based on the particular “rider class/group” and use e.g. tricks, transport, ergonomic concerns.
- Regarding a change in shape (elevation), see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed Chan to have particular shapes and angles for specific scooter applications by with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase utility of the scooter and appeal to a wider range of riders).
[CLAIM 6] Regarding claim 6, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 2.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein a topmost point of the rear swivel wheel is positioned at a higher elevation than a bottom of the deck.
-Nevertheless, it is conventional to form/arrange scooter portions to have predetermined elevations for each of the front, middle and rear of the scooter/deck based on the particular “rider class/group” and use e.g. tricks, transport, ergonomic concerns.
- Regarding a change in shape (elevation), see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed Chan to have particular shapes and angles for specific scooter applications by with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase utility of the scooter and appeal to a wider range of riders).
[CLAIM 7] Regarding claim 7, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 2.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein the deck further comprises a bottom surface that extends from the front of the deck to the rear of the deck, the bottom surface being generally planar (Chan FIG 1 illustrates an exemplary deck bottom, consistent in profile).
[CLAIM 8] Regarding claim 8, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 7.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein the plane of the bottom surface of the deck intersects the rear swivel wheel.
-Nevertheless, it is conventional to form/arrange scooter portions to have predetermined intersections/connections for each of the front, middle and rear of the scooter/deck based on the particular “rider class/group” and use e.g. tricks, transport, ergonomic concerns.
- Regarding a change in shape (elevation), see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed Chan to have particular shapes and angles for specific scooter applications by with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase utility of the scooter and appeal to a wider range of riders).
[CLAIM 9] Regarding claim 9, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 7, wherein the plane of the bottom surface of the deck intersects a center of the front wheel.
-Nevertheless, it is conventional to form/arrange scooter portions to have predetermined intersections/connections for each of the front, middle and rear of the scooter/deck based on the particular “rider class/group” and use e.g. tricks, transport, ergonomic concerns.
- Regarding a change in shape (elevation), see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed Chan to have particular shapes and angles for specific scooter applications by with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase utility of the scooter and appeal to a wider range of riders).
PNG
media_image3.png
829
787
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 10] Regarding claim 10, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 2, wherein a rearmost end of the rear swivel wheel extends rearwardly of the angled rear portion (Chan FIG 4).
[CLAIM 11] Regarding claim 11, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 2, wherein the top surface is generally planar (Chan, FIG 1).
[CLAIM 12] Regarding claim 12, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 2, wherein the personal mobility vehicle comprises a scooter (Chan, FIG 1).
[CLAIM 13] Regarding claim 13, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 2, wherein the front wheel and rear swivel wheel are positioned on a longitudinal axis of the personal mobility vehicle (Chan, FIG 1, longitudinal wheel arrangement is conventional in the art of scooter and skateboard wheel orientation).
[CLAIM 22] Regarding claim 22, Chan discloses a personal mobility vehicle comprising: a deck (Chan, FIG 1) comprising a top surface (Chan, FIG 1) that is configured to support a user's foot and a bottom surface that is opposite the top surface; a steering assembly (Chan, FIG 1, steering relative to tube 13) connected with the deck, the steering assembly comprising a handlebar (14), a head tube (Chan, FIG 1), and a front wheel (Chan, FIG 1) that is rotatable about a front wheel axis; and a rear swivel wheel assembly (Chan, rear swivel wheel 32) pivotably connected with the deck, the rear swivel wheel assembly comprising a fork (Chan, FIG 3) and a rear swivel wheel (Chan, FIG 3), the rear swivel wheel rotatable about a rear wheel axis and swivelable about a swivel axis.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein, with the front wheel and the rear swivel wheel on a riding surface, the front wheel axis is at an elevation above the bottom surface of the deck, and the rear wheel axis is at an elevation below the bottom surface of the deck.
-Nevertheless, it is conventional to form/arrange scooter portions to have predetermined elevations for each of the front, middle and rear of the scooter/deck with respect to each of the associated wheels based on the particular “rider class/group” and use e.g. one or all of tricks, transport, ergonomic concerns.
- Regarding a change in shape (elevation), see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed Chan to have particular shapes and angles for specific scooter applications by with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase utility of the scooter and appeal to a wider range of riders).
[CLAIM 23] Regarding claim 23, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 22, wherein the deck further comprises an upwardly extending rear tail (Chan FIG 1), the swivel wheel assembly connected with the upwardly extending rear tail (When assembled, each of the scooter components are connected for use).
[CLAIM 24] Regarding claim 24, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 22, wherein the deck further comprises a longitudinal length, and wherein the bottom surface is substantially planar to a majority of the longitudinal length (Chan, FIG 1).
2 Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US PG PUB NO 2012/0098222) in view of Costa Jr. et al. (US PG PUB NO 2002/0070514).
[CLAIM 14] Regarding claim 14, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 2.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein the front wheel comprises a front swivel wheel.
-Nevertheless, Costa discloses front and rear swivel casters on a scooter in FIG 7.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Chan to have front wheels that swivel as taught by Costa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase scooter utility for maneuvering and tricks.
3 Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US PG PUB NO 2012/0098222) in view of Tsai (US 6,120,044).
[CLAIM 15] Regarding claim 15, Chan discloses the personal mobility vehicle of Claim 2.
-However, it fails to disclose further comprising a brake assembly configured to perform braking of the personal mobility vehicle.
-Nevertheless, Tsai discloses conventional scooter brakes, see claim 4.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Chan to incorporate brakes as taught by Tsai with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve safety.
PNG
media_image4.png
688
599
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-21 are allowable.
Chan (US PG PUB NO 2012/0098222) represents a similar scooter as claimed by Applicant but fails to disclose inter alia each element in independent claim 16 which recites: A self-centering braking caster wheel assembly for use on a personal mobility vehicle, the self-centering braking caster wheel assembly comprising: a wheel assembly comprising: a fork assembly that is rotatable about a swivel axis; a wheel connected to the fork assembly via an axle, the wheel configured to rotate about a wheel rotation axis and to swivel about the swivel axis; and a centering spring configured to bias the wheel to a neutral position; and a brake assembly comprising: a brake member comprising a first hinge connection on a lateral side, a second hinge connection on an opposite lateral side, and a braking surface, the first and second hinge connections configured to connect with corresponding hinge connections on the personal mobility vehicle such that the brake member is movable between a first position in which the braking surface is not in frictional contact with an outer circumference surface of the wheel and a second position in which the braking surface is in frictional contact with the outer circumference surface of the wheel; and a brake spring configured to bias the brake member toward the first position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on (571)272-.4530. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights