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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt of the preliminary amendment filed 05/29/2025 is acknowledged. This amendment cancelled claim 1 and added claims 2-16 and amended the specification.
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 18/320794, filed 05/19/2023, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Claim 2 states “the first anti-slip surface comprising a front-to-rear width; a first wheel comprising a first electric motor and a first outside diameter, the first outside diameter being less than the front-to-rear width of the first anti-slip surface”. There is no support in the originally filed specification or drawings for this limitation. The only relevant reference in the specification describes the “anti-slip surface” as “platforms 132, 142 can comprise anti-sliding surfaces 133, 143 (e.g., textured rubber or silicone pads) such that the user can maintain his or her feet on the platforms” (paragraph 32). Further, the only figures 1A, 6 that show the “anti-slip surface” (133) show two separate anti-slip surfaces (133), each one being approximately less than one-third of the front-to-rear width of the platform (132). The specification does disclose specific widths of the platform 132 (paragraph 32) and that “diameters of the wheel assemblies 110, 120 are shorter than the widths of the platforms 132, 142” (paragraph 35), however neither the specification nor the drawings disclose the anti-slip surfaces covering the entire surface of the platform 132. Therefore, the application should be changed to a continuation-in-part as this limitation is not supported by the previously filed applications. The same reasoning applies to the claim 2, lines 19-21 “a second wheel comprising a second electric motor and a second outside diameter, the second outside diameter being less than the front-to-rear width of the second anti-slip surface”.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Drawings show anti-slip surfaces 133 are only a fraction of the front-to-rear width of the platform(132))]
PNG
media_image1.png
364
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the first anti-slip surface comprising a front-to-rear width; a first wheel comprising a first electric motor and a first outside diameter, the first outside diameter being less than the front-to-rear width of the first anti-slip surface” and “the second anti-slip surface comprising a front-to-rear width; a second wheel comprising a second electric motor and a second outside diameter, the second outside diameter being less than the front-to-rear width of the second anti-slip surface” in claim 2 and “a vertical distance between a top of the first wheel and the first platform is less than a vertical clearance between a bottom of the housing and the bottom of the first wheel” in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 2-3, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying et al. (US 9,376,155) in view of Stephenson (US 1,364,330) and Chen (US 2017/0233023).
With respect to claim 2, Ying et al. discloses a self-balancing vehicle (100) configured to drive in a front direction and a rear direction, the vehicle comprising: a first section (left half of vehicle shown in figs. 1-2) comprising: a first housing (11) comprising a first platform (5). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.) Ying et al. discloses the first platform comprising a first anti-slip surface (51; col. 5, lines 36-40) that is made of rubber or silicone and that is configured to receive and support a first foot of a user (5 described as a pedal), the first anti-slip surface (51) comprising a front-to-rear width (figs. 2-3); but is silent regarding the material of the anti-slip surface. Stephenson teaches to have an anti-slip surface made of rubber on a vehicle where a user’s foot is applied. (Figs. 1-2, page 1.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the foot surface structure as described in Stephenson into the invention of Ying et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a non-slip surface. (Page 1, lines 39-43.) In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the anti-slip surface made of rubber or silicone, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Ying et al., as modified, further discloses a first wheel (left 50) comprising a first electric motor (left 4) and a first outside diameter (figs. 2-4). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.) Ying et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose the first outside diameter being less than the front-to-rear width of the first anti-slip surface. Chen teaches of the first outside diameter (see diameter of wheel 46 in figs. 1-4) being less than the front-to-rear width of the foot surface (see foot surface 42 extending forward and rear ward of wheel 46 in figs. 1-2, 4). (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 15-23.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Chen into the invention of Ying et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve or enhance the riding experience in a self-balancing personal transportation device having two foot platform units and to make overcoming an obstacle in a pathway easier. (Paragraph 9.) Ying et al., as modified, discloses a first fender (left 15) connected to the first housing (11), the first fender (left 15) extending at least partly over the first wheel (left 50). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.) Ying et al., as modified, further discloses a second section (right half of vehicle shown in figs. 1-2) rotatably coupled (col. 1, lines 5-10) to the first section (left half of vehicle shown in figs. 1-2), the second section comprising: a second housing (12) comprising a second platform (right 5). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.) Ying et al. discloses the first platform comprising a first anti-slip surface (51; col. 5, lines 36-40) that is made of rubber or silicone and that is configured to receive and support a first foot of a user (5 described as a pedal), the first anti-slip surface (51) comprising a front-to-rear width (figs. 2-3); but is silent regarding the material of the anti-slip surface. Stephenson teaches to have an anti-slip surface made of rubber on a vehicle where a user’s foot is applied. (Figs. 1-2, page 1.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the foot surface structure as described in Stephenson into the invention of Ying et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a non-slip surface. (Page 1, lines 39-43.) In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the anti-slip surface made of rubber or silicone, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Ying et al., as modified, further discloses a second wheel (right 50) comprising a second electric motor (right 4) and a second outside diameter (figs. 2-4). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.) Ying et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose the first outside diameter being less than the front-to-rear width of the first anti-slip surface. Chen teaches of the first outside diameter (see diameter of wheel 46 in figs. 1-4) being less than the front-to-rear width of the foot surface (see foot surface 42 extending forward and rear ward of wheel 46 in figs. 1-2, 4). (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 15-23.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Chen into the invention of Ying et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve or enhance the riding experience in a self-balancing personal transportation device having two foot platform units and to make overcoming an obstacle in a pathway easier. (Paragraph 9.) Ying et al., as modified, discloses a second fender (right 15) connected to the first housing (11), the first fender (right 15) extending at least partly over the first wheel (right 50); one or more inertial sensors (83, col. 2, lines 22-30); and one or more controllers (82) operably coupled with the one or more inertial sensors (83), the one or more controllers configured to control operation of the first and second electric motors (4) to drive the first and second wheels (50) (col. 6, lines 53-67, col. 7, lines 1-22). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.)
With respect to claim 3, Ying et al., as modified, discloses the diameter of the first wheel (left 50) is less than (figs. 3-4) a front-to-rear width of the first fender (left 15), and the diameter of the second wheel (right 50) is less than (figs. 3-4) a front-to-rear width of the second fender (right 15). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.)
With respect to claim 6, Ying et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose an axial thickness of the first wheel is approximately equal to a vertical thickness of the first housing, and wherein an axial thickness of the second wheel is approximately equal to a vertical thickness of the second housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an axial thickness of the first wheel is approximately equal to a vertical thickness of the first housing, and wherein an axial thickness of the second wheel is approximately equal to a vertical thickness of the second housing, 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 233.
With respect to claim 7, Ying et al., as modified, discloses the one or more inertial sensors (83) comprises a gyroscope or an accelerometer (col. 2, lines 22-30). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.)
With respect to claim 8, Ying et al., as modified, discloses the one or more inertial sensors comprises a first inertial sensor (83, left side) configured to sense rotation of the first housing (11) and a second inertial sensor (83, right side) configured to sense rotation of the second housing (12) (col. 6, lines 53-67, col. 7, col. 8, lines 1-23). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.)
With respect to claim 10, Ying et al., as modified, discloses the first and second sections each further include a headlight or light strip (33; fig. 2). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying et al., Stephenson and Chen, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ni (CN 106114715 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’).
With respect to claim 4, Ying et al., as modified, does not explicitly teach an overall length measured along a longitudinal axis of the vehicle and an overall height measured from a bottom of the first wheel to a top of the first fender, a ratio of the overall length to the overall height being at least 4:1. NI teaches of an overall length (L1) measured along a longitudinal axis of the vehicle and an overall height (L7) measured from a bottom of the first wheel to a top of the first wheel (MTD paragraphs 52-53), a ratio of the overall length to the overall height being at least 4:1 (MTD paragraphs 52-53 disclose a ratio of 4.28:1). (Figs. 1-5, MTD paragraphs 27-53.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Ni into the invention of Ying et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the balance and sensitivity of the self-balancing vehicle. (MTD paragraph 51.) Furthermore, by adding a fender and obtaining a ratio of the overall length to the overall height being at least 4:1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a ratio of the overall length to the overall height being at least 4:1, 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 233.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying et al., Stephenson and Chen, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ni (CN 106114715 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’) and Simeray et al. (US 2009/0266629).
With respect to claim 5, Ying et al., as modified, does not explicitly teach the first and second wheels comprise a generally square front profile such that each of the first and second wheels has a width that is at least 50% of the respective diameter. Ni teaches of each of the first and second wheels has a width (L1 (550-620cm) – L2 (420-500cm)) that is at least 50% of the respective diameter (L7 (145-225cm)) (MTD paragraphs 51-53). (Figs. 1-5, MTD paragraphs 27-53.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Ni into the invention of Ying et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the balance and sensitivity of the self-balancing vehicle. (MTD paragraph 51.) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the first and second wheels has a width that is at least 50% of the respective diameter, 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 233. Simeray et al. teaches of a pedestrian vehicle whose wheel comprises a generally square front profile (paragraph 6). (Paragraph 6.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Ni into the invention of Ying et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide lateral stability. (Paragraph 6.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying et al., Stephenson and Chen, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yao (CN 205554418 U; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’).
With respect to claim 9, Ying et al., as modified, discloses a vertical distance between a top of the first wheel and the first platform is less than a vertical clearance between a bottom of the housing and the bottom of the first wheel (see fig. 1). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.) In the alternative, Yao teaches of a vertical distance between a top of the first wheel and the first platform is less than a vertical clearance between a bottom of the housing and the bottom of the first wheel (see fig. 2). (Figs. 1-3, MTD paragraphs 50-59.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a vertical distance between a top of the first wheel and the first platform is less than a vertical clearance between a bottom of the housing and the bottom of the first wheel, 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 233.
Claims 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying et al. in view of Ni (CN 106114715 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’) and Simeray et al. (US 2009/0266629).
With respect to claim 11, Ying et al. discloses a self-balancing vehicle (100) configured to drive in a front direction and a rear direction, the vehicle comprising: a first section (left half of vehicle shown in figs. 1-2) comprising: a first platform (left 5) configured to receive and support a first foot of a user (5 described as a pedal); and a first wheel (left 50) comprising a first electric motor (left 4); a second section (right half of vehicle shown in figs. 1-2) rotatably coupled (col. 1, lines 5-10) to the first section (left half of vehicle shown in figs. 1-2), the second section (right half of vehicle shown in figs. 1-2) comprising: a second platform (right 5) configured to receive and support a second foot of the user (5 described as a pedal); and a second wheel (right 50) comprising a second electric motor (right 4); an inertial sensor (83, col. 2, lines 22-30); and a controller (82) operably coupled with the inertial sensor (83) and configured to control the first and second electric motors (4). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.) Ying et al., as modified, does not explicitly teach the first and second wheels comprise a generally square front profile such that each of the first and second wheels has a width that is at least 50% of the respective diameter. Ni teaches of each of the first and second wheels has a width (L1 (550-620cm) – L2 (420-500cm)) that is at least 50% of the respective diameter (L7 (145-225cm)) (MTD paragraphs 51-53). (Figs. 1-5, MTD paragraphs 27-53.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Ni into the invention of Ying et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the balance and sensitivity of the self-balancing vehicle. (MTD paragraph 51.) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the first and second wheels has a width that is at least 50% of the respective diameter, 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 233. Simeray et al. teaches of a pedestrian vehicle whose wheel comprises a generally square front profile (paragraph 6). (Paragraph 6.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Ni into the invention of Ying et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide lateral stability. (Paragraph 6.)
With respect to claim 12, Ying et al., as modified, discloses the first and second sections each further include a headlight or light strip (33; fig. 2). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.)
With respect to claim 13, Ying et al., as modified, discloses the one or more inertial sensors (83) comprises a gyroscope or an accelerometer (col. 2, lines 22-30). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.)
With respect to claim 14, Ying et al., as modified, discloses the inertial sensor (83 left side) is positioned in the first section (left half of vehicle shown in figs. 1-2), and wherein a second inertial sensor (83 right side) is positioned in the second section (right half of vehicle shown in figs. 1-2). (Figs. 1-6, col. 3, lines 49-67, cols. 4-8, col. 9, lines 1-20.)
With respect to claim 16, Ying et al., as modified, discloses a fender (left 15) extending at least partly over the first wheel (left 50) but does not explicitly teach an overall length measured along a longitudinal axis of the vehicle and an overall height measured from a bottom of the first wheel to a top of the first fender, a ratio of the overall length to the overall height being at least 4:1. NI teaches of an overall length (L1) measured along a longitudinal axis of the vehicle and an overall height (L7) measured from a bottom of the first wheel to a top of the first wheel (MTD paragraphs 52-53), a ratio of the overall length to the overall height being at least 4:1 (MTD paragraphs 52-53 disclose a ratio of 4.28:1). (Figs. 1-5, MTD paragraphs 27-53.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Ni into the invention of Ying et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the balance and sensitivity of the self-balancing vehicle. (MTD paragraph 51.) Furthermore, by adding a fender and obtaining a ratio of the overall length to the overall height being at least 4:1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a ratio of the overall length to the overall height being at least 4:1, 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 233.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying et al., Ni and Simeray et al., as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2017/0233023).
With respect to claim 16, Ying et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose the first outside diameter being less than the front-to-rear width of the first anti-slip surface. Chen teaches of the first outside diameter (see diameter of wheel 46 in figs. 1-4) being less than the front-to-rear width of the foot surface (see foot surface 42 extending forward and rear ward of wheel 46 in figs. 1-2, 4). (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 15-23.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Chen into the invention of Ying et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve or enhance the riding experience in a self-balancing personal transportation device having two foot platform units and to make overcoming an obstacle in a pathway easier. (Paragraph 9.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lankford et al. (US 10,144,477) discloses a similar self-balancing vehicle with first and second sections rotatably coupled to one another. The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights