Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/032,421

Scooter Stand

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 20, 2025
Examiner
CHAN, KO HUNG
Art Unit
3631
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Resilient Accessories LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
843 granted / 1272 resolved
+14.3% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1295
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§102
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
§112
27.0%
-13.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1272 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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. Claims 10-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 10, “and comprises an indentation” is vague and indefinite as to what element comprises such indentation. Claim 11, line 8, “and comprises an indentation” is also vague and indefinite as to what element comprises such indentation. Claims 12-20 are also rejected as they depend from rejected independent claim 11. 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 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 1-6, 9-14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Straaten et al (US Patent no. 9981706) Regarding claim 1, Van Straaten discloses a scooter stand comprising: a vertical frame (34, figure 1); a horizontal frame (14) perpendicularly coupled to a bottom end of the vertical frame and comprising a front bar (30) coupled to a front end of the horizontal frame; a ramp (82) carried by the horizontal frame; a wheel stop (channel 42 receive wheel 64, figure 4) disposed between the ramp (82) and the vertical frame (34); wherein the ramp (82), the wheel stop (16), and the horizontal frame (14) form a receptacle (24); and a yoke (44) having an open end (figure 1) facing a rear end (26) of the horizontal frame, the yoke (44) being coupled to a top end of the vertical frame (34) and positioned between the front bar (30) and an intersection (18) of the vertical frame (34) and the horizontal frame (14). Regarding claim 2, Van Straaten discloses the scooter stand of claim 1, wherein the vertical frame comprises an adjustment mechanism (40) to vary a height of the vertical frame. Regarding claim 3, Van Straaten discloses the scooter stand of claim 1, wherein the vertical frame further comprises two outer vertical bars (side walls 16) and two inner vertical bars (side walls 36); and wherein each of the inner vertical bars (36) is movably disposed within the outer vertical bars (16). Regarding claim 4, Van Straaten discloses the scooter stand of claim 3, wherein the scooter stand further comprises a first locking mechanism (40) positioned at an overlapping portion (lock 40 connects the overlapping end portions of 16 and 36) of each of the outer vertical bars and each of the inner vertical bars and is configured to lock the vertical frame at a desired height. Regarding claim 5, Van Straaten disclose the scooter stand of claim 1, wherein the scooter stand further comprises a linking bar (18) coupled to the vertical frame. Regarding claim 6, Van Straaten disclose the scooter stand of claim 1, wherein the scooter stand further comprises at least one support (18) wherein the at least one support couples to the vertical frame (34) on one end (50) and couples to the horizontal frame (14) on another end (note that angled bracket 18 is secured to 14 via fastener 50). Regarding claim 9, Van Straaten discloses the scooter stand of claim 1, wherein the ramp (82) has a first sloped surface and a second sloped surface (ramp 82 is shaped semicircular as shown in figure 1 with the first sloped surface inclines toward a rear end 26 of the horizontal frame 14 and the second sloped surface inclines toward a front end 28 of the horizontal frame 14). Regarding claim 10, Van Straaten discloses the scooter stand of claim 9, wherein the first sloped surface inclines toward a rear end (26) of the horizontal frame (14) and the second sloped surface inclines toward a front end (28) of the horizontal frame (14) and comprises an indentation (distal end channel portion at 28). Regarding claim 11, Van Straaten discloses a scooter stand comprising: a vertical frame (34, figure 1); a horizontal frame (14) perpendicularly coupled to a bottom end of the vertical frame and a ramp (82) carried by the horizontal frame and having a first sloped surface and a second sloped surface (ramp 82 is shaped semicircular as shown in figure 1) wherein the first sloped surface inclines toward a rear end (26) of the horizontal frame (14) and the second sloped surface inclines toward a front end (28) of the horizontal frame (14) and comprises an indentation (distal end channel portion at 28); a wheel stop (channel 42 receive wheel 64, figure 4) disposed between the ramp (82) and the vertical frame (34); wherein the indentation (distal end channel portion at 28), the wheel stop (channel 42 receive wheel 64, figure 4), and the horizontal frame (14) form a receptacle (24); and a yoke (44) having an open end (figure 1) facing a rear end (26) of the horizontal frame, the yoke (44) being coupled to a top end of the vertical frame (34). Regarding claim 12, Van Straaten discloses the scooter stand of claim 11, wherein the vertical frame comprises an adjustment mechanism (40) to vary a height of the vertical frame. Regarding claim 13, Van Straaten discloses the scooter stand of claim 11, wherein the vertical frame further comprises two outer vertical bars (side walls 16) and two inner vertical bars (side walls 36); and wherein each of the inner vertical bars (36) is movably disposed within the outer vertical bars (16). Regarding claim 14, Van Straaten discloses the scooter stand of claim 13, wherein the scooter stand further comprises a first locking mechanism (40) positioned at an overlapping portion (lock 40 connects the overlapping end portions of 16 and 36) of each of the outer vertical bars and each of the inner vertical bars and is configured to lock the vertical frame at a desired height. Regarding claim 16, Van Straaten disclose the scooter stand of claim 11, wherein the scooter stand further comprises a linking bar (18) coupled to the vertical frame. Regarding claim 17, Van Straaten disclose the scooter stand of claim 11, wherein the scooter stand further comprises at least one support (18) wherein the at least one support couples to the vertical frame (34) on one end (50) and couples to the horizontal frame (14) on another end (note that angled bracket 18 is secured to 14 via fastener 50). Regarding claim 20, Van Straaten discloses the scooter stand of claim 11, wherein the yoke (44) has a substantially U-shaped profile (figure 1). 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 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Straaten et al (US Patent no. 9981706) in view of Vineyard (US Publication no.20130270201). Van Straaten discloses all the claimed features of applicant’s invention except for the scooter stand further comprises a strap on the vertical frame. Vineyard teaches bicycle stand comprising a strap (40, figure 1) on the vertical frame (12) wherein “The bicycle retention safety strap (40) secures the bicycle to the rack” (see paragraph [0014], last two lines). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the stand of Van Straaten such that the stand further comprises a strap on the vertical frame for securing the bicycle/scooter to the rack as taught to be desirable by Vineyard. Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Straaten et al (US Patent no. 9981706) in view of Gu (US Patent no. 11352083 ). Van Straaten discloses all the claimed features of applicant’s invention except for the scooter stand further comprises a helmet hanger on the vertical frame. Gu (US Patent no. 11352083 ) teaches bicycle stand comprising a helmet hanger (4) on the vertical frame (11) for hanging accessories such as a helmet (figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the stand of Van Straaten such that the stand further comprises a helmet hanger on the vertical frame for hanging accessories such as a helmet as taught to be desirable by Gu. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Straaten et al (US Patent no. 9981706) in view of Fagan (US Patent no. 8360252). Regarding claim 15, Van Straaten discloses the scooter stand of claim 14, wherein the first locking mechanism (40) comprises a fastener (40) but does not disclose that the fastener is a set of bolt and nut. However, such bolt and nut to secure two arms together is conventional and well-known in the connection art. Fagan teaches use of a locking mechanism for arm (28a, 28b) to the base (16) via set of bolt (44) and nut (46, figure 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to have modify the first locking mechanism of Van Straaten with set of bolt and nut since such locking mechanism are conventional and well-known in the connection art as demonstrated by Fagan. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of record further demonstrate scooter and bike stands of interest. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ko (Korie) H Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-6816. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 571-272-8227. 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. /Ko H Chan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631 Khc
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 20, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599252
ORGANIZER WALL PANEL ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595694
LOCKING ASSEMBLY AND CHASSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575677
Organizer wall panel assembly and mounting assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564261
Shelf for a cabinet for receiving bottles
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12545345
BICYCLE RACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+15.3%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1272 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month