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 Objections
Claims 2 and 8-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 2, the phrase “said ergo platform comprising” should read “said ergo platform comprises”.
Regarding Claim 8, an article is missing between the phrase “clamp attaches to” and the word “scooter”.
Regarding Claim 9, an article is missing between the words “wherein” and “slot(s)”, and a functional participle phrase is missing between the phrases “wherein slot(s) [sic] is” and “to accept”.
Regarding Claim 10, an article is missing between the words “attaches” and “wheel(s)”.
Regarding Claim 11, the word “of” extraneously appears between the words “comprises” and “through”, and an article is missing between the phrases “for maneuverability of” and “Scooter attachment”.
The limitation “platform” recited in Claims 9-11, while understood by the Examiner to refer to the structural limitation “ergo platform”, should be corrected to read “ergo platform” to maintain proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction for each of the above objections is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 8-9, and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 does not depend on a parent claim, and does not recite any further limiting structure (in absolute terms or relative to a missing/undefined parent claim). Claim 5 is syntactically unintelligible, which may have been the result of a typographical error. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will not examine Claim 5 on the merits, and will treat Claims 8-9 as instead dependent on and further limiting the structure recited in Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it is indefinite for at least one of the following reasons: The claim ambiguously mixes the scooter, the ergo platform device, the ergo platform, and the wheels, in a way that creates uncertainty about the claim scope and antecedent basis. Specifically, it is unclear if the scope of the claim is intended to cover limitations related to an undefined / unrelated scooter, including size-related limitations e.g. the [clearly claimed] ergo platform being wider than an [ambiguously/unclearly claimed] scooter platform of and [ambiguously/unclearly claimed] scooter. For the purpose of further prosecuting the claims, the scope of the claim will be understood to extend to the ergo platform device only, i.e. excluding the scooter or its constituents. Furthermore, the phrase “said wheels are positioned outside of said wheels” is unclear because four wheels have been separately introduced (in lines 1-2 and 7) and it is unclear how all four wheels might be positioned either (A) outside the entire group of four wheels, or (B) outside a subset (e.g. two wheels) out of the total group of four wheels antecedently defined.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “ergo stability platform” and “said top surface of the scooter platform” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner hereinafter interprets the “ergo stability platform” to refer to the “ergo platform” in Claim 1 and interprets “said top surface of the scooter platform” to refer to “on top of said scooter platform” in Claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “said wheels” without clearly indicating whether “said wheels” refers to either the inline wheels of the scooter or the wheels of the ergo platform device. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner hereinafter interprets this limitation to refer to the wheels of the ergo platform device.
Claims 5, 8-9, and 11 are indefinite as their scope cannot be ascertained (mainly because of the improper dependency of Claim 5, discussed under 35 USC 112d above).
Claims 6-7 recite the limitation “Scooter attachment” in line 1 of both claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "Scooter attachment" and “clamp or hold device” in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (note dependency on Claim 1 as discussed in the § 112(d) rejection above). For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner hereinafter interprets the limitation “Scooter attachment” in Claims 6-8 to refer to the “ergo platform device”.
Claims 4, 10, and 12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being dependent on a rejected base claim, see above.
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)(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 1-4, 6-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. 2024/0351659 A1 to Lewis.
Regarding Claim 1, Lewis teaches an ergo platform device (“balance assistance and fireproofing device” 100, Fig. 1A, [0034]) for a scooter (intended use, see MPEP 2111.02; additionally note that the scooter and its constituents are not understood to be part of the claim scope, see discussion under 35 USC 112b above; coincidentally though, the prior art does disclose these unclaimed/unrelated structures, e.g. see scooter 198, Fig. 1A, [0034]), said scooter comprising a front wheel and a back wheel (“…two inline wheels…” – [0034], Fig. 1A), with a scooter platform (“standing platform” 199, Fig. 1A, [0034]) extending between said front wheel and said back wheel ([0034] and Fig. 1A), said ergo platform device comprising:
An ergo platform (“top layer” 104T, Fig. 1C, [0036]) configured for mounting on top of said scooter platform (199, as depicted in Fig. 1C), wherein said ergo platform (104T) is wider than said scooter platform (see above the discussion regarding the claim scope not extending to scooter and its constituents, including unpatentable effect of size-related limitations comparing claimed vs. unclaimed structures; incidentally though, the prior art teaches these features, see 199, depicted in Fig. 1C) and configured for a user to stand on said ergo platform when said ergo platform is mounted on top of said scooter platform ([0042]);
Two opposing wheels (102L and 102R, Fig. 1C, [0036]) connected to said ergo platform (104T, connection depicted in Fig. 1C); and
Wherein said ergo platform (104T) is configured for attaching to said scooter platform (199) such that said wheels (102L and 102R) are positioned outside of said wheels of said scooter (“…two inline wheels…” – [0034]) to provide stability to said scooter ([0031]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lewis further teaches at least one clamping arm (“clamp mechanism” 106, Fig. 1B, [0037]) wherein said clamping arm (106) is configured to attach to a scooter (198) to secure the ergo stability platform (104T) to said top surface of the scooter platform (199, depicted in Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 3, Lewis further teaches shock absorbers (cantilevered ends of “rod” 108, Fig. 1C, [0069]) between said wheels (102L and 102R) and said ergo platform (104T, bent portion of cantilevered rod 108 is positioned between wheels and 104T, Fig. 1C, [0069]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lewis further teaches wherein said ergo platform (104T) is configured for removable attachment onto the scooter platform (199, Figs. 1A-C, [0037]).
Regarding Claim 6, Lewis further teaches wherein said Scooter attachment (interpreted to refer to the “ergo platform device”, mapped to 100 in Lewis) and said scooter (198) are configured for combining as one unit (combination depicted in Figs. 1A-C).
Regarding Claim 7, Lewis further teaches wherein said Scooter attachment (100) and scooter (199) are configured for attachment by a clamping device (“clamp mechanism” 106, Fig. 1B, [0037]).
Regarding Claim 8, Lewis further teaches wherein said Scooter attachment (100) comprises said clamp or hold device (106) wherein said clamp attaches to scooter (specifically, its constituent platform 199) along a perimeter of said scooter (106 contacts peripheral edge of 199, Fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 10, Lewis further teaches wherein the platform (104T) comprises a bolting system (“brackets” 110, Fig. 1C, [0068]) that attaches wheel(s) (102L and 102R) to Scooter attachment [sic] (100, Fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 11, Lewis further teaches wherein the platform (in an equivalent alternative embodiment, 504T, Fig. 5, [0062]) comprises of [sic] through hole slots (“grooves” 506Tg, Fig. 5, [0062]) for maneuverability of Scooter attachment [sic] (100 may be clamped at any point along 199, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 12, Lewis further teaches wherein the Scooter attachment (100) is configured to connect to said scooter platform (199) by bolting, gluing, welding, and/or clamping (via 106, Fig. 1B, [0037]).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of US Patent 11,912,364 to Zhang et al., hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 9, Lewis teaches the ergo platform device of Claim 1, but does not teach that the platform comprises a mounting slot(s) wherein slot(s) is to accept a seat base [sic].
In the same field of endeavor of inline kick scooters, Zhang teaches a detachable platform (“mounting base” 120, Figs. 1 and 3, (14-19), analogous to Lewis – 104T) comprising a mounting slot(s) (“mounting hole” 124, Fig. 3, (16)), wherein slot(s) is to accept [sic] a seat base (“scooter seat” 900, (16)).
It would have been obvious tone one ordinarily skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the scooter and scooter ergo platform of Lewis with the mounting slots of Zhang, yielding predictable results. One ordinarily skilled in the art would have appreciated the beneficial utility of attaching a seat to a scooter platform when desired to improve user comfort during long riding durations (Zhang – (3)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent 8,387,996 to Marcel discloses a kick scooter (10) having a platform (11) to which auxiliary balance wheels (22) are attached via a wheel carriage (36) via bolts (48).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell James Price whose telephone number is (571)272-3729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern, Fri 8:00 - 12:00 Eastern.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/Mitchell James Price/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights