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 01/31/2025 is acknowledged. This amendment amended claims 1-15 and the specification.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 is indefinite because it is unclear what elements are covered by the term “other remaining components”.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Graaf (US 2023/0097235).
With respect to claim 1, De Graff discloses a tricycle (fig. 1, paragraph 35), comprising: a frame (fig. 3) comprising a first frame body (14) and a second frame body (15) connected to each other; a folder (13) connecting the first frame body (14) to the second frame body (15), the first frame body (14) and the second frame body (15) being capable of being folded or unfolded by the folder (13); two first wheels (3) disposed on the first frame body (14); a second wheel (4) disposed on the second frame body (15); and a universal wheel assembly (30) disposed on the frame (fig. 3) and being movable to the frame (fig. 3) to switch between a first position and a second position, the universal wheel assembly (30) comprising a universal wheel (31), wherein when the universal wheel assembly (30) is in the first position (‘retracted state’; paragraph 48), the two first wheels (3) and the second wheel (4) form a first supporting structure for supporting the tricycle; when the universal wheel assembly (30) is in the second position (fig. 5), the two first wheels (3) and the universal wheel (31) form a second supporting structure for supporting the tricycle. (Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 28-54.)
With respect to claim 2, De Graff discloses the first frame body (14) comprises a first main beam (14) and a first fork (27; paragraph 44 “pivotable steering mechanism 27 may be arranged to include a steering linkage provided with one or more control rods, a rocker and a steering rod connected to each front wheel 3”) hinged (paragraph 46) to the first main beam (14); and the first wheels (3) are connected to the first fork (27); wherein the tricycle further comprises a carriage (6) mounted on the first fork (27) (paragraph 43); wherein the second frame body (15) comprises a second main beam (15) and a second fork (9) connected to each other, the second wheel (4) is connected to the second fork (9); and wherein the folder (13) connects the first main beam (14) to the second main beam (15). (Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 28-54.)
With respect to claim 6, De Graff discloses when the tricycle in a folded state, an acute angle (fig. 4) is formed between the first main beam (14) and the second main beam (15), and an extending direction of the first main beam (14) is inclined relative to extending directions of axes of the first wheels (3). (Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 28-54.)
With respect to claim 8, De Graff discloses a carriage (6) mounted on the first frame body (14); wherein the carriage is removably connected to the first frame body (14), when the tricycle is in a folded state, other remaining components of the tricycle are capable of being accommodated in the carriage. (Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 28-54.) Regarding certain elements being 'removable', see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art's] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose."). Regarding the limitation “other remaining components of the tricycle are capable of being accommodated in the carriage”, it has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. De Graaf is capable of performing the recited claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 11, De Graff discloses the first frame body (14) comprises a first main beam (14) and a first fork (27; paragraph 44 “pivotable steering mechanism 27 may be arranged to include a steering linkage provided with one or more control rods, a rocker and a steering rod connected to each front wheel 3”) hinged (paragraph 46) to the first main beam (14); and the first wheels (3) are connected to the first fork (27); wherein the second frame body (15) comprises a second main beam (15) and a second fork (9) connected to each other, the second wheel (4) is connected to the second fork (9); and wherein the folder (13) connects the first main beam (14) to the second main beam (15). (Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 28-54.)
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 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Graaf in view of Mayer (US 1,540,271), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claim 3, De Graff discloses the “steering controls 26, in particular handlebars, are connected to the wheel support structure 9 of the front wheel 3 via the pivotable steering mechanism 27 in a manner known to the skilled person” (paragraph 50) but does not specifically disclose a tube. Mayer teaches of the first frame body (17) further includes a first tube (31) connected to the first main beam (17); and the tricycle further comprises a handle (29) rotatably disposed on the first tube (31). (Figs. 1-3, lines 9-100.) 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 Mayer into the invention of De Graaf with a reasonable expectation of success in order to properly steer the wheels. (Lines 72-77.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Graaf and Mayer, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Zhang (JP 2020-66359 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claim 4, De Graaf, as modified, is silent regarding a quick release mechanism. Zhang teaches of a quick-release mechanism (13) connected to the first tube (14) and capable of switching between a first state (figs. 1-3) and a second state (figs. 14-15) relative to the first tube (14); when the quick-release mechanism (13) is in the first state, the quick-release mechanism (13) allows the handle (16) to move relative to the first tube (14); and when the quick-release mechanism (13) is in the second state (figs. 14-15), the quick-release mechanism (13) restricts the handle (16) from moving relative to the first tube (14). (Figs. 1-15, MTD paragraphs 12-45.) 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 Mayer into the invention of De Graaf with a reasonable expectation of success in order to properly fold the head tube unit. (MTD paragraph 45.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Graaf in view of Zhang, as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claim 5, De Graaf discloses the second frame body (15) further comprises: a second tube (19) connected to the second main beam (15) and the second fork (9) and wherein the tricycle further comprises a seat (20) mounted on the second tube (19) but is silent regarding a hinged connection for the universal wheel assembly. (Figs. 1-6, paragraphs 28-54.) Zhang teaches of a connecting tube (42) connected to the second main beam (20) and the second tube (23); and a connecting portion (412) connected to the connecting tube (42); wherein the universal wheel assembly (40) is hinged to the connecting portion (412). (Figs. 1-15, MTD paragraphs 12-45.) 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 Mayer into the invention of De Graaf with a reasonable expectation of success in order to properly hingedly extend and retract the universal wheel. (MTD paragraphs 26-28.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Graaf in view of Walter (US 2018/0050755).
With respect to claim 7, De Graaf discloses a carriage (6) mounted on the first frame body (14) but does not disclose when the tricycle is in an unfolded state, a lowest point of the carriage is lower than an axle center of the first wheel. Walter teaches of when the tricycle is in an unfolded state, a lowest point of the carriage (101) is lower than an axle center of the first wheel (figs. 1, 4, 6). (Figs. 1-13, paragraphs 31-51.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to when the tricycle is in an unfolded state, a lowest point of the carriage is lower than an axle center of the first wheel, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Graaf in view of Han et al. (CN 202 593 735 U; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claims 9-10, De Graaf is silent regarding the details of the universal wheel assembly. Han et al. teaches of a pin shaft (7) connected to the first frame body (fig. 1) or second frame body (fig. 1); wherein the universal wheel assembly (figs. 3-4) is hinged to the first frame body (fig. 3) or the second frame body (fig. 3) through the pin shaft (7); wherein the universal wheel assembly (figs. 3-4) further comprises a connecting shaft (3), a shaft sleeve (12), and an elastic member (5), and wherein an end of the connecting shaft (3) is connected to the pin shaft (7), and a bracket (2) of the universal wheel (6) is rotatably disposed on the other end of the connecting shaft (3); and wherein a limit protrusion (shoulder of 3, seen in fig. 4) is disposed on and protruded from an outer surface of the connecting shaft (3); the elastic member (5) and the shaft sleeve (12) are sleeved on an outside of the connecting shaft (3); the elastic member (5) is compressed between the shaft sleeve (12) and the limit protrusion (shoulder of 3); when the universal wheel assembly (figs. 3-4) is in the first position (fig. 1) and the second position, the shaft sleeve (12) abuts against the second frame body (figs. 1-3) to play a role in position-limiting; wherein the second frame body (figs. 1-3) is provided with a first limiting surface (fig. 5) and a second limiting surface (fig. 5); when the universal wheel assembly (figs. 3-4) is in the first position (fig. 1), an end surface of the shaft sleeve (12) away from the elastic member abuts against the first limiting surface (fig. 5), to limit a switching of the universal wheel assembly (figs. 3-4)-from the first position (fig. 1) to the second position (fig. 2); and when the universal wheel assembly (figs. 3-4) is in the second position (fig. 2), the end surface of the shaft sleeve (12) away from the elastic member (5) abuts against the second limiting surface (fig. 5), to limit a switching of the universal wheel assembly (figs. 3-4) from the second position (fig. 2) to the first position (fig. 1). (Figs. 1-7, MTD paragraphs 30-34.) 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 Han et al. into the invention of De Graaf with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for smooth rotation without contacting bicycle components during rotation and ensures reliable positioning. (MTD paragraph 7.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Graaf in view of Hon et al. (US 2023/0174186).
With respect to claim 12, De Graaf is silent regarding details of the folder. Hon et al. teaches of the folder comprises: a first joint (12) connected to the first main beam (20); a second joint (13) hinged to the first joint (12) and connected to the second main beam (30); and a hand shank (111) hinged to the first joint (12) or the second joint (133). (Figs. 1-8, paragraphs 39-66.) 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 Hon et al. into the invention of De Graaf with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an easy-to-operate folding joint and a folding bicycle frame. (Paragraph 6.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Graaf in view of Yu (US 2021/0016853), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claim 13, De Graaf is silent regarding when the tricycle is in a folded state, an extending direction of the second main beam is substantially parallel to extending directions of axes of the first wheels. Yu teaches of when the tricycle is in a folded state, an extending direction of the second main beam (fig. 9) is substantially parallel to extending directions of axes of the first wheels (fig. 9). (Figs. 1-9, paragraphs 23-26.) 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 Yu into the invention of De Graaf with a reasonable expectation of success in order to shorten the overall length. (Paragraph 26.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Graaf in view of Schultz et al. (US 2021/0229770).
With respect to claim 14, De Graaf is silent regarding a slanting tube. Schultz et al. teaches of the first frame body (104) further comprises: a first tube (Modified Fig. 1, below) connected to the first main beam (104); and a slanting tube (Modified Fig. 1, below) slantingly supported between the first main beam (104) and the first tube (Modified Fig. 1, below). (Figs. 1-26, paragraphs 49-84.) 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 Schultz et al. into the invention of De Graaf with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide stability for the cycle.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Slanted Tube)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Tube)]
PNG
media_image1.png
282
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Graaf in view of Mogensen et al. (US 2016/0272264), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claim 15, De Graaf is silent regarding a motor. Mogensen et al. teaches of the second frame body (fig. 13) further comprises a second tube (fig. 13) connected to the second main beam (fig. 13); and the tricycle further comprises a motor system (125) mounted in a mounting space formed by the second tube (fig. 13) and the second main beam (fig. 13) (paragraph 89). (Figs. 1-24, paragraphs 71-96.) 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 Mogensen et al. into the invention of De Graaf with a reasonable expectation of success in order to propel the tricycle. (Paragraph 89.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stites (US 6,062,581) discloses using different carriage designs where the lowest point is lower than the axle center of the first wheel (figs. 10-11). 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
