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 for Foreign Priority
The claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to the CN Patent Application No. 202430448446.5 filed on July 17, 2024 is acknowledged. Certified copies of the original CN Patent Application have been received by the Office.
General Information
This application contains the following embodiments:
Embodiment 1
Reproductions 1.1-1.8
PNG
media_image1.png
863
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Embodiment 1 features a claimed design of an Electric Scooter.
Embodiment 2
Reproductions 2.1-2.8
PNG
media_image2.png
863
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Embodiment 2 features a claimed design of an Electric Scooter closely resembles r Embodiment 1 in the overall form and proportion, but representational inconsistencies make it uncertain whether they depict the identical design.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the joint inventors regard as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling for the following reasons:
The claim design includes two embodiments that are inconsistent and fail to clearly convey that the complete visual appearance for the claimed design. Specifically, the application presents Embodiment 1 using line drawings and Embodiment 2 using computer generated photo-realistic rendered images, both purportedly directed to the same claimed design of an electric scooter.
Although both embodiments appear to represent the same subject matter in overall structure, the use of two distinct presentation formats results in material differences in the conveyed visual information. Line drawings are cable of depicting edges, boundaries, and overall shape in relationship through use of lines. However, they do not adequately communicate surface character, curvature, or the precise contouring of non-planar regions. In contrast, the photo-realistic computer-generated rendering images of Embodiment 2 including shading, highlights, and reflections that provide critical three-dimensional cues regarding curvature, depth, and surface transition. It also serves to differentiate between open and solid area within the article.
The claimed design of an electric scooter includes features that a distinctly contoured, curved, and non-orthogonal, with complex transitions between adjoining surfaces. Such features are not readily understood from line drawings alone, which lack of surface shading and depth representation. For example, this difficulty is particular apparent in the bottom view, where the line drawing depiction fails to clearly indicate which elements are recessed, projected, or at different elevations relative to one another. The photo-realistic rendering, however, conveys the relationships through light and shadow, making the three-dimensional form immediately apparent to one person of ordinary skill in the art. (See example below for references)
PNG
media_image3.png
774
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As a result, the line drawings of the reproductions in Embodiment 1 omit visual information necessary to fully understand the claimed design. This omission renders the disclosure indefinite, as the overall appearance of the claimed design cannot be determined with reasonable certainty (i.e., represent the same design) or patently different ( i.e., represent different design). A proper restriction under 35 USC 121 cannot be made until the 112 issues are resolved and full school of each embodiment is clear. Accordingly, any determination regarding restriction is held in abeyance pending correct of above deficiencies.
Applicant is cautioned that if the surface shape of an element/structure is not evident from the disclosure as filed, the addition of additional views of those elements/structures after filing may comprise new matter (37 CFR 1.152 (II)).
Any amended replacement reproduction 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 reproduction should not be labeled as “amended.” If a reproduction 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 reproductions for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a reproduction sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the reproduction sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that reproduction sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each reproduction 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.
When preparing new or replacement reproductions, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Conclusion
This application stands rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b).
Discussion of the Merits of the Application:
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant’s representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant’s representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below.
Telephonic or in person interviews:
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO (“registered practitioner”) or with a pro se applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become “of record”, a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIA /80 “Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an “Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form” (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below.
If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at Giang.tran1@uspto.gov to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner’s work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call.
Email Communications:
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 “Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications” may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see “When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence” below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information.
Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence:
When responding to official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including a notification of refusal, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online: via the USPTO's Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov)
Mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
/G.H.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2932
/DARLINGTON LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2914
Prosecution Insights