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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1 – 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 23, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, line 3, “manual propulsion arranged either side” should be “manual propulsion arranged on either side”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the set of front wheels" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this is taken to mean “the pair of front wheels”. The same term is used in claim 20 and is interpreted the same. Also, claim 20 depends from claim 19 and therefore, is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese patent document JP H07313554 A to Fujimoto, in view of German patent document DE 43 40 588 A1 to Kauffmann.
Regarding claim 19, Fujimoto discloses a manually propelled wheelchair (See Figure 4; although not explicitly stated, the wheelchair, having no motor is capable of being manually propelled) comprising:
a chassis (frame 2) to accommodate a seat (seat part 1);
a pair of rear wheels (rear wheel 3) for manual propulsion arranged on either side of the chassis (Paragraph [0011]);
a pair of front wheels (front wheels 4).
However, Fujimoto does not disclose:
a drive system for the pair of front wheels, wherein the drive system comprises at least one motor coupled to the pair of front wheels, and wherein a torque applied to one or more of the set of front wheels by the at least one motor at least assists the propulsion of the wheelchair.
Kauffmann discloses a wheelchair (seated / standing body support apparatus, Fig. 9) comprising a drive system (front wheel drive motors 126a) for a pair of front wheels (front wheels 22a), wherein the drive system comprises at least one motor coupled to the pair of front wheels (Fig. 11), and wherein a torque applied to one or more of the set of front wheels by the at least one motor at least assists the propulsion of the wheelchair (Paragraphs [0041] and [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Fujimoto such that the front wheels comprise motors to drive the front wheels allowing the user to drive the wheelchair when he/she is unable to manually propel it.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto, in view of Kauffmann, and further in view of patent number US 6,511,442 B1 to Lathan et al. (hereinafter referred to as Lathan).
Regard claim 20, Fujimoto, modified by Kauffmann, discloses the wheelchair of claim 19. Fujimoto discloses a control system but does not disclose:
a directional control system to adjust a direction of the wheelchair by instructing a differential torque to be applied to one or more of the set of front wheels, wherein the drive system and the directional control system enable remote control of the wheelchair when a load is absent from the seat.
Kauffmann does disclose a directional control system (control unit 28, Pages 7 – 8) to adjust a direction of the wheelchair by instructing a differential torque to be applied to one or more of the set of front wheels (front wheels 22; “the speeds of the front-wheel drive motors can be separated by a suitable actuation of the controls”, Page 8), wherein the drive system and the directional control system enable control of the wheelchair when a load is absent from the seat (seat 14; the load is absent when the patient is standing, Fig. 1; Pages 7 – 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kauffman’s wheelchair such that the front wheels are controllable even when there is no load on the seat.
Furthermore, Lathan discloses a system for a wheelchair comprising a remote control of the wheelchair (Col. 2: Lns. 22 – 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to further modify Fujimoto’s wheelchair such that it is remotely controlled, having remotely controlled wheels, such that the wheelchair user can send the wheelchair to himself.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Felicia L Brittman-Alabi whose telephone number is (313)446-6512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6.
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.
/Felicia L. Brittman-Alabi/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611