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 . This action is made final.
Claims 13, 15, and 17-23 filed on 09/23/2025 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Claims 13, 17, and 19-23 have been amended.
Claims 14 and 16 have been cancelled.
Specification
The specification filed on 09/23/2025 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a movement speed acquisition module in claims 20 and 21, which is interpreted as a control device or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in ([0032-0038] and Figs. 9-10) of Applicant’s Specification
an attitude acquisition module in claims 20 and 21, which is interpreted as a control device or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in ([0032-0039] and Figs. 9-10) of Applicant’s Specification
an angle record module in claims 20 and 21, which is interpreted as a control device or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in ([00129-00142]) of Applicant’s Specification
a torque output module in claims 20 and 21, which is interpreted as a control device or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in ([0032-0040] and Fig. 10) of Applicant’s Specification
a tilt protection module in claim 20, which is interpreted as a control device or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in ([00117-00127]) of Applicant’s Specification
a mode switch module in claim 21, which is interpreted as a control device or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in ([0032-0037]) of Applicant’s Specification
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, “when the first angle greater than the second angle and the first angle smaller than the third angle” should read “when the first angle is greater than the second angle and the first angle is smaller than the third angle”
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.
Claim 17 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 17 depends on cancelled claim 16. For the purpose of examination, claim 17 will be interpreted as depending on independent claim 13.
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.
Claims 13, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (EP 3205322 B1), in view of Fukunaga et al. (US 2013/0306120 A1), and in view of Coulter et al. (US 2017/0259811 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hashimoto teaches a control method for an intelligent rollator having a vehicle body, a front wheel and rear wheels driven by a motor, comprising the following steps:
obtaining the moving speed of the intelligent rollator ([0028-0029]: Speed sensor 22 may obtain the speed of the power-assisted rollator 10 from the counter electromotive force, the angular velocities of the wheels, by integrating acceleration components, or by differentiating location information);
obtaining the attitude of the intelligent rollator wherein the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, when the intelligent rollator meets at least one of the following conditions:the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator exceeds a preset second threshold, ([0030]: Inclination sensor 23 may sense the attitude of the power-assisted rollator 10; [0057]: When “the inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value,” then “the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step”);
reducing the torque output of the motor, when the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, and the moving speed of the intelligent rollator is less than a first threshold ([0046]: When the power-assisted rollator 10 is stopped or moving at a speed equal to or lower than the predetermined speed V, “the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have struck a step. In this case, the control unit 16 may control the motor 20 so as to increase or reduce the driving force of the motor 20”; [0057]: When the “inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (when the front wheels 12 run onto the step, the power-assisted rollator 10 is inclined)” after “the front wheels 12 are lifted relative to the rear wheels 13, the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step and restrain the power-assisted rollator 10 from being accelerated further. In this case, the control unit 16 may control the motors 20 such that the driving force of the rear wheels 13 by the motors 20 is reduced at a higher rate”);
([0030]: “The inclination sensor 23 may sense the inclination of the power-assisted rollator 10, or sense, for example, whether the power-assisted rollator 10 is on a flat surface or on an inclined surface, and may send to the control unit 16 a signal related to the inclination of the power-assisted rollator 10,” where the flat surface corresponds to the first/upward tilt angle);
([0030]: “The inclination sensor 23 may sense the inclination of the power-assisted rollator 10, or sense, for example, whether the power-assisted rollator 10 is on a flat surface or on an inclined surface, and may send to the control unit 16 a signal related to the inclination of the power-assisted rollator 10,” where the inclined surface corresponds to the second angle before the intelligent rollator tilts upward);
([0057]: When the “inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (when the front wheels 12 run onto the step, the power-assisted rollator 10 is inclined)” after “the front wheels 12 are lifted relative to the rear wheels 13, the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step and restrain the power-assisted rollator 10 from being accelerated further,” where the predetermined value corresponds to the third/maximum angle);
increasing the torque output of the motor when the first angle is greater than the second angle and the first angle is smaller than the third angle ([0056]: “it may be possible that, when the step is low, the user is not necessarily required to pull the handles 14 backward, and the front wheels 12 are lifted only by increasing the driving force from the motors 20,” where if the step is low, then the first angle is greater than the second angle and smaller than the third angle); and
reducing or stopping increasing the torque output of the motor if the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator is greater than a preset maximum threshold ([0057]: When “the inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value,” then “the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step and restrain the power-assisted rollator 10 from being accelerated further” or “set the driving force of the rear wheels 13 in the forward direction at zero”).
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach “obtaining the attitude of the intelligent rollator wherein the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, when the intelligent rollator meets at least one of the following conditions: … the change of the upward tilt angular velocity of the intelligent rollator exceeds a preset third threshold.”
Fukunaga teaches obtaining the attitude of the intelligent rollator wherein the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, when the intelligent rollator meets at least one of the following conditions: the change of the upward tilt angular velocity of the intelligent rollator exceeds a preset third threshold ([0012]: “In the configuration described above, where the sensor unit includes at least one of an angular velocity sensor, an inclination sensor, and an angular acceleration sensor, it is possible to reliably detect an angular change in inclination angle of the main body in the pitch direction”; [0048]: “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the main body 3 includes a pitch gyro sensor (sensor unit) 5 that detects a pitch angular velocity which is the angular velocity of an inclination angle in the pitch direction”; [0019]: “the second control unit determines whether a change in output of the sensor unit exceeds a predetermined threshold”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Hashimoto to incorporate the teachings of Fukunaga so as to include obtaining the attitude of the intelligent rollator wherein the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward when the change of the upward tilt angular velocity of intelligent rollator exceeds a preset third threshold. Doing so would allow more accurate control for the purpose of fall prevention ([0079]: “since the rotation of the pitch motor 6 can be more properly controlled by taking the influence of the pitch direction external torque into account, it is possible to more accurately correct the inclination from a balanced state in the pitch direction and prevent falling in the pitch direction. In particular, even when the response frequencies of an inclination angle loop and an inclination angle velocity loop are low, it is possible to continue the control operation to prevent falling in the pitch direction by compensating for the pitch direction external torque through feedforward control. Stable control can thus be achieved”).
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach recording the angles. However, Coulter teaches recording angle data ([0054]: “The method of the present teachings for establishing the center of gravity for a mobility device/user pair, where the mobility device can include a balancing mode that can include a balance of the mobility device/user pair, and where the mobility device can include at least one wheel cluster and a seat, can include, but is not limited to including, (1) entering the balancing mode, (2) measuring data including a pitch angle required to maintain the balance at a pre-selected position of the at least one wheel cluster and a pre-selected position of the seat … The method can optionally include storing the verified measured data in non-volatile memory”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the angle measurements used in Hashimoto in view of Fukunaga to incorporate the teachings of Coulter so as to include recording the angle measurements. Doing so would allow the intelligent rollator to be calibrated to a specific user ([0461]: “Calibration parameters can be calculated that can be used to determine various reference pitch angles that can relate the location of center of gravity 181 (FIG. 27A) to the balance point of the system. The calibration parameters can allow the reference angles to be calculated every control cycle as the seat height and the cluster position change”).
Regarding claim 17, Hashimoto in view of Fukunaga and Coulter teaches the control method of claim [13].
While Hashimoto teaches reducing the torque output of the motor, when the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator is smaller than the first angle ([0054]: “After lifting the front wheels 12, the control unit 16 may gradually reduce the driving force of the rear wheels 13 in the forward direction at a first reduction rate. Thus, the rear wheels 13 are not accelerated too much after the front wheels 12 move beyond the step, and therefore, the front wheels 12 can run over the step smoothly. The reduction of the driving force may be started at the timing when the conditions for the control unit 16 to control the drive units to lift the front wheels 12 (the conditions to determine that the front wheels 12 have struck a step while the user is trying to move the power-assisted rollator 10 forward) become unsatisfied”), Hashimoto does not explicitly teach “reducing the torque output of the motor, when the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator is smaller than the first angle and the upward tilt angular velocity of intelligent rollator is zero.”
Fukunaga further teaches wherein after increasing the torque output of the motor, the method further comprises the following step: reducing the torque output of the motor, when the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator is smaller than the first angle and the upward tilt angular velocity of the intelligent rollator is zero ([0010]: “on the basis of an output of the sensor unit that detects an angular change in an inclination angle of the main body in the pitch direction, the first control unit is programmed to control an operation of the at least one first driving unit such that the angular change of the main body is zero”; [0117]: “the controller may be configured such that if it determines that the pitch inclination angle ϕ does not exceed a predetermined threshold, it does not supply power to the electric motor 9 or the second control unit that controls the operation of the electric motor 9”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Hashimoto in view of Fukunaga and Coulter to incorporate the teachings of Fukunaga so as to include reducing the torque output of the motor, when the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator is smaller than the first angle and the upward tilt angular velocity of intelligent rollator is zero. Doing so would allow the rollator dynamics to converge to a stable equilibrium ([0010]: “the inclination angle of the main body in the pitch direction can be controlled to converge to a balanced angle at which the main body can be kept balanced and does not fall over. Thus, without requiring an elderly or disabled person (user) to particularly consciously apply an external force, the walking assist apparatus can stably assist the elderly or disabled person (user) in walking”).
Regarding claim 18, Hashimoto in view of Fukunaga and Coulter teaches the control method of claim 13.
Hashimoto further teaches wherein before reducing the torque output of the motor, the method further comprises the following step: entering an intelligent crossing-curb mode ([0120]: “the control unit 16 may determine whether the control on the power-assisted rollator 10 enters a step mode (step S11 in Fig. 18). As will be described later, a step mode may constitute a basis for the control unit 16 to determine whether or not the front wheels 12 have struck a step. In other words, when the control unit 16 is not in the step mode, the control unit 16 may not determine whether or not the front wheels 12 have struck a step, in order to increase the safety and prevent erroneous determination,” where the step mode corresponds to an intelligent crossing-curb mode).
Regarding claim 20, Hashimoto teaches a control device for an intelligent rollator having a vehicle body, a front wheel and rear wheels driven by a motor, comprising:
a first movement speed acquisition module for obtaining the moving speed of an intelligent rollator ([0028-0029]: Speed sensor 22 may obtain the speed of the power-assisted rollator 10 from the counter electromotive force, the angular velocities of the wheels, by integrating acceleration components, or by differentiating location information);
a first attitude acquisition module for obtaining the attitude of an intelligent rollator ([0030]: Inclination sensor 23 may sense the attitude of the power-assisted rollator 10);
a first torque output module for reducing the torque output of the motor, when the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, and the moving speed of the intelligent rollator is less than a first threshold ([0046]: When the power-assisted rollator 10 is stopped or moving at a speed equal to or lower than the predetermined speed V, “the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have struck a step. In this case, the control unit 16 may control the motor 20 so as to increase or reduce the driving force of the motor 20”; [0057]: When the “inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (when the front wheels 12 run onto the step, the power-assisted rollator 10 is inclined)” after “the front wheels 12 are lifted relative to the rear wheels 13, the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step and restrain the power-assisted rollator 10 from being accelerated further. In this case, the control unit 16 may control the motors 20 such that the driving force of the rear wheels 13 by the motors 20 is reduced at a higher rate”);
the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, when the intelligent rollator meets at least one of the following conditions: the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator exceeds a preset second threshold, ([0030]: Inclination sensor 23 may sense the attitude of the power-assisted rollator 10; [0057]: When “the inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value,” then “the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step”)
a third torque output module for increasing the torque output of the motor, when the first angle greater than the second angle and the first angle smaller than the third angle ([0056]: “it may be possible that, when the step is low, the user is not necessarily required to pull the handles 14 backward, and the front wheels 12 are lifted only by increasing the driving force from the motors 20,” where if the step is low, then the first angle is greater than the second angle and smaller than the third angle); and
a tilt protection module for reducing or stopping the increase of the torque output of the motor when the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator is greater than a preset maximum threshold ([0057]: When “the inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value,” then “the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step and restrain the power-assisted rollator 10 from being accelerated further” or “set the driving force of the rear wheels 13 in the forward direction at zero”).
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach “the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, when the intelligent rollator meets at least one of the following conditions: … the change of the upward tilt angular velocity of the intelligent rollator exceeds a preset third threshold.”
Fukunaga teaches the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, when the intelligent rollator meets at least one of the following conditions: and the change of the upward tilt angular velocity of the intelligent rollator exceeds a preset third threshold ([0012]: “In the configuration described above, where the sensor unit includes at least one of an angular velocity sensor, an inclination sensor, and an angular acceleration sensor, it is possible to reliably detect an angular change in inclination angle of the main body in the pitch direction”; [0048]: “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the main body 3 includes a pitch gyro sensor (sensor unit) 5 that detects a pitch angular velocity which is the angular velocity of an inclination angle in the pitch direction”; [0019]: “the second control unit determines whether a change in output of the sensor unit exceeds a predetermined threshold”);
The reasons to combine Fukunaga into Hashimoto are the same as articulated in Claim 13 above.
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach recording the angles.
Coulter further teaches a first angle record module for recording the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator as a first angle ([0054]: “The method can optionally include storing the verified measured data in non-volatile memory”; [0461]: “The estimation process can include balancing mobility device 120 (FIG. 27A) and its load at various angles of cluster 21100 (FIG. 3) and various heights of seat 105 (FIG. 27A), and collecting data at each location including the pitch angle of mobility device 120”);
a second angle record module for recording the angle before the intelligent rollator tilts upward as a second angle ([0054]: “The method can optionally include storing the verified measured data in non-volatile memory”; [0461]: “The estimation process can include balancing mobility device 120 (FIG. 27A) and its load at various angles of cluster 21100 (FIG. 3) and various heights of seat 105 (FIG. 27A), and collecting data at each location including the pitch angle of mobility device 120”);
a third angle record module for recording the maximum angle at which the intelligent rollator tilts upward as a third angle ([0054]: “The method can optionally include storing the verified measured data in non-volatile memory”; [0461]: “The estimation process can include balancing mobility device 120 (FIG. 27A) and its load at various angles of cluster 21100 (FIG. 3) and various heights of seat 105 (FIG. 27A), and collecting data at each location including the pitch angle of mobility device 120”);
The reasons to combine Coulter into Hashimoto and Fukunaga are the same as articulated in Claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 22, Hashimoto teaches an intelligent rollator, comprising: a vehicle body, a motor and a plurality of wheels, the wheels are arranged on the vehicle body, and at least a wheel is driven by the motor ([0012-0013]: “Referring to Figs. 1 and 2, the power-assisted rollator 10 may include a frame 11, a pair of front wheels 12 and a pair of rear wheels 13 provided on the frame 11, and a pair of handles (operation units) 14 connected to the frame 11… Each of the pair of rear wheels 13 may be provided with a motor 20 for assisting the movement of the corresponding rear wheel 13”);
While Hashimoto teaches a control unit which controls the intelligent rollator ([0025]: “The control unit 16 may control the entirety of the power-assisted rollator 10 including the motors 20), Hashimoto does not explicitly teach “at least one memory and at least one processor.” Additionally, while Hashimoto teaches the steps of a control method for an intelligent rollator according to claim 13 (see claim 13 rejection), Hashimoto does not explicitly teach “one or more programs stored in the memory, wherein the one or more programs are executed by the at least one processor to implement the steps of a control method for an intelligent rollator according to claim 13 to control a torque output of the motor.”
Coulter teaches at least one memory and at least one processor (([0054]: “The method can optionally include storing the verified measured data in non-volatile memory”; [0534]: “Parts of the system can operate on a computer having a variable number of CPUs. Other alternative computer platforms can be used”);
one or more programs stored in the memory, wherein the one or more programs are executed by the at least one processor to implement the steps of a control method for an intelligent rollator according to claim 13 ([0534]: “Configurations of the present teachings are directed to computer systems for accomplishing the methods discussed in the description herein, and to computer readable media containing programs for accomplishing these methods. The raw data and results can be stored for future retrieval and processing, printed, displayed, transferred to another computer, and/or transferred elsewhere”) to control a torque output of the motor ([0452]: “Wheel/cluster command processor 761 can adjust the torque to wheel motor drives 19/21/31/33”).
The reasons to combine Coulter into Hashimoto are the same as articulated in Claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 23, while Hashimoto teaches a controller ([0025]: “The control unit 16 may control the entirety of the power-assisted rollator 10 including the motors 20), Hashimoto does not explicitly teach “a controller, comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor.” Additionally, while Hashimoto teaches the steps of a control method for an intelligent rollator according to claim 13 (see claim 13 rejection), Hashimoto does not explicitly teach “wherein the one or more programs are executed by the at least one processor to implement the steps of a control method for an intelligent rollator according to claim 13.”
Coulter teaches a controller, comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor (([0054]: “The method can optionally include storing the verified measured data in non-volatile memory”; [0534]: “Parts of the system can operate on a computer having a variable number of CPUs. Other alternative computer platforms can be used”);
wherein one or more programs are executed by the at least one processor ([0534]: “Configurations of the present teachings are directed to computer systems for accomplishing the methods discussed in the description herein, and to computer readable media containing programs for accomplishing these methods. The raw data and results can be stored for future retrieval and processing, printed, displayed, transferred to another computer, and/or transferred elsewhere”) to implement the steps of a control method for an intelligent rollator according to claim 13 (see claim 13 rejection).
Claims 15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (EP 3205322 B1), in view of Fukunaga et al. (US 2013/0306120 A1), in view of Coulter et al. (US 2017/0259811 A1), and in view of Schroth et al. (WO 2021/037936 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Hashimoto in view of Fukunaga and Coulter teaches the control method of claim 13.
While Hashimoto teaches controlling the torque output of the motor when the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, and the moving speed of the intelligent rollator is less than a first threshold ([0046]: When the power-assisted rollator 10 is stopped or moving at a speed equal to or lower than the predetermined speed V, “the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have struck a step. In this case, the control unit 16 may control the motor 20 so as to increase or reduce the driving force of the motor 20”; [0057]: When the “inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (when the front wheels 12 run onto the step, the power-assisted rollator 10 is inclined)” after “the front wheels 12 are lifted relative to the rear wheels 13, the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step and restrain the power-assisted rollator 10 from being accelerated further. In this case, the control unit 16 may control the motors 20 such that the driving force of the rear wheels 13 by the motors 20 is reduced at a higher rate”), Hashimoto, Fukunaga, and Coulter do not explicitly teach “controlling the torque output of the motor according to the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator, the larger the angle, the larger the torque output, when the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, and the moving speed of the intelligent rollator is less than a first threshold.”
Schroth further teaches wherein after reducing the torque output of the motor, the method further comprises the following step: controlling the torque output of the motor according to the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator, the larger the angle, the larger the torque output ([0041]: “the motion control unit is designed to distinguish between a positive or negative inclination angle of the system detected by the at least one inertial sensor and to adjust the torque and/or the speed of the motor at a rate of change dependent thereon”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of in view of Fukunaga and Coulter to incorporate the teachings of Schroth so as to include controlling the torque output of the motor according to the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator, the larger the angle, the larger the torque output. Doing so would allow for adapting the torque output of the motor to the slope of the incline ([0041]: “an acceleration or braking gradient is adapted to the driving situation”).
Regarding claim 19, Hashimoto teaches a control method for an intelligent rollator having a vehicle body, a front wheel and rear wheels driven by a motor, comprising the following steps: entering an intelligent crossing-curb mode according to a preset trigger command ([0120]: “the control unit 16 may determine whether the control on the power-assisted rollator 10 enters a step mode (step S11 in Fig. 18). As will be described later, a step mode may constitute a basis for the control unit 16 to determine whether or not the front wheels 12 have struck a step. In other words, when the control unit 16 is not in the step mode, the control unit 16 may not determine whether or not the front wheels 12 have struck a step, in order to increase the safety and prevent erroneous determination,” where the step mode corresponds to an intelligent crossing-curb mode and the control unit determines whether the mode is triggered);
obtaining the moving speed of the intelligent rollator ([0028-0029]: Speed sensor 22 may obtain the speed of the power-assisted rollator 10 from the counter electromotive force, the angular velocities of the wheels, by integrating acceleration components, or by differentiating location information);
obtaining the attitude of the intelligent rollator, wherein the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, when the intelligent rollator meets at least one of the following conditions:the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator exceeds a preset second threshold, ([0030]: Inclination sensor 23 may sense the attitude of the power-assisted rollator 10; [0057]: When “the inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value,” then “the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step”);
([0030]: “The inclination sensor 23 may sense the inclination of the power-assisted rollator 10, or sense, for example, whether the power-assisted rollator 10 is on a flat surface or on an inclined surface, and may send to the control unit 16 a signal related to the inclination of the power-assisted rollator 10,” where the flat surface corresponds to the first/upward tilt angle);
([0030]: “The inclination sensor 23 may sense the inclination of the power-assisted rollator 10, or sense, for example, whether the power-assisted rollator 10 is on a flat surface or on an inclined surface, and may send to the control unit 16 a signal related to the inclination of the power-assisted rollator 10,” where the inclined surface corresponds to the second angle before the intelligent rollator tilts upward);
([0057]: When the “inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (when the front wheels 12 run onto the step, the power-assisted rollator 10 is inclined)” after “the front wheels 12 are lifted relative to the rear wheels 13, the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step and restrain the power-assisted rollator 10 from being accelerated further,” where the predetermined value corresponds to the third/maximum angle);
increasing the torque output of the motor when the first angle is greater than the second angle and the first angle is smaller than the third angle ([0056]: “it may be possible that, when the step is low, the user is not necessarily required to pull the handles 14 backward, and the front wheels 12 are lifted only by increasing the driving force from the motors 20,” where if the step is low, then the first angle is greater than the second angle and smaller than the third angle).
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach “obtaining the attitude of the intelligent rollator wherein the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, when the intelligent rollator meets at least one of the following conditions: … the change of the upward tilt angular velocity of the intelligent rollator exceeds a preset third threshold.”
Fukunaga teaches obtaining the attitude of the intelligent rollator wherein the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, when the intelligent rollator meets at least one of the following conditions: the change of the upward tilt angular velocity of the intelligent rollator exceeds a preset third threshold ([0012]: “In the configuration described above, where the sensor unit includes at least one of an angular velocity sensor, an inclination sensor, and an angular acceleration sensor, it is possible to reliably detect an angular change in inclination angle of the main body in the pitch direction”; [0048]: “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the main body 3 includes a pitch gyro sensor (sensor unit) 5 that detects a pitch angular velocity which is the angular velocity of an inclination angle in the pitch direction”; [0019]: “the second control unit determines whether a change in output of the sensor unit exceeds a predetermined threshold”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Hashimoto to incorporate the teachings of Fukunaga so as to include obtaining the attitude of the intelligent rollator wherein the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward when the change of the upward tilt angular velocity of intelligent rollator exceeds a preset third threshold. Doing so would allow more accurate control for the purpose of fall prevention ([0079]: “since the rotation of the pitch motor 6 can be more properly controlled by taking the influence of the pitch direction external torque into account, it is possible to more accurately correct the inclination from a balanced state in the pitch direction and prevent falling in the pitch direction. In particular, even when the response frequencies of an inclination angle loop and an inclination angle velocity loop are low, it is possible to continue the control operation to prevent falling in the pitch direction by compensating for the pitch direction external torque through feedforward control. Stable control can thus be achieved”).
While Hashimoto teaches controlling the torque output of the motor when the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, and the moving speed of the intelligent rollator is less than a first threshold ([0046]: “When the power-assisted rollator 10 is stopped or moving at a speed equal to or lower than the predetermined speed V, “the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have struck a step. In this case, the control unit 16 may control the motor 20 so as to increase or reduce the driving force of the motor 20”; [0057]: When the “inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (when the front wheels 12 run onto the step, the power-assisted rollator 10 is inclined)” after “the front wheels 12 are lifted relative to the rear wheels 13, the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step and restrain the power-assisted rollator 10 from being accelerated further. In this case, the control unit 16 may control the motors 20 such that the driving force of the rear wheels 13 by the motors 20 is reduced at a higher rate”), Hashimoto does not explicitly teach “controlling the torque output of the motor according to the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator, the larger the angle, the larger the torque output, when the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, and the moving speed of the intelligent rollator is less than a first threshold.”
Scroth teaches after reducing the torque output of the motor, controlling the torque output of the motor according to the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator, the larger the angle, the larger the torque output, when the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, and the moving speed of the intelligent rollator is less than a first threshold ([0041]: “the motion control unit is designed to distinguish between a positive or negative inclination angle of the system detected by the at least one inertial sensor and to adjust the torque and/or the speed of the motor at a rate of change dependent thereon”; [0083]: “The assisting motor torque is therefore determined by the pushing force on the handle, the incline angle of the walking aid 1 and the defined maximum speed”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Hashimoto in view of Fukunaga to incorporate the teachings of Schroth so as to include controlling the torque output of the motor according to the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator, the larger the angle, the larger the torque output. Doing so would allow for adapting the torque output of the motor to the slope of the incline ([0041]: “an acceleration or braking gradient is adapted to the driving situation”).
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach recording the angles. However, Coulter teaches recording angle data ([0054]: “The method of the present teachings for establishing the center of gravity for a mobility device/user pair, where the mobility device can include a balancing mode that can include a balance of the mobility device/user pair, and where the mobility device can include at least one wheel cluster and a seat, can include, but is not limited to including, (1) entering the balancing mode, (2) measuring data including a pitch angle required to maintain the balance at a pre-selected position of the at least one wheel cluster and a pre-selected position of the seat … The method can optionally include storing the verified measured data in non-volatile memory”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the angle measurements used in Hashimoto in view of Fukunaga and Schroth to incorporate the teachings of Coulter so as to include recording the angle measurements. Doing so would allow the intelligent rollator to be calibrated to a specific user ([0461]: “Calibration parameters can be calculated that can be used to determine various reference pitch angles that can relate the location of center of gravity 181 (FIG. 27A) to the balance point of the system. The calibration parameters can allow the reference angles to be calculated every control cycle as the seat height and the cluster position change”).
Regarding claim 21, Hashimoto teaches a control device for an intelligent rollator having a vehicle body, a front wheel and rear wheels driven by a motor, comprising:
a mode switch module for entering an intelligent crossing-curb mode according to a preset trigger command ([0120]: “the control unit 16 may determine whether the control on the power-assisted rollator 10 enters a step mode (step S11 in Fig. 18). As will be described later, a step mode may constitute a basis for the control unit 16 to determine whether or not the front wheels 12 have struck a step. In other words, when the control unit 16 is not in the step mode, the control unit 16 may not determine whether or not the front wheels 12 have struck a step, in order to increase the safety and prevent erroneous determination,” where the step mode corresponds to an intelligent crossing-curb mode and the control unit determines whether the mode is triggered);
a first movement speed acquisition module for obtaining the moving speed of an intelligent rollator ([0028-0029]: Speed sensor 22 may obtain the speed of the power-assisted rollator 10 from the counter electromotive force, the angular velocities of the wheels, by integrating acceleration components, or by differentiating location information);
a first attitude acquisition module for obtaining the attitude of an intelligent rollator ([0030]: Inclination sensor 23 may sense the attitude of the power-assisted rollator 10);
a first torque output module for reducing the torque output of the motor, when the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, and the moving speed of the intelligent rollator is less than a first threshold ([0046]: When the power-assisted rollator 10 is stopped or moving at a speed equal to or lower than the predetermined speed V, “the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have struck a step. In this case, the control unit 16 may control the motor 20 so as to increase or reduce the driving force of the motor 20”; [0057]: When the “inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (when the front wheels 12 run onto the step, the power-assisted rollator 10 is inclined)” after “the front wheels 12 are lifted relative to the rear wheels 13, the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step and restrain the power-assisted rollator 10 from being accelerated further. In this case, the control unit 16 may control the motors 20 such that the driving force of the rear wheels 13 by the motors 20 is reduced at a higher rate”);
the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, when the intelligent rollator meets at least one of the following conditions: the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator exceeds a preset second threshold, ([0030]: Inclination sensor 23 may sense the attitude of the power-assisted rollator 10; [0057]: When “the inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value,” then “the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step”);
a third torque output module for increasing the torque output of the motor, when the first angle greater than the second angle and the first angle smaller than the third angle ([0056]: “it may be possible that, when the step is low, the user is not necessarily required to pull the handles 14 backward, and the front wheels 12 are lifted only by increasing the driving force from the motors 20,” where if the step is low, then the first angle is greater than the second angle and smaller than the third angle).
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach “the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, when the intelligent rollator meets at least one of the following conditions: … the change of the upward tilt angular velocity of the intelligent rollator exceeds a preset third threshold.”
Fukunaga teaches the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, when the intelligent rollator meets at least one of the following conditions: the change of the upward tilt angular velocity of the intelligent rollator exceeds a preset third threshold ([0012]: “In the configuration described above, where the sensor unit includes at least one of an angular velocity sensor, an inclination sensor, and an angular acceleration sensor, it is possible to reliably detect an angular change in inclination angle of the main body in the pitch direction”; [0048]: “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the main body 3 includes a pitch gyro sensor (sensor unit) 5 that detects a pitch angular velocity which is the angular velocity of an inclination angle in the pitch direction”; [0019]: “the second control unit determines whether a change in output of the sensor unit exceeds a predetermined threshold”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Hashimoto to incorporate the teachings of Fukunaga so as to include obtaining the attitude of the intelligent rollator wherein the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward when the change of the upward tilt angular velocity of intelligent rollator exceeds a preset third threshold. Doing so would allow more accurate control for the purpose of fall prevention ([0079]: “since the rotation of the pitch motor 6 can be more properly controlled by taking the influence of the pitch direction external torque into account, it is possible to more accurately correct the inclination from a balanced state in the pitch direction and prevent falling in the pitch direction. In particular, even when the response frequencies of an inclination angle loop and an inclination angle velocity loop are low, it is possible to continue the control operation to prevent falling in the pitch direction by compensating for the pitch direction external torque through feedforward control. Stable control can thus be achieved”).
While Hashimoto teaches controlling the torque output of the motor when the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, and the moving speed of the intelligent rollator is less than a first threshold ([0046]: “When the power-assisted rollator 10 is stopped or moving at a speed equal to or lower than the predetermined speed V, “the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have struck a step. In this case, the control unit 16 may control the motor 20 so as to increase or reduce the driving force of the motor 20”; [0057]: When the “inclination angle of the power-assisted rollator 10 sensed by the inclination sensor 23 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (when the front wheels 12 run onto the step, the power-assisted rollator 10 is inclined)” after “the front wheels 12 are lifted relative to the rear wheels 13, the control unit 16 may determine that the front wheels 12 have run over the step and restrain the power-assisted rollator 10 from being accelerated further. In this case, the control unit 16 may control the motors 20 such that the driving force of the rear wheels 13 by the motors 20 is reduced at a higher rate”), Hashimoto does not explicitly teach “a second torque output module for controlling the torque output of the motor according to the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator, the larger the angle, the larger the torque output, when the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, and the moving speed of the intelligent rollator is less than a first threshold.”
Schroth teaches a second torque output module for controlling the torque output of the motor according to the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator, the larger the angle, the larger the torque output, when the attitude indicates that the front end of the intelligent rollator is tilted upward, and the moving speed of the intelligent rollator is less than a first threshold ([0041]: “the motion control unit is designed to distinguish between a positive or negative inclination angle of the system detected by the at least one inertial sensor and to adjust the torque and/or the speed of the motor at a rate of change dependent thereon”; [0083]: “The assisting motor torque is therefore determined by the pushing force on the handle, the incline angle of the walking aid 1 and the defined maximum speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Hashimoto in view of Fukunaga to incorporate the teachings of Schroth so as to include controlling the torque output of the motor according to the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator, the larger the angle, the larger the torque output. Doing so would allow for adapting the torque output of the motor to the slope of the incline ([0041]: “an acceleration or braking gradient is adapted to the driving situation”).
Coulter teaches a first angle record module for recording the upward tilt angle of the intelligent rollator as a first angle ([0054]: “The method can optionally include storing the verified measured data in non-volatile memory”; [0461]: “The estimation process can include balancing mobility device 120 (FIG. 27A) and its load at various angles of cluster 21100 (FIG. 3) and various heights of seat 105 (FIG. 27A), and collecting data at each location including the pitch angle of mobility device 120”);
a second angle record module for recording the angle before the intelligent rollator tilts upward as a second angle ([0054]: “The method can optionally include storing the verified measured data in non-volatile memory”; [0461]: “The estimation process can include balancing mobility device 120 (FIG. 27A) and its load at various angles of cluster 21100 (FIG. 3) and various heights of seat 105 (FIG. 27A), and collecting data at each location including the pitch angle of mobility device 120”);
a third angle record module for recording the maximum angle at which the intelligent rollator tilts upward as a third angle ([0054]: “The method can optionally include storing the verified measured data in non-volatile memory”; [0461]: “The estimation process can include balancing mobility device 120 (FIG. 27A) and its load at various angles of cluster 21100 (FIG. 3) and various heights of seat 105 (FIG. 27A), and collecting data at each location including the pitch angle of mobility device 120”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the angle measurements used in Hashimoto in view of Fukunaga and Schroth to incorporate the teachings of Coulter so as to include recording the angle measurements. Doing so would allow the intelligent rollator to be calibrated to a specific user ([0461]: “Calibration parameters can be calculated that can be used to determine various reference pitch angles that can relate the location of center of gravity 181 (FIG. 27A) to the balance point of the system. The calibration parameters can allow the reference angles to be calculated every control cycle as the seat height and the cluster position change”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amended claims 13, 18, and 20, filed 09/23/2025, have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections. However, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Fukunaga and in view of Coulter. Regarding claims 13, 18, and 20, applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest the claim limitations with respect to independent claim 13. Dependent claims 18 and 20 depend from independent claim 13. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Hashimoto determines whether the rollator starts to get over a curb based on the force applied to the handles combined with the speed of the rollator. While this is one embodiment of the invention, [0049] of Hashimoto states that “the information from the grip sensors 24 may not necessarily be used to determine that the front wheels 12 have struck a step. Therefore, the grip sensors 24 may not necessarily [be] provided.” Hashimoto provides several detection mechanisms to establish a user’s intention of crossing a curb. This is a separate determination from obtaining the attitude of the intelligent rollator. The detection mechanisms that lead to the determination that the rollator is trying to cross a curb are not claimed in the instant application.
Applicant also states that the torque output of the motor is reduced in the instant application when the front wheels are starting to tilt upward. [0046] of Hashimoto states that when it is determined the wheels have struck a step, “the control unit 16 may control the motor 20 so as to increase or reduce the driving force of the motor 20.” Increasing or reducing torque output includes reducing torque output.
Applicant also argues that the torque output of the motor increases to facilitate the rear wheel lift over the curb in the instant application. Hashimoto states in [0056] that it may be possible that “the front wheels 12 are lifted only by increasing the driving force from the motors 20.” Hashimoto also states in [0057] that “when the output of the motors 20 remain increased after the front wheels 12 have run over the step, the power-assisted rollator 10 may be accelerated too much” and details conditions under which the torque output may be reduced. However, this indicates the torque output of the motor may be increased when the front wheels of the rollator have crossed the curb when appropriate.
In response to applicant’s argument that the control method of Fukunaga is not applicable to the application scenario of a rollator crossing a curb, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Fukunaga teaches a method of stabilizing a rollator and determining changes in upward tilt angular velocity.
In response to applicant's argument that Hashimoto and Schroth cannot be combined and applicant's argument that Hashimoto and Coulter cannot be combined, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Schroth is relied upon for teaching controlling the torque output of the motor at a rate of change dependent upon the upward tilt angle of the rollator and Coulter is relied upon for teaching recording of angle data, as articulated in the claim rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Magdalena Kossek whose telephone number is (571)272-5603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. 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.
/M.I.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights