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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rains et al. (US Patent Number 10925404) in view of Adams (US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0152658).
Regarding claim 20, Rains discloses in combination, a dock (at least 26) for housing a hand-held remote-control device (22) for use in connection with controlling various sections of a powered chair (10), wherein: said dock comprises a hollow housing having a configuration which is substantially that of a rectangular parallelepiped (see Figure 2 for instance), and which is adapted to be fixedly mounted within a frame portion of the powered chair (at 32); an elongated slot defined within said flanged portion of said dock and which extends into said hollow housing of said dock for permitting said hand-held remote-control device to be inserted through said elongated slot of said dock and into said hollow housing of said dock such that said hand-held remote-control device can be stored within said dock (see Figures 1-3 showing this arrangement); a flanged portion (36) which is fixedly secured upon a front face of said hollow housing, which surrounds said elongated slot (see at least Figures 2 and 3) which is defined within said side portion of said dock and which extends into said hollow housing of said dock for permitting said hand-held remote-control device to be inserted through said slot of said flanged portion of said dock and into said hollow housing of said dock such that said hand-held remote-control device can be stored within said dock (as above); said hand-held remote-control device comprises a housing having a configuration which is substantially that of a parallelepiped and comprising a primary upper face, a rear side face, a front side face, and a bottom face (these could be variously defined with a front opposite the rear, and bottom and primary on others of the six faces). Rains does not disclose a bump/projection and recess, and the rectangular parallelepiped shapes may not be explicitly described (that is, while the figures would appear to show such shapes, Rains may not provide shape detail). Regarding the shape, as changes in shape require only routine skill in the art, even if the shapes were not clearly as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the dock and remote-control shapes as claimed based on normal variation to improve function and comfort for various users. Regarding the bump/projection and recess, Adams discloses a related device including a dock (37) with a convex bump/projection provided upon an edge section of a flanged portion which is fixedly secured upon a front face of the dock and a concave recess (at 36) defined within a face of a hand-held remote-control device for cooperation with said convex bump/projection defined within said dock so as to ensure that said hand-held remote control device can only be inserted in a predetermined manner (this is the general arrangement). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide docking details as taught by Adams in Rains’ device because this could improve security and comfort for various users. Note that while the combination would provide the bump/projection and recess arranged as claimed based on the arrangement of the reference devices, even if this were not clear, rearrangement of components require only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the components arranged as claimed based on normal variation to improve function and comfort for various users.
Regarding claim 14, Rains, modified as described, discloses a device as explained above and further discloses a plurality of first buttons (at 24) operatively mounted upon said primary upper face of said hand-held remote-control device for permitting a person to control various sections of the powered chair when said hand-held remote-control device is housed or not housed within said dock. Rains does not disclose a plurality of second buttons. Adams discloses a related device including a hand-held remote-control device including a plurality of first buttons operatively mounted upon a primary upper face of a hand-held remote-control device (sharing a face with 20 for instance), and a plurality of second buttons operatively mounted upon a front side face of said hand-held remote-control device (on the orthogonal face; see Figure 1, etc.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plurality of second buttons as taught by Adams in Rains’ device because this could improve comfort and versatility for various users. Note that the first and second buttons would be operable when housed or not housed as claimed much as in the reference devices.
Regarding claim 15, Rains, modified as described, further discloses a first magnetic interface disposed within said hollow housing of said dock; and a second magnetic interface mounted upon said rear side face of said hand-held remote-control device for cooperation with said first magnetic interface disposed within said hollow housing of said dock so as to fixedly secure said hand- held remote-control device within said housing of said dock (see the second full paragraph of column 7 describing magnets for retention of the remote-control in the dock; such an arrangement would inherently provide magnets on both components as claimed for functionality). While Rains is thus viewed as disclosing the limitations as claimed, the first and second interfaces on particular sides may not be explicitly described. However, as duplication and rearrangement of components require only routine skill in the art, even if the magnetic interfaces were not clearly as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide them as positioned claimed based on normal variation to improve function and comfort for various users.
Regarding claim 16, Rains, modified as described, further discloses said hand-held remote-control device comprises a wireless hand-held remote control device (22 is a wireless remote-control device).
Regarding claim 17, Rains, modified as described, further discloses wireless hand-held remote-control device is battery-powered (see again second full paragraph of column 7 describing a battery for device 22) but does not explicitly disclose a lithium-ion battery. Lithium-ion batteries are old and well-known and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide such a battery because this would provide a cheap, readily available, and reliable power source for a variety of users.
Regarding claim 18, Rains, modified as described, further discloses a first electrical charging interface disposed within said hollow housing of said dock; and a second electrical charging interface mounted upon said rear side face of said hand-held remote-control device for cooperation with said first electrical charging interface disposed within said hollow housing of said dock so as to electrically recharge said at least one lithium-ion battery of said hand-held remote-control device when said hand-held remote-control device is disposed within said housing of said dock (see again second full paragraph of column 7 describing a charging member 22 with 26; such an arrangement would inherently provide charging interfaces on both components as claimed for functionality). While Rains is thus viewed as disclosing the limitations as claimed, the first and second interfaces on particular sides may not be explicitly described. However, as duplication and rearrangement of components require only routine skill in the art, even if the charging interfaces were not clearly as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide them as positioned claimed based on normal variation to improve function and comfort for various users.
Regarding claim 19, Rains, modified as described, further discloses when said dock is disposed within the frame portion of the powered chair, said flanged surface portion of said dock will engage an outer surface portion of the frame portion of the powered chair so as to ensure that said dock is fixedly secured within the frame portion of the powered chair (this is the general arrangement; see at least Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Adams does not disclose a bump/projection and corresponding recess as currently claimed. However, it is maintained that Adams discloses these features (see at least Adams’ Figure 2) and discloses them positioned as claimed (i.e. on edge section of a flanged portion and on a face, respectively). That Adam’s bump/projection and recess may serve to charge the device does not change the fact that Adam’s discloses them in the first place. The Adam’s bump/projection and recess serve to ensure that the remote control and dock can be mated in one particular way as claimed. Further, while the combination is viewed as providing the elements arranged as claimed (i.e. Adam’s bump/projection and recess on Rain’s flange and remote control face, respectively), even if the particular positioning were not clear (either in Adams or the resulting combination), it would have been obvious to provide such positioning as explained above. The rejections have accordingly been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
/PHILIP F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights