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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3, filed on 10/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim 1 under 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kume (US 20140067182 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kume (US 20140067182 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kume discloses a vehicle (wheelchair 11, fig.1) comprising: a vehicle body frame (frame of wheelchair 11, figs.1-20); at least one drive unit (actuators 22, fig.1) which is provided at the vehicle body frame and is capable of translating in all directions on a floor surface and capable of turning (figs.1-8); a direction input device (first detection unit 13 with joystick 13a, fig.1) which receives a direction input corresponding to at least front, rear, left, and right directions inputted by a user (fisg.1-8); a mode switching operator (switch 18 with mode switching unit 16, figs.1-3) which receives a mode switching input corresponding to mode switching performed by the user (figs.1-8); and a control device (control unit 15, figs.3) which controls the drive unit based on signals from the direction input device and the mode switching operator, wherein the control device is configured to: switch a travel mode of the drive unit between a translation mode and a turning mode based on the mode switching input (fig.4a shows a first mode and fig.4b shows a second mode, figs.4a-8), control the drive unit so that the drive unit translates with respect to the floor surface based on a signal from the direction input device when the translation mode is selected (fig.4a), and control the drive unit so that the drive unit turns with respect to the floor surface based on a signal corresponding to a left or right direction from the direction input device when the turning mode is selected (fig.4b).
Regarding claim 2, Kume discloses wherein the direction input device is a joystick (first detection unit 13 with joystick 13a, fig.1).
Regarding claims 3-4, Kume discloses wherein the mode switching operator is a push switch (button switch 18 with mode switching unit 16, figs.1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Kume discloses wherein the direction input device and the mode switching operator are a common joystick (button switch 18 with mode switching unit 16, figs.1-3, first detection unit 13 with joystick 13a, fig.1), and the joystick outputs a signal corresponding to the direction input when receiving a tilt operation performed by the user (figs.1-8), and outputs a signal corresponding to the mode switching input when receiving a push-in operation at a neutral position performed by the user (figs.1-8).
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(s) 6-7 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (US 20140067182 A1) in view of Mutoh (US 20130299254 A1).
Regarding claims 6, Kume discloses the vehicle of claim 1, but fails to disclose a gravity center movement detection device.
However, Mutoh discloses wherein the direction input device is a gravity center movement detection device which detects gravity center movement of an entirety including the vehicle and the user on board the vehicle (seat sensor 307, gyro sensor 308, and the switch unit 306 connect to main wheel PDU 301 and tail wheel PDU 302 to control motors for driving and turning, paragraph [0125 and 0127]), and outputs a signal corresponding to a direction of the gravity center movement (paragraphs [0125 and 0127]).
Kume and Mutoh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kume with the sensors of Mutoh with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of the controller adjusting the drive motors based on the inclination of the vehicle and the surface which the vehicle is on, making the vehicle safer.
Regarding claim 7, Kume in combination with Mutoh, Mutoh discloses wherein the gravity center movement detection device is a tilt angle sensor which is provided at the vehicle body frame and detects a tilt angle of the vehicle body frame (seat sensor 307, gyro sensor 308, and the switch unit 306 with the gyro sensor 308 detecting and inclination angle and angular speed of the vehicle body, paragraphs [0125 and 0127]).
Regarding claims 14-20, Kume discloses a pair of left and right drive units (actuators 22 with wheels 21, fig.1), but fails to disclose drive disks and rollers.
However, Mutoh discloses a pair of drive disks (Mutoh, pair of drive disks 58, figs.6-10) rotatably supported by the vehicle body frame and arranged coaxially and opposed to each other; a plurality of drive rollers (Mutoh, drive rollers 66, figs.6-10) rotatably supported by the drive disk; a pair of actuators (Mutoh, driven pulley 60, figs.6-10) respectively rotating the pair of drive disks independently; and a drive wheel (Mutoh, main wheel 52, figs.6-10) which has an annular shape, is arranged coaxially with the drive disks between the pair of drive disks, is in contact with the plurality of drive rollers, and is rotatable around a central axis (shaft 54, figs.6-10) and around an annular axis (drive rollers 64 rotate around their individual rotation center lines, annular member 62, figs.6-10, paragraph [0047-0048]).
Kume and Mutoh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive units of Kume with the drive unit of Mutoh with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been a simple substitution of one drive unit for another obtaining a predictable result of allowing for better maneuverability of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (US 20140067182 A1) in view of Lee (US 20210077323 A1).
Regarding claims 8-13, Kume fails to disclose further comprising an indicator for indicating the travel mode being executed.
However, Lee discloses an indicator (input device 26 has LEDs 90 that may be activated to indicate a corresponding operation mode and/or operational characteristic of the wheelchair 10, fig.2B, paragraph [0043]) for indicating the travel mode being executed.
Kume and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of input devices for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kume with the indicator lights of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of having a visual representation of the mode of the vehicle, making the vehicle safer.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 10/27/2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613