Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/211,824

MOBILITY DEVICE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 20, 2023
Examiner
BERNS, MICHAEL ANDREW
Art Unit
3666
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Deka Products Limited Partnership
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
631 granted / 752 resolved
+31.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
769
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
§103
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 752 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Status of the Claims This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment dated January 14, 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 16-27 are withdrawn. Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: At [0067], FIG. 1A is described as a diagram of front views of the mobility device base. At [0068], FIG. 1B is described as a diagram of side views of the wheelchair base. The wheelchair base is not described anywhere else in the Specification. This appears to be intended to be “mobility device base”. [0069] and [0070] also refer to wheelchair base. 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 6-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation “the data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 is dependent on claim 3 and claim 1, which previously introduced “terrain and obstacle detection data” and made secondary reference to “the data”. Claim 6 uses “the data” to refer back to “data pertaining to balance of the mobility device”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, as the limitation “the data” is used twice in different references. Reference to using “the data” for establishing the center of gravity of the mobility device must relate to the “data pertaining to balance of the mobility device” and not “terrain and obstacle data”. Claims 7-8 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if this refers to “data pertaining to balance of the mobility device” or “terrain and obstacle detection data”. The secondary reference “the data” was used in claim 1 to refer back to “terrain and obstacle detection data”. Claim 7 appears to refer to “data pertaining to balance of the mobility device”. Claim 8 recites the limitation “the data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if this refers to “data pertaining to balance of the mobility device” or “terrain and obstacle detection data”. The secondary reference “the data” was used in claim 1 to refer back to “terrain and obstacle detection data”. Claim 8 appears to refer to “data pertaining to balance of the mobility device”. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(u) because they are misnumbered. 37 CFR 1.84(u) reads as follows: (u) Numbering of views. (1) The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear. FIG. 1J1, and others of the 312 drawing figures, adds a number after the capital letter improperly. Drawings must be numbered in sequential Arabic numerals. Partial views must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. (37 CFR 1.84(u)). FIG. 1R shows two different embodiments of the skid plate 30026 in the same figure. FIG. 1R and the skid plate appear to have nothing to do with the present claims. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Part 30026-2 is not described in the Specification but shown in FIG. 1R bottom figure. Part 30135A is not described in the Specification but shown in FIG. 3K1. Part 274 is not described in the Specification but shown in FIG. 3L. This may be intended as embossing 273. This looks the same as embossing 273 in FIG. 3K and FIG. 3K1. FIG. 1A should be FIG. 1. FIG. 1A is identified in the Specification as a mobility device base. FIG. 1B should be FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B. FIG. 1B is identified in the Specification as a wheelchair base, not a mobility device base. FIG. 1B contains two different views. FIG. 1J1 should be FIG. 1K. FIG. 1K should be FIG. 1L. FIG. 1O has a garbled 16/312 in the bottom right corner. FIG.1O appears to only show rear securement loop 20700, which is unrelated to any of the present claims. FIG. 7I is described as a locking pin spring. This does not appear to be helpful in illustrating the preferred embodiment of the present claims. FIG. 3K1 may be FIG. 3L. FIG. 23PP1 may be FIG. 24. FIG. 23PP2 may be FIG. 25. FIG. 25D1 may be FIG. 26. FIG. 25D2 may be FIG. 27. FIG. 25D3 may be FIG. 28. FIG. 29A-FIG. 29V might be FIG. 29-FIG. 50. The drawings should be numbered not lettered, providing a better index of the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed January 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued the lack of Information Disclosure Statement was not inappropriate. Applicant filed an IDS in the parent case, and is not required to file the same references again. Applicant filed no new references. The references listed in [0001] – [0003] are incorporated by reference, where a published application or patent is available, but the references are not considered, unless they were cited in the parent IDS. Applicant amended the claims to address antecedent basis issues, but new issues have been raised. Applicant submitted drawings, but did not address all the issues and did not number the drawings in Arabic numerals, as required. Further review of the drawings is required. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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. MICHAEL BERNS Primary Examiner Art Unit 3666 /MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 20, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 12, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 14, 2026
Response Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589749
POWERTRAIN, CONTROL APPARATUS AND MOTOR CONTROL UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591936
MULTICOMPUTER PROCESSING OF USER DATA WITH CENTRALIZED EVENT CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570143
CONTROL APPARATUS FOR VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12549563
METHOD FOR OBTAINING FILE BASED ON OVER-THE-AIR OTA TECHNOLOGY AND RELATED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12534062
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A VEHICLE DRIVELINE COMPRISING A FIRST DRIVING MODE AND A SECOND DRIVING MODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+12.7%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 752 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month