DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 – 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6 recites the limitation “said first” which should be changed to “a first”.
Claim 1, line 7 recites the limitation “said second” which should be changed to “a second”.
Claim 1, line 10 recites the limitation “each of” which should be changed to “the respective one of”.
Claim 1, line 12 recites the limitation “each of” which should be changed to “the respective one of”.
Claim 1, line 15 recites the limitation “one said” which should be changed to “one of said”.
Claim 1, line 15 recites the limitation “each of” which should be changed to “the respective one of”.
Claim 1, line 18 recites the limitation “each said” which should be changed to “the respective one of said”.
Claim 1, line 19 recites the limitation “each of” which should be changed to “the respective one of”.
Claim 3, line 3 recites the limitation “pully” which should be changed to “pulley”.
Claim 4, line 1 recites the limitation “a first one” which should be changed to changed “the first one”.
Claim 5, line 2 recites the limitation “each of” which should be changed to “the respective one of”.
Claim 5, line 3 recites the limitation “each of” which should be changed to “the respective one of”.
Claim 7, line 1 recites the limitation “one” which should be changed to “the one”.
Claim 7, line 2 recites the limitation “a corresponding one” should be changed to “the corresponding one”.
Claim 9, line 2 recites the limitation “each of” which should be changed to “the respective one of”.
Claim 9, line 3 recites the limitation “a corresponding one” which should be changed to “the corresponding one”.
Claim 10, line 2 recites the limitation “a corresponding one” which should be changed to “the corresponding one”.
Claim 12, line 2 recites the limitation “each of” which should be changed to “a respective one of”.
Claim 13, line 2 recites the limitation “each of” which should be changed to “a respective one of”.
Claim 13, line 3 recites the limitation “a corresponding one” which should be changed to “the corresponding one”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (WO 2017/075113 A1) in view of Long et al. (US 6,910,701 B1).
For claim 1, Lin discloses a wheelchair (page 7, paragraph [0034]), comprising:
a wheelchair body FAO2 and 02 – 05;
a drive wheel 12 [rotatably secured to said wheelchair body] (page 5, paragraph [0028] and page 12, paragraph [0051]); and
a propulsion mechanism 06 – 11, said propulsion mechanism including:
a crank 11 [rotatably coupled to said wheelchair body] (fig. 6, page 6, paragraph [0031]);
a first drive member 06, [wherein said drive member operably coupled to said crank] (page 7, paragraph [0031]);
a second drive member (small wheel of 07) [rotatably coupled to said wheelchair body] (page ,6 paragraph [0031]), [wherein said second drive member operatively coupled to said first drive member with a first circuitous member 09] (page 7, paragraph [0031]);
a third drive member (large wheel of 07) [rotatably coupled to said wheelchair body] (page 6, paragraph [0031]), [wherein said third drive member disposed coaxially and adjacent to said second drive member] (fig. 6);
a fourth drive member 08, [wherein said fourth drive member coaxially coupled to said drive wheel] (fig 6), wherein said third drive member operatively coupled to said fourth drive member with a second circuitous member 10] (page 7, paragraph [0031]); but does not explicitly disclose
the propulsion mechanism is operable to independently drive each of said pair of drive wheels rotatably secured to said wheelchair body; and there are a pair of drive wheels; a pair of cranks; a pair of first drive members; a pair of second drive members; a pair of third drive members; a pair of fourth drive members; a pair of first circuitous members; and a pair of second circuitous members.
Long et al. discloses a wheelchair 40 comprising a wheelchair body including [a wheelchair propulsion system 100 mounted to a side of the wheelchair body; a propulsion mechanism drive gear 24 is connected to a wheel sprocket gear 42 by a drive chain 43; and a second similar propulsion mechanism and associated wheel sprocket gear are provided on an opposing side of the wheelchair to function in a like manner] (col. 3, lines 56 – 65); and [each propulsive system may be driven, independently or in concert] (col. 2, lines 9 – 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the wheelchair with opposing drive wheels and duplication of parts of Long et al. with the propulsion mechanism of Lin with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for powering of a different wheelchair configuration, thus improving overall usability of the propulsion mechanism.
For claim 2, Lin modified as above discloses the wheelchair [wherein one or more of said first pair of drive members, said second pair of drive members, said third pair of drive members, and said fourth pair drive members comprise a sprocket] (page 5, paragraph [0027]), and [wherein one or more of said first circuitous member and said second circuitous member comprise a roller chain] (page 7, paragraph [0031]).
For claim 4, Lin modified as above discloses the wheelchair [wherein rotation of a first one of said pair of cranks operably rotates a first one of said pair of drive wheels, and wherein rotation of said second one of said pair of cranks operably rotates a second one of said pair of drive wheels, and wherein operable rotation of said first one of said pair of drive wheels occurs independent of operable rotation of said second one of said pair of drive wheels] (col 2, lines 9 – 10 of Long et al.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (WO 2017/075113 A1) in view of Long et al. (US 6,910,701 B1), and further in view of Tosti (CA 1,196,936 A).
For claim 3, Lin modified as above does not explicitly disclose the wheelchair wherein one or more of said first pair of drive members, said second pair of drive members, said third pair of drive members, and said fourth pair drive members comprise a pulley, and wherein one or more of said first circuitous member and said second circuitous member comprise a belt.
Tosti discloses [the chain and sprocket drive means could be replaced by other drives, such as V-belts and pulleys or sheaves, or timing belts and timing gears, as desired] (page 8, lines 6 – 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the pulley and belt of Tosti in place of the sprocket and chains of Lin modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a reduction in friction and energy consumption, thus reducing overall replacement costs.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (WO 2017/075113 A1) in view of Long et al. (US 6,910,701 B1), and further in view of Parisi (US 5,037,120).
For claim 11, Lin modified as above does not explicitly disclose the wheelchair further comprising [a pair of handles (27 of Long et al.) correspondingly coupled to said pair of cranks, each of said pair of handles adapted to a grip of a hand of a user of said wheelchair] (fig. 4, col. 3, lines 21 – 22), but does not explicitly disclose said pair of handles each inwardly fold toward said pair of cranks.
Parisi disclose a wheelchair 24 comprising [a handle 40 may be round shaped 42 or cylindrical or oval shaped 44 with the latter configurations collapsing or pivot inwardly] (col. 5, lines 58 – 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the folding of handles of Parisi with the handles of Lin modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a more compact configuration, thus allowing for improving storage of the wheelchair.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 10, 12, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose:
For claims 5-10: a pair of transmissions, wherein one of said pair of transmissions coupled to each of said second pair of drive members or to each of said third pair of drive members; and
For claims 12 and 13: a pair of motors, wherein one of said pair of motors disposed to drive each of said second pair of drive members.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN-102204858 – a rocker; an upper support bracket; and a chain wheel transmission device; and
US-4572501 – comprising handle bars; a chain means; first sprocket wheel; a second chain; a second sprocket wheel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacob D. Knutson whose telephone number is (571)270-5576. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)-272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611