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 Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because they include reference characters in parentheses. Use of references characters in the claim language makes it unclear if the structures referenced by the characters should be directly imported into the claim or if the broader terms used in the claim should be used. Using harness (16) as an example, Fig. 7 shows a specific harness, i.e., providing back support and engaging the user around and under the waist, however the term harness component could be much broader than this, e.g., any type of strap or fitting attaching a user to the vehicle. Thus, reference characters within the claims should be removed and the claims are interpreted as not having reference characters. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “while providing an at least partial body weight support” should be and is interpreted as “while providing [[an]] at least partial body weight support.” 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 10, 13, and 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “wherein a shock absorber is preferably provided” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the details following “preferably” are part of the claimed invention. For the sake of compact prosecution, the phrase is interpreted as being optional.
Regarding Claim 13, the phrase “the support wheel and the frame” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the support wheel interacts with the rest of the claimed mobility assistant device as it has not previously been introduced. Examiner notes that claim 5 introduces the support wheel and properly establishes how it is connected to the system. For the sake of compact prosecution, claims 13 is interpreted as depending from claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16, the phrase “wherein ho is preferably between 0.3 - 1.2 m” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what ho is in reference to as ho has not previously been introduced. Examiner notes that claim 2 introduces the term ho as a height of the first axit from the ground. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 16 is interpreted as depending from claim 2. Additionally, similar to claim 10, use of “preferably” renders the claim indefinite and should be removed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3,067,320 A1 to Geli in view of US 2008/0164083 A1 to Miki et al (hereinafter Miki).
Regarding claim 1, Geli discloses a mobility assistance device (2) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
512
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a set of wheels (A) connected to each other by a frame (B), a distal arm (C), a proximal arm (D) and a first axis (E) between the distal arm (C) and the proximal arm (D) wherein the distal and the proximal arms are pivotably arranged about the first axis (E) and are operatively, connected to the frame (B), wherein a harness (798) for receiving a user (F) is provided on the proximal arm (D) length L2 to the first axis (E), wherein a counterweight (G) is provided on a distal arm (C) at a length L1 to the first axis (E) and wherein the counterweight (G) and both of the lengths L1 and L2 are configured to at least partially compensate the weight of the user (F) (Geli Annotated Fig. 6 & p. 24 ¶’s 6-8),
Geli does not appear to disclose
the mobility assistance device further comprises a control unit and the set of wheels comprises at least two self-balancing wheels,
wherein the control unit is configured to control the self-balancing wheels in accordance with an inverse pendulum principle.
Miki teaches that it was old and well known in the art of mobility devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a mobility assistance device (Fig. 1) further comprises a control unit (16) and the set of wheels (11a/b) comprises at least two self-balancing wheels (11a/b) (Figs. 1-3 & [0092]-[0093]),
wherein the control unit (16) is configured to control the self-balancing wheels in accordance with an inverse pendulum principle (Figs. 1-4 & [0033]-[0034], [0118], [0122], and [0172] disclose the control unit includes a program for maintaining the attitude of the inverted pendulum vehicle at least in part by moving the balancer/counter-weight; [0132]-[0133] disclose the control unit controls the wheel motors and balancer/counter-weight in accordance with received control signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of mobility vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the two wheeled vehicle for promoting mobility of a user achieving balance at least in part by using a counter-weight as disclosed by Geli to incorporate for the mobility assistance device further comprises a control unit and the set of wheels comprises at least two self-balancing wheels, wherein the control unit is configured to control the self-balancing wheels in accordance with an inverse pendulum principle as taught by Miki in order to dynamically balance the vehicle by movement of a counter-weight, e.g., see [0033], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 1, Geli further discloses wherein a ground-facing angle a formed between the distal (C) and proximal arm (D) is equal to or less than 180 (Geli Annotated Fig. 6 depicts the angle is 180 deg).
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Geli/Miki does not appear to further disclose wherein the counterweight (Geli – G/Miki - B) has a mass between 5-30 kg.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the range of the mass of the counterweight because finding the ideal mass, e.g., based on the weight of the user, is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the range of the mass of the counterweight, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the mass of the counterweight would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Geli/Miki further discloses wherein the position of the counterweight (Geli – G/Miki - B) on the distal arm (Geli - C) is automatically variable (Geli Annotated Fig. 6/Miki – Fig. 4 & [0141] and [0146]-[0149]).
It would have been obvious to have modified Geli in view of the teachings of Miki for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 1, Geli further discloses wherein the harness (798) is connected pivotably to the proximal arm (D) (Geli – Annotated Fig. 6 & p. 21 ¶s 4-7 disclose the pivot link pivotably connects the proximal arm D to the harness 798), wherein a shock absorber is preferably provided between the harness and the proximal arm (As presently interpreted under 112(b) this limitation is optional. See above.).
Regarding claim 18, depending on claim 8, the modified combination of Geli/Miki does not explicitly disclose wherein L1 may be varied by at least +/−1 cm.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the ideal range of varying the position of the counterweight, i.e., the range varying L1, because finding the ideal range of the counterweight, is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the range of of varying the position of the counterweight, i.e., the range varying L1, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the ideal range of varying the position of the counterweight, i.e., the range varying L1, would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geli in view of Miki and further in view of US 2015/0102577 A1 to Wenmakers et al (hereinafter Wenmakers).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Geli/Miki does not appear to further disclose wherein the device further comprises a support wheel connected in a spring-loaded fashion below the proximal arm, the distal arm or the frame and configured to prevent the harness from uncontrolled falling during use.
Wenmakers teaches that it was old and well known in the art of two wheeled mobility devices, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the device further comprises a support wheel (52 or 53) connected in a spring-loaded fashion below the proximal arm (Z), the distal arm (X) or the frame and configured to prevent the harness (5) from uncontrolled falling during use (Wenmakers Annotated Fig. 5 & [0045], [0069], [0079]-[0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wheeled mobility devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheeled mobility device disclosed by Geli/Miki to incorporate a support wheel connected in a spring-loaded fashion below the proximal arm, the distal arm or the frame and configured to prevent the harness from uncontrolled falling during use as taught by Wenmakers in order to increase the comfort of the patient and provide additional control over the position of the patient, e.g., see Wenmakers [0045], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 5, the modified combination of Geli/Miki/Wenmakers further discloses wherein the support wheel (Wenmakers-52 or 53) is positioned to allow the user to vary their height within a range corresponding to standing on tip-toes, walking, crouching and/or crawling (Wenmakers - [0044] teaches that the supports allow for a range of desired movements and thus is interpreted to be positioned to allow. Examiner notes, the claim language “positioned to allow” is interpreted to be equivalent to “capable of” or “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.).
Even if one were to consider Wenmakers to not explicitly disclose the claimed position variability, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed position variability because the range is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the position variability, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed position variability would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 19-20 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.
Claims 13 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611