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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 23 January 2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the objection to the specification has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see remarks at page(s) 11-14, filed 23 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-8 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Orrell-Jones have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
“Independent claims 1, 11, and 16 all recite a common technical feature; namely, executing an artificial intelligence model to calculate a suggested speed value according to an input parameter set that comprises a distance and a three-axis angle and moving the mobility aid according to the suggested speed value. The Office Action cited Weon as purported teaching this feature. Applicant disagrees. Weon estimates gait intention from LiDAR and foot IMU data to adjust the walker's direction but does not incorporate distance to a sensing target or the walker's three-axis orientation as AI model inputs for calculating speed.”
The Examiner’s Response
With respect to independent claims 1, 11 and 16, the Applicant argues the limitation of “executing an artificial intelligence model to calculate a suggested speed value according to an input parameter set that comprises a distance and a three-axis angle and moving the mobility aid according to the suggested speed value” is not taught by Weon. It appears Applicant is arguing the limitation as if it is a narrower limitation than it is. While Weon does not explicitly use the exact wording of the Applicant’s claim, Weon does suggest the limitations, as broadly interpreted. Weon discloses a user’s gait intention, i.e., which includes speed and directional angle, using LiDAR which determines the walking direction by detecting both knees (i.e., distance of a sensing target in relation to a mobility aid) and IMUs attached to each foot to determine angular rate of the gait (Weon at page(s) 522 and 525-527). Additionally, this limitation does not specify or require that the IMU is on the walker and that it uses IMU data of the walker to calculate speed. Orrell-Jones has already been used to teach a IMU on the walker itself. While the Examiner agrees that the exact language of the claim limitation is not present in the disclosure of Weon, the teachings of Weon does suggest Applicant’s limitation in the invention under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Additionally, Applicant argues that the limitation of “a portable device comprising: an input circuit receiving an input signal associated with the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting associated with a sensing target” is not taught by AlGhazi and that Alghazi does not integrate these inputs with distance and orientation in an AI based speed calculation. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the claim does not require that the corrected speed or mobility level settings from a portable device are integrated with distance and orientation measurements. Additionally, AlGhazi discloses applying user-specific settings which may include autonomous driving settings like normal travel speed (¶[0012] and [0018]) and also includes deriving gait measurements (AlGhazi at ¶[0075]). While the Examiner agrees that the exact language of the claim limitation is not present in the disclosure of AlGhazi, the teachings of AlGhazi does suggest Applicant’s limitation in the invention under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the rejection is maintained. See rejection below.
Regarding the further remarks regarding the dependent claims, Applicant argues Orrell-Jones does not disclose multiple proximity sensors and their relative positions with respect to each other in claims 12 and 17. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Orrell-Jones discloses one or more proximity sensors 170 (see ¶[0026] of Orrell-Jones as well as Fig. 1). The Examiner notes Fig. 1 shows two proximity sensors on opposite sides of the walker. Additionally, Applicant argues AlGhazi does not disclose a timer that accumulates the mobility aid’s operating duration. Operating duration can be broadly interpreted as it is not stating what is operating on the walker. AlGhazi does disclose tracking trends using other sensors which could be the use amount by the user (AlGhazi at ¶[0009]-[0010]) or duration of time the seat of the walker is in use (see ¶[0061]). While the Examiner agrees that the exact language of the claim limitation(s) is not present in the disclosure of Orrell-Jones and AlGhazi, the teachings of Orrell-Jones and AlGhazi does suggest Applicant’s limitations in the invention under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orrell-Jones et al. (WO 2022036327 A1) in view of Weon et al. (Intelligent robotic walker with actively controlled human interaction).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Orrell-Jones teaches a mobility aid comprising: a mobility aid (see ¶[0007] “walker with an automated power drive”) comprising: a body (see ¶[0007] “rigid frame”); a distance sensor detecting a distance between the body and a sensing target (see ¶[0026] “one or more proximity sensors 170 that are oriented towards the user to actively measure the distance between the user and the frame at various places on the user’s body”); an inertial measurement unit detecting a three-axis angle of the body (see ¶[0044] “inertial measurement unit”); a storage device storing an artificial intelligence model (see ¶[0070]-[0071] “computer vision model”; see ¶[0075] “present invention may be implemented with one or more computer readable media”); a processing device electrically connected to the distance sensor (see ¶[0026] “data from the proximity sensors is analyzed by the central processing unit”), the inertial measurement unit (see ¶[0046] “MCU 514 proceeds to determine the orientation of the walker based on the parameters sensed by the IMU”), and the storage device (see ¶[0075] “processing system” “computer readable media”), wherein the body accommodated the distance sensor (see ¶[0022]), the inertial measurement unit (see ¶[0022]), the storage device (see ¶[0040]), the processing device (see ¶[0022]), and the power output device (see ¶[0022]).
Orrell-Jones does not explicitly teach wherein the processing device executes the artificial intelligence model to calculate a suggested speed value according to an input parameter set, and the input parameter set comprises the distance and the three-axis angle; and a power output device electrically connected to the processing device, wherein the power output device moves the body according to the suggested speed value. However, Weon discloses an intelligent robotic walker with actively controlled human interaction and teaches wherein the processing device executes the artificial intelligence model to calculate a suggested speed value according to an input parameter set (see page 525-527 “gait tracking algorithm” “gait intension prediction algorithm”; see page 522 “actively controls its speed and direction of movement according to the user’s gait intention”), and the input parameter set comprises the distance and the three-axis angle (see page 522 “sensor fusion” “LiDAR” “IMUs”); and a power output device electrically connected to the processing device, wherein the power output device moves the body according to the suggested speed value (see page 522 “two motors in the robotic walker are controlled with these two variables”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic rollator walker with automated power drive of Orrell-Jones to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the processing device executes the artificial intelligence model to calculate a suggested speed value according to an input parameter set, and the input parameter set comprises the distance and the three-axis angle; and a power output device electrically connected to the processing device, wherein the power output device moves the body according to the suggested speed value, as taught by Weon, to provide a contactless interface based on the determined user-oriented gait trajectory (Weon at page 523) and controlling the robotic walker using the estimated gait intention. (Weon at page 522)
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Orrell-Jones teaches wherein the distance sensor is a first distance sensor, the distance is a first distance (see ¶[0026] “one or more proximity sensors 170 that are oriented towards the user to actively measure the distance between the user and the frame at various places on the user’s body”), the mobility aid further comprises a second distance sensor and a third distance sensor (see ¶[0026] “one or more proximity sensors 170”), and the method further comprises: detecting a second distance between the mobility aid and the sensing target by the second distance sensor (see ¶[0026] “one or more proximity sensors 170 that are oriented towards the user to actively measure the distance between the user and the frame at various places on the user’s body”); and detecting a third distance between the mobility aid and the sensing target by the third distance sensor (see ¶[0026] “one or more proximity sensors 170 that are oriented towards the user to actively measure the distance between the user and the frame at various places on the user’s body”); wherein the input parameter set further comprises the second distance and the third distance (see ¶[0026] “the proximity sensors is analyzed by the central processing unit to evaluate the user’s posture and to determine if there are any unusual or dangerous changes in the distance between the user and the frame”).
Regarding claim 8, Orrell-Jones teaches wherein the three-axis angle represents a slope of a terrain on which the mobility aid is situated (see ¶[0044] “IMU determines whether or not the walker is on level ground, and the direction and grade of the slope if not”).
Claim(s) 3-6, 13-15 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orrell-Jones et al. (WO 2022036327 A1) in view of Weon et al. (Intelligent robotic walker with actively controlled human interaction) in further view of AlGhazi et al. (US 20220211568 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination of Orrell-Jones and Weon does not explicitly teach wherein the mobility aid further comprises a temperature sensor and a timer, and the method further comprises: obtaining an air temperature by the temperature sensor; and accumulating an operating duration of the mobility aid by the timer; wherein the input parameter set further comprises the air temperature and the operating duration. However, AlGhazi discloses a mobility assistance apparatus and teaches wherein the mobility aid further comprises a temperature sensor (see ¶[0067] “temperature sensor”) and a timer (see ¶[0009]-[0010] “other sensors” “track trends relating to user’s gait”), and the method further comprises: obtaining an air temperature by the temperature sensor (see ¶[0067] “temperature sensor”); and accumulating an operating duration of the mobility aid by the timer (see ¶[0009]-[0010] “other sensors” “track trends relating to user’s gait”); wherein the input parameter set further comprises the air temperature and the operating duration (see ¶[0009]-[0010] “analyze the sensor data, e.g., for identifying a load on the smart mobility device, for tracking user activity, and/or deriving information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic rollator walker with automated power drive of Orrell-Jones as modified by Weon to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the mobility aid further comprises a temperature sensor and a timer, and the method further comprises: obtaining an air temperature by the temperature sensor; and accumulating an operating duration of the mobility aid by the timer; wherein the input parameter set further comprises the air temperature and the operating duration, as taught by AlGhazi, to provide retrieving and applying user-specific settings for the mobility aid device. (AlGhazi at ¶[0074])
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Orrell-Jones and Weon does not explicitly teach wherein the mobility aid further comprises an input device, and the method further comprises: receiving a mobility level setting associated with the sensing target by the input device; wherein the input parameter set further comprises the mobility level setting. However, AlGhazi discloses a mobility assistance apparatus and teaches wherein the mobility aid further comprises an input device (see ¶[0015] and [0018] “smart device”), and the method further comprises: receiving a mobility level setting associated with the sensing target by the input device (see ¶[0018] “entering user data into the smart mobility device using a smart device”; see ¶[0012] “user-specific settings may include but are not limited to autonomous/semi-autonomous driving settings (e.g., amount of braking force, normal travel speed), sensitivity of controls, etc”); wherein the input parameter set further comprises the mobility level setting (see ¶[0018] “entering user data into the smart mobility device using a smart device”; see ¶[0012] “user-specific settings may include but are not limited to autonomous/semi-autonomous driving settings (e.g., amount of braking force, normal travel speed), sensitivity of controls, etc”, i.e., mobility level setting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic rollator walker with automated power drive of Orrell-Jones as modified by Weon to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the mobility aid further comprises an input device, and the method further comprises: receiving a mobility level setting associated with the sensing target by the input device; wherein the input parameter set further comprises the mobility level setting, as taught by AlGhazi, to provide retrieving and applying user-specific settings for the mobility aid device. (AlGhazi at ¶[0074])
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Orrell-Jones teaches wherein the mobility aid further comprises a communication circuit (see ¶[0036] “wireless communication module 205”), and the method further comprises: in response to receiving a corrected speed value by the processing device through the communication circuit (see ¶[0030] “analyzes acceleration and decelerations and automatically slows or stops”), using the corrected speed value as the suggested speed value and sending the suggested speed value to the power output device (see ¶[0030] “analyzes acceleration and decelerations and automatically slows or stops the rotation of the rear wheel motors 145”); and in response to receiving a stop command by the processing device through the communication circuit, setting the suggested speed value to zero and sending the suggested speed value to the power output device by the processing device (see ¶[0074] “when the user’s feet are observed to be stationary, but the walker is still moving, the state machine control system can set the drive motor velocity to completely stop the walker from rolling away”).
The combination of Orrell-Jones and Weon does not explicitly teach in response to receiving the mobility level setting associated with the sensing target by the processing device through the communication circuit, adding the mobility level setting to the input parameter set by the processing device. However, AlGhazi discloses a mobility assistance apparatus and teaches in response to receiving the mobility level setting associated with the sensing target by the processing device through the communication circuit, adding the mobility level setting to the input parameter set by the processing device (see ¶[0018] “entering user data into the smart mobility device using a smart device”; see ¶[0012] “user-specific settings may include but are not limited to autonomous/semi-autonomous driving settings (e.g., amount of braking force, normal travel speed), sensitivity of controls, etc”, i.e., mobility level setting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic rollator walker with automated power drive of Orrell-Jones as modified by Weon to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, in response to receiving the mobility level setting associated with the sensing target by the processing device through the communication circuit, adding the mobility level setting to the input parameter set by the processing device, as taught by AlGhazi, to provide retrieving and applying user-specific settings for the mobility aid device. (AlGhazi at ¶[0074])
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Orrell-Jones and Weon does not explicitly teach further comprising: sending a mobility aid status to a portable device by the communication circuit; in response to receiving the mobility aid status, displaying the mobility aid status on the portable device; receiving an input signal associated with the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting associated with the sensing target by the portable device; and sending the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting associated with the sensing target to the mobility aid according to the input signal by the portable device. However, AlGhazi discloses a mobility assistance apparatus and teaches further comprising: sending a mobility aid status to a portable device by the communication circuit (see ¶[0051]-[0052] “status” “reported to the user (e.g., on any of the displays)”); in response to receiving the mobility aid status, displaying the mobility aid status on the portable device (see ¶[0051]-[0052] “give the user and/or others (such as health care provider or caregiver) information about status” “reported to the user (e.g., on any of the displays)”); receiving an input signal associated with the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting associated with the sensing target by the portable device (see ¶[0018] “entering user data into the smart mobility device using a smart device”; see ¶[0012] “user-specific settings may include but are not limited to autonomous/semi-autonomous driving settings (e.g., amount of braking force, normal travel speed), sensitivity of controls, etc”); and sending the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting associated with the sensing target to the mobility aid according to the input signal by the portable device (see ¶[0018] “entering user data into the smart mobility device using a smart device”; see ¶[0012] “user-specific settings may include but are not limited to autonomous/semi-autonomous driving settings (e.g., amount of braking force, normal travel speed), sensitivity of controls, etc”, i.e., mobility level setting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic rollator walker with automated power drive of Orrell-Jones as modified by Weon to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, further comprising: sending a mobility aid status to a portable device by the communication circuit; in response to receiving the mobility aid status, displaying the mobility aid status on the portable device; receiving an input signal associated with the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting associated with the sensing target by the portable device; and sending the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting associated with the sensing target to the mobility aid according to the input signal by the portable device, as taught by AlGhazi, to provide retrieving and applying user-specific settings for the mobility aid device. (AlGhazi at ¶[0074])
Regarding claims 16, Orrell-Jones teaches a mobility aid assistive system comprising: a mobility aid (see ¶[0007] “walker with an automated power drive”) comprising: a body (see ¶[0007] “rigid frame”); a distance sensor detecting a distance between the body and a sensing target (see ¶[0026] “one or more proximity sensors 170 that are oriented towards the user to actively measure the distance between the user and the frame at various places on the user’s body”); an inertial measurement unit detecting a three-axis angle of the body (see ¶[0044] “inertial measurement unit”); a storage device storing an artificial intelligence model (see ¶[0070]-[0071] “computer vision model”; see ¶[0075] “present invention may be implemented with one or more computer readable media”); a first processing device electrically connected to the distance sensor (see ¶[0026] “data from the proximity sensors is analyzed by the central processing unit”), the inertial measurement unit (see ¶[0046] “MCU 514 proceeds to determine the orientation of the walker based on the parameters sensed by the IMU”), and the storage device (see ¶[0075] “processing system” “computer readable media”), a first communication circuit disposed on the body and electrically connected to the first processing device (see ¶[0036] “wireless communication module 205” “central processing unit 180”), sends a mobility aid status (see ¶[0037] “walker status”), an input circuit (see ¶[0033] “touch sensors”), and the input parameter set further comprises the mobility level setting (see ¶[0064] “indicating contact or absence of contact”); a power output device electrically connected to the first processing device (see ¶[0044] “MCU 514 is central computer for power wheel control systems and other electrical components”), wherein the body accommodated the distance sensor (see ¶[0022]), the inertial measurement unit (see ¶[0022]), the storage device (see ¶[0040]), the first processing device (see ¶[0022]), the first communication circuit (see ¶[0022]), and the power output device (see ¶[0022]).
Orrell-Jones does not explicitly teach wherein the first processing device executes the artificial intelligence model to calculate a suggested speed value according to an input parameter set, and the input parameter set comprises the distance and the three-axis angle; wherein the first communication circuit receives a corrected speed value or a mobility level setting associated with the sensing target, wherein the power output device moves the body according to the suggested speed value; and a portable device comprising: an input circuit receiving an input signal associated with the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting associated with the sensing target, a second communication circuit communicably connected to the first communication circuit; a second processing device electrically connected to the input circuit for receiving the input signal, electrically connected to the second communication circuit and sending the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting according to the input signal. However, Weon discloses an intelligent robotic walker with actively controlled human interaction and teaches wherein the first processing device executes the artificial intelligence model to calculate a suggested speed value according to an input parameter set (see page 525-527 “gait tracking algorithm” “gait intension prediction algorithm”; see page 522 “actively controls its speed and direction of movement according to the user’s gait intention”), and the input parameter set comprises the distance and the three-axis angle (see page 522 “sensor fusion” “LiDAR” “IMUs”); wherein the power output device moves the body according to the suggested speed value (see page 522 “two motors in the robotic walker are controlled with these two variables”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic rollator walker with automated power drive of Orrell-Jones to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the first processing device executes the artificial intelligence model to calculate a suggested speed value according to an input parameter set, and the input parameter set comprises the distance and the three-axis angle; wherein the power output device moves the body according to the suggested speed value, as taught by Weon, to provide a contactless interface based on the determined user-oriented gait trajectory (Weon at page 523) and controlling the robotic walker using the estimated gait intention. (Weon at page 522)
The combination of Orrell-Jones and Weon does not explicitly teach wherein the first communication circuit receives a corrected speed value or a mobility level setting associated with the sensing target, and a portable device comprising: an input circuit receiving an input signal associated with the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting associated with the sensing target, a second communication circuit communicably connected to the first communication circuit; a second processing device electrically connected to the input circuit for receiving the input signal, electrically connected to the second communication circuit and sending the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting according to the input signal. However, AlGhazi discloses a mobility assistance apparatus and teaches wherein the first communication circuit receives a corrected speed value or a mobility level setting associated with the sensing target (see ¶[0012] “user specific settings”), and a portable device (see ¶[0015] and [0018] “smart device”) comprising: an input circuit receiving an input signal associated with the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting associated with the sensing target (see ¶[0018] “entering user data into the smart mobility device using a smart device”; see ¶[0012] “user-specific settings may include but are not limited to autonomous/semi-autonomous driving settings (e.g., amount of braking force, normal travel speed), sensitivity of controls, etc”), a second communication circuit communicably connected to the first communication circuit (see ¶[0015] “smart mobility aid device may include one or a plurality of electronic communication components configured to communicatively couple the smart mobility device to an external electronic device, for example a computing device (e.g., laptop, smartphone, tablet, smart watch, etc.)”); a second processing device electrically connected to the input circuit for receiving the input signal (see ¶[0018] “entering user data into the smart mobility device using a smart device”), electrically connected to the second communication circuit (see ¶[0018] “smart device”) and sending the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting according to the input signal (see ¶[0018] “entering user data into the smart mobility device using a smart device”; see ¶[0012] “user-specific settings may include but are not limited to autonomous/semi-autonomous driving settings (e.g., amount of braking force, normal travel speed), sensitivity of controls, etc”, i.e., mobility level setting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic rollator walker with automated power drive of Orrell-Jones as modified by Weon to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the first communication circuit receives a corrected speed value or a mobility level setting associated with the sensing target, and a portable device comprising: an input circuit receiving an input signal associated with the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting associated with the sensing target, a second communication circuit communicably connected to the first communication circuit; a second processing device electrically connected to the input circuit for receiving the input signal, electrically connected to the second communication circuit and sending the corrected speed value or the mobility level setting according to the input signal, as taught by AlGhazi, to provide retrieving and applying user-specific settings for the mobility aid device. (AlGhazi at ¶[0074])
Regarding claims 17, Orrell-Jones teaches wherein the distance sensor is a first distance sensor, the distance is a first distance (see ¶[0026] “one or more proximity sensors 170 that are oriented towards the user to actively measure the distance between the user and the frame at various places on the user’s body”), and the mobility aid further comprises: a second distance sensor and a third distance sensor disposed on the body (see ¶[0026] “one or more proximity sensors 170”), on opposite sides of the first distance sensor (see ¶[0031] “proximity sensors” which are also on front and sides for hazard detection), and electrically connected to the first processing device (see ¶[0026] “data from the proximity sensors is analyzed by the central processing unit”); wherein the second distance sensor detects a second distance between the body and the sensing target (see ¶[0026] “one or more proximity sensors 170 that are oriented towards the user to actively measure the distance between the user and the frame at various places on the user’s body”), the third distance sensor detects a third distance between the body and the sensing target (see ¶[0026] “one or more proximity sensors 170 that are oriented towards the user to actively measure the distance between the user and the frame at various places on the user’s body”), and the input parameter set further comprises the second distance and the third distance (see ¶[0026] “the proximity sensors is analyzed by the central processing unit to evaluate the user’s posture and to determine if there are any unusual or dangerous changes in the distance between the user and the frame”).
Regarding claims 18, the combination of Orrell-Jones and Weon does not explicitly teach wherein the mobility aid further comprises: a temperature sensor disposed on the body and electrically connected to the first processing device, wherein the temperature sensor obtains an air temperature; a timer disposed on the body and electrically connected to the first processing device, wherein the timer accumulates an operating duration of the mobility aid; and the input parameter set further comprises the air temperature and the operating duration. However, AlGhazi discloses a mobility assistance apparatus and teaches wherein the mobility aid further comprises: a temperature sensor disposed on the body and electrically connected to the first processing device (see ¶[0067] “temperature sensor”), wherein the temperature sensor obtains an air temperature (see ¶[0067] “temperature sensor”); a timer disposed on the body and electrically connected to the first processing device (see ¶[0009]-[0010] “other sensors” “track trends relating to user’s gait”), wherein the timer accumulates an operating duration of the mobility aid (see ¶[0009]-[0010] “other sensors” “track trends relating to user’s gait”); and the input parameter set further comprises the air temperature and the operating duration (see ¶[0009]-[0010] “analyze the sensor data, e.g., for identifying a load on the smart mobility device, for tracking user activity, and/or deriving information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic rollator walker with automated power drive of Orrell-Jones as modified by Weon to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the mobility aid further comprises: a temperature sensor disposed on the body and electrically connected to the first processing device, wherein the temperature sensor obtains an air temperature; a timer disposed on the body and electrically connected to the first processing device, wherein the timer accumulates an operating duration of the mobility aid; and the input parameter set further comprises the air temperature and the operating duration, as taught by AlGhazi, to provide retrieving and applying user-specific settings for the mobility aid device. (AlGhazi at ¶[0074])
Regarding claims 19, the combination of Orrell-Jones and Weon does not explicitly teach wherein the mobility aid further comprises: an input device disposed on the body and electrically connected to the first processing device, wherein the input device receives a mobility level setting associated with the sensing target, and the input parameter set further comprises the mobility level setting. However, AlGhazi discloses a mobility assistance apparatus and teaches wherein the mobility aid further comprises: an input device disposed on the body and electrically connected to the first processing device (see ¶[0015] and [0018] “smart device”), wherein the input device receives a mobility level setting associated with the sensing target (see ¶[0018] “entering user data into the smart mobility device using a smart device”; see ¶[0012] “user-specific settings may include but are not limited to autonomous/semi-autonomous driving settings (e.g., amount of braking force, normal travel speed), sensitivity of controls, etc”), and the input parameter set further comprises the mobility level setting (see ¶[0018] “entering user data into the smart mobility device using a smart device”; see ¶[0012] “user-specific settings may include but are not limited to autonomous/semi-autonomous driving settings (e.g., amount of braking force, normal travel speed), sensitivity of controls, etc”, i.e., mobility level setting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic rollator walker with automated power drive of Orrell-Jones as modified by Weon to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the mobility aid further comprises: an input device disposed on the body and electrically connected to the first processing device, wherein the input device receives a mobility level setting associated with the sensing target, and the input parameter set further comprises the mobility level setting, as taught by AlGhazi, to provide retrieving and applying user-specific settings for the mobility aid device. (AlGhazi at ¶[0074])
Regarding claims 20, Orrell-Jones teaches wherein: the input circuit further receives a stop command (see ¶[0074] “the state machine control system can set the drive motor velocity to completely stop the walker from rolling away”); the second processing further controls the second communication circuit to send the stop command to the first communication circuit (see ¶[0030] “analyzes acceleration and decelerations and automatically slows or stops the rotation of the rear wheel motors 145”); and the first processing device sets the suggested speed value to zero after receiving the stop command through the first communication circuit (see ¶[0074] “the state machine control system can set the drive motor velocity to completely stop the walker from rolling away”).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orrell-Jones et al. (WO 2022036327 A1) in view of Weon et al. (Intelligent robotic walker with actively controlled human interaction) in further view of AlGhazi et al. (US 20220211568 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Barthelt (US 20080115987 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Orell-Jones, Weon and AlGhazi does not explicitly teach further comprising: receiving a stop command by the portable device through an input circuit; and sending the stop command to the mobility aid by the portable device. However, Barthelt discloses a wheelchair comprising a remote control and teaches further comprising: receiving a stop command by the portable device through an input circuit (see ¶[0008] “electric motor is controlled with the aid of a remote control”; see claim 29 “remotely controlling operation”; see ¶[0016] “stopping and actuating”); and sending the stop command to the mobility aid by the portable device see ¶[0008] “electric motor is controlled with the aid of a remote control”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic rollator walker with automated power drive of Orrell-Jones as modified by Weon as modified by AlGhazi to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, receiving a stop command by the portable device through an input circuit; and sending the stop command to the mobility aid by the portable device, as taught by Barthelt, to provide the user the ability to return the wheelchair to original location by remote control with the aid of the portable hand transmitter. (Barthelt at ¶[0052])
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orrell-Jones et al. (WO 2022036327 A1) in view of Weon et al. (Intelligent robotic walker with actively controlled human interaction), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhang (CN 113029133 A).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Orrell-Jones and Weon does not explicitly teach wherein the three-axis angle comprises an average value of a plurality of angle data measured by the inertial measurement unit. However, Zhang discloses a robot and correction method and teaches wherein the three-axis angle comprises an average value of a plurality of angle data measured by the inertial measurement unit (see page 6 “calculating the average value of the first, second and third initial acceleration component”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic rollator walker with automated power drive of Orrell-Jones as modified by Weon to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the three-axis angle comprises an average value of a plurality of angle data measured by the inertial measurement unit, as taught by Zhang, to provide improving the positioning accuracy of the robot. (Zhang at page 8)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
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 Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights