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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for
the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction
of the following is required: In claim 21, the terms "attachment member", "securement
member" and "gap" lack antecedent basis in the specification.
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.
Claim 8 and 21-25 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.
Claim 8, recites wherein “wherein said grip is releasably lockable proximate in one of said grip first position and said grip second position.” Claim 8 depends from claim 1 which recites “said grip being releasably lockable proximate said grip second position”. The limitation from claim 8 appears to at least partially repeat the limitation of claim 1 and is unclear.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a wheel lock system". It is unclear what is defined
as the "wheel lock system". The "wheel lock system" is broadly indicated as element 10 in the specification. Claims 1-20 also appears to indicate that the "wheel lock system" is a broad recitation of all the elements of the invention but it is unclear where or how the “attachment member”, “securement member” or “gap” would be arranged as written in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebersole (US 6341671 B1).
Re claim 1, Ebersole discloses a wheel lock system for a wheelchair, said wheelchair comprising a first wheel (22) and a first wheel lock plate (11) associated with said first wheel, said wheel lock plate having a first locking face, said wheelchair having a first frame portion (12) proximate said first wheel lock plate and a second frame portion separated from said first frame portion, said system comprising: a. a first control cable (14), said control cable having a first end and a second end opposite said first end; b. a first lock-pin (131), said first lock-pin being positioned proximate said first wheel lock plate and oriented toward said first wheel lock plate first locking face, said first lock-pin being selectively movable between a first position in which said first lock-pin engages said first wheel lock plate first locking face and a second position in which said first lock-pin does not engage said first wheel lock plate first locking face, said first lock-pin being operatively associated with said first end of said first control cable, said first control cable urging said first lock-pin between said first and second positions; c. a first biasing member (132), said first biasing member being positioned proximate said first control cable at a location apart from said first lock-pin, said first biasing member urging said first control cable to urge said first lock-pin toward said first lock-pin second position; and d. a remote actuator (151), said actuator positioned proximate said second frame portion, said actuator comprising a grip, said grip being operatively associated with said second end of said first control cable, said grip moving between a first position in which said grip urges said first control cable to urge said first lock-pin into said first lock-pin first position and a second position in which said grip urges said first control cable to urge said first lock-pin into said first lock-pin second position, said grip being releasably lockable proximate said grip second position. (Fig. 1-3, Column 8, Par. 5 – Column 9, Par. 2)
Re claims 2 and 15, Ebersole discloses a first lock-pin assembly having a sleeve (See Fig. 7), said first lock-pin assembly comprising said first lock-pin (131), said first lock-pin being positioned in part in said sleeve, said first lock-pin assembly being attached to said wheelchair first frame portion (12). (Fig. 7)
Re claim 3, Ebersole discloses wherein said first biasing member (132) is positioned proximate said remote actuator (151).
Re claims 8 and 16, Ebersole discloses wherein said grip (151) is releasably lockable proximate said grip first position. (Column 9, Par. 2)
Re claims 9 and 17, Ebersole discloses wherein said first biasing member (132) urges said grip toward said one of said grip (151) first position and said grip second position.
Re claim 13, Ebersole discloses wherein said first wheel lock plate (11) first locking face comprises one of a hole, a groove, a depression and a detent (111), said one of a hole, a groove, a depression and a detent being shaped and sized to receive at least a portion of said first lock-pin (131) when said first lock-pin is in said first lock-pin first position, said first lock-pin being positioned and oriented relative to said first wheel lock plate for at least a portion of said first lock-pin to engage said one of a hole, a groove, a depression and a detent when said first lock-pin is in said first lock-pin first position.
Re claim 14, Ebersole discloses wheel lock system for a wheelchair, said wheelchair comprising a first wheel and a first wheel lock plate (11) associated with said first wheel (22), said wheel lock plate having a locking plate with a plurality of locking openings (111), said wheelchair having a first frame portion (12) proximate said first wheel lock plate and a second frame portion (23) separated from said first frame portion, said system comprising: a. a first control cable (14), said control cable having a first end and a second end opposite said first end; b. a first lock-pin (131), said first lock-pin being positioned proximate said first wheel lock plate and oriented toward said first wheel lock plate fist locking face, said first lock-pin being selectively movable between a first position in which said first lock-pin engages one of said plurality of locking openings and a second position in which said first lock-pin does not engage any of said locking openings, said first lock-pin being operatively associated with said first end of said first control cable, said first control cable urging said first lock-pin between said first and second positions; c. a first biasing member (132), said first biasing member being positioned proximate said first control cable at a location separate from said first lock-pin, said first biasing member urging said first control cable to urge said first lock-pin toward said first lock-pin first position; and d. a remote actuator (151), said actuator positioned proximate said second frame portion, said actuator comprising a grip, said grip being operatively associated with said second end of said first control cable, said grip moving between a first position in which said grip urges said first control cable to urge said first lock-pin into said first lock-pin first position and a second position in which said grip urges said first control cable to urge said first lock-pin into said first lock-pin second position, said grip being releasably lockable proximate said grip second position. (Fig. 1-3, Column 8, Par. 5 – Column 9, Par. 2)
Re claim 18, Ebersole discloses wherein said first lock-pin (131) is positioned and oriented for selective engagement in any one of said plurality of locking openings (111).
Re claim 19, Ebersole discloses wherein said first biasing member (132) is positioned proximate said remote actuator (151).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebersole (US 6341671 B1).
Re claim 12, Ebersole teaches wherein said wheelchair comprises an armrest, (Fig. 1) Ebersole does not teach wherein said remote actuator attaches to said wheelchair proximate said wheelchair armrest. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the location of the actuator proximate the armrest in order to provide a convenient alternative access point of the actuator to the user and the location of the actuator would operate well in a variety of locations without altering the function of the wheel lock system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 10, 11, and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Re claims 21-25, while the Examiner agrees that Applicant appears to have support for the claimed components as discussed in the Interview conducted on May 20, 2026, the language used in the claims to describe the components lacks antecedent basis in the specification, is inconsistent with the terminology used in the specification and is therefore unclear.
Conclusion
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 MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTWJuly 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights