DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 is indefinite for the following reasons: claim 1, lines 8-9 recites the phrase: “sets driving”. The phrase “sets driving” is indefinite because it does not convey with reasonable certainty what action the moving body must perform. The claim does not specify whether “sets driving” refers to initiating movement, enabling a drive mode, configuring drive parameters, or performing some other operation. In the absence of any structural or functional detail defining the term, a person of ordinary skill would be unable to determine the scope of the claimed step, and the limitation is therefore indefinite under - 35 USC § 112(b). For the sake of compact prosecution, the phrase “set driving” is understood to be “initiates driving.”
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Moore (US Pub. 20190302786 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moore discloses: a personal mobility device system (‘wheelchair system 100’); figs. 1-6B; [0020]) comprising:
a boarding body (wheelchair system 100; fig. 1 and [0020]) having a seat (110, fig. 1 and [0020]) that a user [0020] is capable of sitting on [0020]; and
a moving body (200, fig. 2) coupled to the boarding body (via coupling mechanism 112, fig. 1-2 and 6A; [0020]), the moving body (200) having a driving force (via motor 212, fig. 3) based on electric power [ Para. 0028 discloses: “the guide robot 200 (a moving body) includes one or more electric motors 212 that are coupled to the communication path 280”; thus, having a driving force based on electric power.]
Regarding claim 2, Moore further discloses that the boarding body (100) is a dedicated type boarding body [para. 0005 discloses: “the upper component 110 may be a chair configured to support a user of the modular wheelchair system 100”; thus, dedicated type boarding body] in which a docking interface (120; fig. 1) according to a system standard is mounted [para. 0020 discloses: “The upper component 110 may include a user interface 114 and a coupling mechanism 112”; thus, a docking interface according to a system standard is mounted.]
Regarding claim 3, Moore further discloses that the dedicated type boarding body (100) comprises a seat functioning as a chair (fig. 1), a wheel (122 and “modular wheelchair system”, fig. 1; [0020-0021]) and a stopper (via coupling mechanism 112, fig. 1) that are mounted on a bottom of the dedicated type boarding body (see fig. 1, where 112 is positioned on the bottom), and a docker (“mechanical coupling mechanism” [0048]) mounted on a position where the dedicated type boarding body (100) and the moving body (200) are coupled (via “mechanical coupling mechanism” [0048]) to each other so that the docker (see fig. 2) is coupled (fig. 6A) to the moving body (200) [para, 0048 teaches that the moving body 200 and the power Base 120 may be coupled using any mechanical coupling mechanism that couples the moving body 200 and the power base 120. For example, the moving body 200 may include female coupling section and the power base 120 may include a male coupling section that may be coupled with the female coupling section, or vice versa; thus, the dedicated type boarding body and the moving body are coupled to each other so that the docker is coupled to the moving body]. Accordingly, the prior art of record anticipates the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Moore further discloses that the docker (“mechanical coupling mechanism” [0048]) has a locking structure (any “male coupling section” and any “female coupling section”; [0048]) in a form of an electromagnet [ para 0048 discloses: “the guide robot 200 (moving body) and the power base 120 (boarding body) may include magnetic components that attract each other to couple”; thus, coupling section in a form of an electromagnet.]
Regarding claim 8, Moore further discloses that the moving body (200) comprises a docker (“mechanical coupling mechanism” [0048]) mounted on a position where the moving body and the boarding body are coupled (fig. 5B) to each other so that the docker is coupled to the boarding body (100 with 120, fig. 6A), a driving sensor (134, fig. 3 and [0031]) configured to enable autonomous driving (Robot has autonomous driving), a support plate (A, annotated fig. 5C of Moore below) formed in a foldable structure ( fig. 5C shows foldable structure), and a wheel mounted on a bottom of the moving body (200) [para 0028 teaches: “the one or more electric motors 212 are connected to the one or more main wheels placed at the bottom of the guide robot 200”; thus, a wheel mounted on a bottom of the moving body.]
PNG
media_image1.png
379
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 5C of Moore.
Regarding claim 9, Moore further discloses that a control server (server 260, figs. 3-4; [0033]) and a remote controller (232, [0041]), the control server (202) and the remote controller (232) being configured to communicate with the moving body (200) and to call the moving body to the boarding body (100 with 120) [para. 0024 teaches that a network interface hardware 128 of the power base 120 may be communicatively coupled to a network interface hardware 232 of the guide robot 200; thus, the remote controller being configured to communicate with the moving body and to call the moving body to the boarding body.]
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Martinez et al. (US 20030127866 A1; hereinafter, “Martinez”).
Regarding claim 4, Moore discloses the docker and fastener, such as any male coupling and any female coupling, but fails to explicitly teach to be fastened to a clasp, the clasp is formed in a hook shape, and the docker comprises a ring on which the clasp having the hook shape is capable of being hung and supported; however,
Martinez in another electromechanical locking mechanism’ similar to Moore teaches that the docker is configured to be fastened to a clasp (via spring 16, fig. 3), the clasp is formed in a hook shape (“locking hook”, [0008]), and the docker comprises a ring (“U-bolt”, [0008]) on which the clasp having the hook shape is capable of being hung and supported [see figs. 5-6 and para. 0008 teaches that gear motor is attached to a slotted link, which pulls a locking hook which hooks a U-bolt, or a headed bolt.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the docker of claim 3 with a fastening structure such as a hook-shaped clasp and a corresponding ring as taught by Martinez into the invention of Moore with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously fasten the docker of the boarding body to the moving body, as such hook-and-ring coupling mechanism are well-known interchangeable fastening solutions that predictably secure two bodies together. A skilled artisan would have recognized that substituting such a known fastening interface for the docker of Moore constitutes a simple design choice yielding only predictable results.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Oh Quintero Carlos Humberto Lllanos (BR MU8903008 U2; hereinafter, “Carlos”).
Regarding claim 6, Moore does not appear to explicitly teach that the boarding body is a modified boarding body comprising a conversion kit that is coupled to the seat; however,
Carlos in another ‘wheelchair motorization kit’ similar to Moore teaches that the boarding body (5, page 5) is a modified boarding body (with or without drive module) comprising a conversion kit (“motorization kit”; ‘Abstract’) that is coupled to the seat (see ‘Abstract’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the boarding body is a modified boarding body comprising a conversion kit that is coupled to the seat as taught by Carlos into the invention of Moore with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously adopt a new design where a person of ordinary skill would understand that instead of manufacturing a dedicated boarding body, an existing seat could be adopted using a conversion kit that adds wheel, stoppers and a docker. The modification does not change the underlying operation of the system; it simply provides a different, well-known implementation path.
Regarding claim 7, Moore as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that the conversion kit comprises a wheel and a stopper that are mounted on a bottom of the conversion kit and comprises a docker mounted on position where the conversion kit and the moving body are coupled to each other so that the docker is coupled to the moving body; however,
the conversion kit (“motorization kit”; ‘Abstract’) comprises a wheel (“wheel of the chair”, ‘Abstract’) and a stopper that are mounted on a bottom of the conversion kit (“detachably installed at the bottom of the seat 7” [‘Abstract’]) and comprises a docker mounted (“central module”) on position where the conversion kit (motorization kit) and the moving body (drive connector’, ‘Abstract’) are coupled to each other so that the docker is coupled to the moving body (see details in the ‘Abstract’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the conversion kit with a wheel and stopper, and a docker mounted at the coupling position as taught by Carlos into the invention of the modified Moore with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously include these known elements , such as the conversion kit which represents a predictable use of conventional techniques to achieve the same docking and mobility function.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Oh Seong Joon (KR 20180010626A; hereinafter, “Joon”).
Regarding claim 10, Moore discloses the moving body, the boarding body, however, Prior art of record differs from the claimed invention in that identification of boarding body is performed by image verification, instead of ID; however,
Joon in another ‘wireless charging and autonomous moving electric wheelchair’ similar to Moore teaches that the boarding body further comprises an ID (“RFID”; [0014]), the ID being configured to be identified by the moving body (“moving motor”; 0014]) when the moving body is docked with the boarding body (“wheelchair”; [para. 0014 teaches that A moving motor for moving the electric wheelchair with information received from the laser sensor and the RFID antenna when the electric wheel chair is in the self-traveling mode; A power receiving module having the moving motor and a battery for supplying power to the height adjusting motor and charging the battery wirelessly; And a control unit receiving information from the laser sensor and the RFID antenna and controlling operation of the moving motor and the height adjusting motor; thus, the boarding body further comprises an ID, the ID being configured to be identified by the moving body when the moving body is docked with the boarding body.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ID, such as RFID being configured to be identified by the moving body when docked with the boarding body as taught by Joon into the invention of Moore with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously recognize the location of the boarding body to which an ID tag is attached to correct proper pairing and ensure proper engagement. A skilled artisan would have recognized that substituting such a known RFID identification for the docker of Moore constitutes a simple design choice yielding only predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Moore as modified above further teaches that a control method of a personal mobility device system (“the communication path 280 and receive instructions from the controller 202”, [0028]), the control method comprising:
a calling process (via smart phone) in which a user calls a moving body by using a remote controller mounted on a boarding body [ para. 0039 teaches that: “the mobile device may include an antenna for communicating over one or more of the wireless computer networks described above. Moreover, the mobile device may include a mobile antenna for communicating with the network 240. Accordingly, the mobile antenna may be configured to send and receive data according to a mobile telecommunication standard of any generation (e.g., 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, etc.). Specific examples of the mobile device include, but are not limited to, smart phones, tablet devices”];
a matching process (via proximity sensor 134) in which a control server (260) matches the moving body (200) in response to a call from the remote controller (232); and
a setting process (figs. 6A-6B OF Moore) in which the moving body (200) called and positioned adjacent to the boarding body (120) identifies an ID (“RFID” of Joon) mounted on the boarding body (100 with 120) and sets driving (fig. 6B and see claim rejection 35 U.S.C § 112(b) above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2021094100 A1 to Terence discloses: the invention relates to a connection system (0) for connecting a wheelchair (100) to a motorized scooter (200).
US20160052139 A1 to Roderick Teaches: a wheelchair-assist robot for assisting a wheelchair user with everyday tasks or activities at work, at home, and the like. In an embodiment, the mobile wheelchair-assist robot includes a wheelchair interface component configured to exchange control information with a wheelchair controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM 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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
March 21, 2026