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 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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(2) as being anticipated by Hancock et al. (US 2018/0280213 A1) hereinafter, Hancock.
Hancock teaches a motor subassembly (100) for use in a wheelchair assembly, the motor subassembly comprising:
a motor platform (110);
a motor controller (114, control motor power delivery to the wheel, Para [0027]); and
at least one motor (102),
wherein the at least one motor and the motor controller are mounted to the motor platform (3A), wherein a combined weight of the motor subassembly is less than twenty-nine (29) kilograms (Para [0047]), wherein the motor platform is configured to be selectively attached to a remaining portion of a wheelchair assembly to form the wheelchair assembly (Para [0018]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grymko et al. (US 2004/0084230 A1) hereinafter, Grymko in view of Helterbrand (US 2014/0035253 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grymko teaches a wheelchair assembly (2) for easy assembly and disassembly, the wheelchair assembly comprising:
a plurality of frames (14, 18);
at least one motor (20);
a battery (Para [0065]); and
a plurality of wheels (22),
wherein the plurality of frames are configured to be selectively attached or disassembled with each other to form the wheelchair assembly, wherein the wheelchair assembly is configured to be easily assembled and disassembled (Para [0044] and Fig 1-10), wherein the wheelchair assembly includes a plurality of subassemblies (10, 12), wherein each of the plurality of subassemblies weighs less than thirty-five (35) kilograms (Para [0044]- [0045] and Fig 1-2), wherein the plurality of subassemblies includes a first subassembly (300) and a second subassembly (10, 12), wherein the plurality of frames includes a first frame (308) and a second frame (28), wherein the first subassembly includes the first frame and the battery (Fig 9a), wherein the second subassembly includes the second frame and the at least one motor (Fig 2), wherein the first subassembly is configured to be selectively attached to the second subassembly (Fig 9a), wherein the battery is provided in a different subassembly than the at least one motor to more evenly distribute the weight of the wheelchair assembly and so that the weight of the first subassembly and the second subassembly are both less than thirty-five (35) kilograms (Para [0044], Fig 2 and 9a), the wheelchair assembly further comprising: an additional set of one or more wheels (23) that are provided at the rear of the wheelchair assembly, wherein the additional set of one or more wheels are configured to prevent the wheelchair assembly from toppling backward (See Fig 2), wherein the additional set of one or more wheels are configured to prevent the at least one motor from contacting the ground when the at least one motor is assembled (See Fig 2).
However, Grymko does not teach that the wheelchair assembly is an all-terrain wheelchair assembly.
Helterbrand teaches that the wheelchair assembly is an all-terrain wheelchair assembly (Para [0052] and Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Grymko’s wheelchair, in view of Helterbrand, with all-terrain wheels, to enable driving the wheelchair in different terrains.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 6-7, Grymko in view of Helterbrand teaches all the limitations as discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, Grymko teaches a wheelchair assembly for easy assembly, disassembly, and transport, the wheelchair assembly comprising:
a plurality of subassemblies, including:
a first subassembly (100) having a first frame (106, 108); and
a second subassembly (10, 12) having a second frame (28);
at least one motor (20);
a plurality of wheels (22),
wherein the plurality of subassemblies are configured to be selectively attached with each other to form the wheelchair assembly, wherein the wheelchair assembly is an all-terrain wheelchair assembly, wherein the plurality of subassemblies are configured to be disassembled from each other so that each of the plurality of subassemblies can be separately carried by a single person (Fig 1-3 and Para [0044]), wherein the first subassembly is a seat subassembly (Para [0050]), wherein the second subassembly is a motor subassembly (Para [0047]), wherein the at least one motor is provided in the motor subassembly, wherein the motor subassembly is configured to be selectively attached to the seat subassembly to make the wheelchair assembly electrically-powered, wherein the seat subassembly is configured to be manually operated when the motor subassembly is not attached to the seat subassembly (Fig 1-3), wherein the plurality of subassemblies includes a third subassembly including a battery (300, Para [0065]), wherein each of the plurality of subassemblies weighs less than thirty-five (35) kilograms (Para [0044]).
However, Grymko does not teach that the wheelchair assembly is an all-terrain wheelchair assembly.
Helterbrand teaches that the wheelchair assembly is an all-terrain wheelchair assembly (Para [0052] and Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Grymko’s wheelchair, in view of Helterbrand, with all-terrain wheels, to enable driving the wheelchair in different terrains.
Regarding claims 14-16, Grymko in view of Helterbrand teaches all the limitations as discussed above.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grymko et al. (US 2004/0084230 A1) hereinafter, Grymko in view of Helterbrand (US 2014/0035253 A1) and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0237586 A1) hereinafter, Choi.
Grymko in view of Helterbrand teaches the assembly of claim 1. However, Grymko in view of Helterbrand does not teach a controller.
Choi teaches an electronic control assembly (245, 247) that is configured to control motion of the wheelchair assembly, wherein the electronic control assembly is configured to receive user commands, wherein the electronic control assembly is configured to adjust the direction or speed of the wheelchair assembly (Fig 1 and Para [0097]),
and an occupant armrest (241), wherein the electronic control assembly includes a joystick (245) configured to receive user commands, wherein the joystick is positioned proximate to the occupant armrest so that the joystick is configured to be operated by an occupant (Fig 1 and Para [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Grymko’s assembly, in view of Choi, with a control assembly for controlling a running direction, a speed, and the like of the motorized wheelchair (Para [0097]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grymko et al. (US 2004/0084230 A1) hereinafter, Grymko in view of Helterbrand (US 2014/0035253 A1) and further in view of Hutchins et al. (US 2015/0024002 A1) hereinafter, Hutchins.
Grymko in view of Helterbrand teaches the assembly of claim 1. However, Grymko in view of Helterbrand does not teach that the wheels are low-pressure balloon tires.
Hutchins teaches that the wheels are low-pressure balloon tires (Para [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Grymko’s assembly, in view of Hutchins, with ballon tires, to enable driving the wheelchair on soft terrains like beaches.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grymko et al. (US 2004/0084230 A1) hereinafter, Grymko in view of Helterbrand (US 2014/0035253 A1) and further in view of Karchak et al. (US 3,749,192 A) hereinafter, Karchak.
Grymko in view of Helterbrand teaches the assembly of claim 1. However, Grymko in view of Helterbrand does not teach that the plurality of subassemblies are configured to be disassembled from each other so that each of the subassemblies is capable of being stored together in a volume of fifty (50) cubic feet.
Karchak teaches that plurality of subassemblies are configured to be disassembled from each other so that each of the subassemblies is capable of being stored together in a volume of fifty (50) cubic feet (Col. 2, Lines 66-68, It is noted that the standard automobile trunk size is less than 50 cubic feet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Grymko’s assembly, in view of Krachak, with the subassemblies capable of being stored together in a volume of fifty (50) cubic feet, for easier transportation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11, and 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5 recites that the battery and the at least one motor are separated by a horizontal distance of at least two hundred five (205) millimeters when the wheelchair assembly is fully assembled and oriented in an upright position so as to form a center of gravity therebetween.
Claim 11 recites that the center of gravity for the battery is provided in front of the center of gravity for the wheelchair assembly along the front-to-back direction.
Claim 19 recites that the pair of driven hubs are configured to be attached at opposite sides of the motor platform, wherein the pair of driven wheels are each configured to be attached to a respective driven hub of the pair of driven hubs.
Since the prior art (e.g. Grymko) teaches wheelchair that lack said features, the prior art does not anticipate the claimed subject matter.
For illustration purposes, Fig 2B of the examined disclosure shows motor assembly, which is different than the motor assembly taught by the prior art of record (Fig. 1 of Grymko and Fig. 3A of Hancock, etc.)
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO-892 form teach electric wheelchairs of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAM SHABARA whose telephone number is (571)272-5495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VALENTIN NEACSU can be reached at (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611