DETAILED ACTION
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
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8, recites “comprises motor”, which should be changed to “comprises a motor”.
Claim 4, line 4, recites “bake is operable to stop”, which should be changed to “brake is operable to stop”.
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.
Claim 1-7 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 1 and 5 recites that “a distance between the driver units is larger than a breadth of a user”. The term “breadth of a user” is inherently subjective, a user can vary significantly in body size and shape, and the claim nor the specification does not specify which part of the user’s body is measured to define a breadth, or whether it refers to an average or standardized width. Since the claim relies on a variable and undefined measurement, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty the scope of the limitation, rendering indefinite under 35 U.S.C 112 (b).
Claim 5, line 9 recites the limitation “the brake”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are further rejected as indefinite, as depending from a rejected parent claim (see above).
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao US 20100193262 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Zhao discloses [a multi-mode wheelchair 1] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0015) comprising:
[a frame 1 comprising two side units 1.3, 1.45 and an intermediate unit 1.41, 1.42 for interconnecting the side units,] (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0019) wherein [the intermediate unit is movable between a collapsed position and an extended position;] (Fig. 4-5; Paragraph 0019)
[two front wheels 4, 4.1 connected to the side units;] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0015)
[two rear wheels 3 connected to the side units;] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0015) and
[two driver units 20, 30 connected to the side units,] (Fig. 3; As shown in Fig. 3, Zhao illustrates a drive unit 20, 30 comprising a motor 3 and a disc brake 20, wherein both the motor and the brake are connected to the vertical portion 1.3 of the side unit 1.3, 1.45.) wherein [each of the driver units comprises motor 30 located in one of the rear wheels and a brake 20 operable to stop the motor,] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0018) wherein [the driver units are located between the rear wheels,] (Fig. 3; As shown in Fig. 3, Zhao illustrates the drive unit 20, 30 being disposed on an inner side of the rear wheel 3. Since the drive unit is located on the inner side of the rear wheel, the drive unit necessarily lies between the lateral space defined by left and right rear wheels.) wherein [a distance between the driver units is larger than a breadth of a user when the intermediate unit is in the extended position.] (Fig. 1, 3, and 5; As shown in Fig. 3, Zhao illustrates that the driver unit is positioned such that the vertical portion of the side unit 1.3 is sustainably vertically aligned with the driver unit. Fig. 1 and 5 further illustrate that the width of these vertical portions is configured to accommodate a seated human user, thus defining the lateral distance between the driver units. Since the drive units are attached to the side units, the distance between the drive units is naturally determined by the spacing of the side units and is sufficient to accommodate a human user seated between them.)
Regarding claim 2, Zhao further discloses [wherein each of the driver units comprises a shell 31 for receiving the motor.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0016)
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.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Lee TW M536166 U.
Regarding claim 3, Zhao does not disclose wherein each of the rear wheels comprises a hub for receiving a corresponding one of the shells.
Lee teaches [wherein each of the rear wheels comprises a hub 1 for receiving a corresponding one of the shells.] (Fig. 3B; Page 4, lines 4-19; As shown in Fig. 3B, Lee illustrates the rear wheels 21 comprises a hub motor 1 for receiving a corresponding one of the shells 20.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the hub and shell configuration of Lee with the multi-mode wheelchair of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for structural integration of the motor-containing shell into the rear wheel hub, thus providing a mechanically stable and properly aligned drive system.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Johnson US 5121806 A.
Regarding claim 4, Zhao does not disclose wherein each of the driver units comprises a first pulley operatively connected to the motor, a second pulley operatively connected to the brake, and a belt wound around the pulleys, wherein the bake is operable to stop the second pulley.
Johnson teaches [wherein each of the driver units comprises a first pulley operatively connected to the motor,] (Annotation of Fig. 5; Col. 4, lines 1-31; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 5 below, Johnson illustrates a first pully is connected to the motor.) [a second pulley operatively connected to the brake,] (Annotation of Fig. 5; Col. 4, lines 1-31; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 5 below, Johnson illustrates a second pulley connected to the brake 46) and [a belt 48 wound around the pulleys, wherein the brake is operable to stop the second pulley.] (Annotation of Fig. 5; Col. 4, lines 1-31; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 5 below, Johnson illustrates a belt 48 wound around the pulleys and a brake 46 that is operable to stop the second pulley.)
PNG
media_image1.png
679
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Johnson
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the pulley and belt configuration of Johnson with the multi-mode wheelchair of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a controlled and mechanically simple transmission of motor torque to the braking system, thus providing a reliable mechanism for selectively stopping the motor-driven wheel using a belt-driven brake.
Regarding independent claim 5, Zhao discloses [a multi-mode wheelchair 1] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0015) comprising:
[a frame 1 comprising two side units 1.3, 1.45 and an intermediate unit 1.41, 1.42 for interconnecting the side units,] (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0019)
[two front wheels 4, 4.1 connected to the side units;] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0015)
[two rear wheels 3 connected to the side units;] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0015) and
[two driver units 20, 30 connected to the side units,] (Fig. 3; As shown in Fig. 3, Zhao illustrates a drive unit 20, 30 comprising a motor 3 and a disc brake 20, wherein both the motor and the brake are connected to the vertical portion 1.3 of the side unit 1.3, 1.45.) wherein [each of the driver units comprises motor 30 located in one of the rear wheels] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0018) wherein [the driver units are located between the rear wheels,] (Fig. 3; As shown in Fig. 3, Zhao illustrates the drive unit 20, 30 being disposed on an inner side of the rear wheel 3. Since the drive unit is located on the inner side of the rear wheel, the drive unit necessarily lies between the lateral space defined by left and right rear wheels.) wherein [a distance between the driver units is larger than a breadth of a user.] (Fig. 1, 3, and 5; As shown in Fig. 3, Zhao illustrates that the driver unit is positioned such that the vertical portion of the side unit 1.3 is sustainably vertically aligned with the driver unit. Fig. 1 and 5 further illustrate that the width of these vertical portions is configured to accommodate a seated human user, thus defining the lateral distance between the driver units. Since the drive units are attached to the side units, the distance between the drive units is naturally determined by the spacing of the side units and is sufficient to accommodate a human user seated between them.)
Zhao does not disclose wherein each of the driver units comprises a first pulley operatively connected to the motor, a second pulley operatively connected to the brake, and a belt wound around the pulleys, wherein the bake is operable to stop the second pulley.
Johnson teaches [wherein each of the driver units comprises a first pulley operatively connected to the motor,] (Annotation of Fig. 5; Col. 4, lines 1-31; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 5 above, Johnson illustrates a first pully is connected to the motor.) [a second pulley operatively connected to the brake,] (Annotation of Fig. 5; Col. 4, lines 1-31; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 5 above, Johnson illustrates a second pulley connected to the brake 46) and [a belt 48 wound around the pulleys, wherein the brake is operable to stop the second pulley.] (Annotation of Fig. 5; Col. 4, lines 1-31; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 5 above, Johnson illustrates a belt 48 wound around the pulleys and a brake 46 that is operable to stop the second pulley.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the pulley and belt configuration of Johnson with the multi-mode wheelchair of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a controlled and mechanically simple transmission of motor torque to the braking system, thus providing a reliable mechanism for selectively stopping the motor-driven wheel using a belt-driven brake.
Regarding claim 6, Zhao, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein each of the driver units comprises a shell 31 for receiving the motor.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0016)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Johnson and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 7, Zhao, as modified, does not disclose wherein each of the rear wheels comprises a hub for receiving a corresponding one of the shells.
Lee teaches [wherein each of the rear wheels comprises a hub 1 for receiving a corresponding one of the shells.] (Fig. 3B; Page 4, lines 4-19; As shown in Fig. 3B, Lee illustrates the rear wheels 21 comprises a hub motor 1 for receiving a corresponding one of the shells 20.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the hub and shell configuration of Lee with the multi-mode wheelchair of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for structural integration of the motor-containing shell into the rear wheel hub, thus providing a mechanically stable and properly aligned drive system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kramer US 4570739 A – comprises a personal mobility vehicle including a floor pan with a rear drive unit at one end and a steerable front wheel at the other end. The drive unit is separable from the floor pan and includes spaced apart, differentially connected rear wheels, an electric motor, and belts and pulleys drivingly connecting the motor to a differential unit. The front wheel is steered by a tiller. A seat with a folding back is removably connected to the floor pan toward the pan rear end to concentrate the weight of the driver over the rear wheels to aid in traction.
Cox US 10806649 B1 – comprises an enhanced mobility wheelchair with semi-autonomous control logic includes criteria for selecting level, stair, and slope modes. Each mode progresses through criteria-invoked phases as the wheelchair travels. Each axis performs an assigned duty for each mode and phase combination to seek a defined target. Control logic invokes stair mode from the level mode when steps are sensed. Criteria restricts negotiating obstacle angles and heights encountered beyond capability and permits reversed travel to exit obstacle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611