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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt of the preliminary amendment filed 11/17/2023 is acknowledged. This amendment amended the claims 3-5, 10, 14, 16-19, 23-24 and 26. Claims 11-13, 20, 22, 25 and 27-65 have been cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 8, line 2 recites: “fixing means configured to reversibly fix” (A- “means” is a placeholder term; B- “configured to reversibly fix” is the function, and C- no structure is recited to perform the function. Considering the details outlined in the specification (page 2, para. 015), the limitation “fixing means” is being interpreted as “one or more of a fastener, a fastener hole formed in the wheel support portion and/or the axle engaging portion.”
Claim 8, line 2 recites: “a reversible fixing sub-system configured to reversibly fix” (A- “sub-system” is a placeholder term; B- “configured to reversibly fix” is the function, and C- no structure is recited to perform the function. Considering the details outlined in the specification (page 2, para. 015), the limitation “a reversible fixing sub-system” is being interpreted as “one or more of a fastener, a fastener hole formed in the wheel support portion and/or the axle engaging portion.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 8-10, 14-15, 19 and 21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites: “a reversible fixing sub-system configured to reversibly fix the axle engaging portion to the wheel support portion”. The term “reversibly fix” lacks any objective boundary defining what degree of attachment constitutes “fixing”, what level of removability constitutes “reversible,” or what structural or operational conditions must be met for a fixation to qualify as reversible. The claim does not specify whether “reversible” requires tool-less removal, removal without damage, removal under load, or removal by a user versus a technician. Because the term is purely functional and admits multiple plausible interpretation, a person of ordinary skill cannot determine the metes and bound of the claim with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the term “reversibly fix” is indefinite under § 112(b). For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation ‘reversibly fix’ is being interpretated to indicate “the axle-engaging portion which can be secured to the wheel-support portion in a way that hold it firmly.”
Claim 10 recites: “the wheel support portion and/or the axle engaging portion is/are configured such that the axle engaging portion is attachable in a single orientation to the wheel support portion.” The term “single orientation” lacks any objective standard identifying what constitutes the relevant orientation or what degrees of freedom are being restricted. The claim does not specify whether “orientation” refers to rotational orientation about the axle axis, plane, or reference geometry that defines the permitted orientation. Without identifying the axis, or plane, a person of ordinary skill cannot determine whether two attachment configurations are considered the same orientation or different orientations. Thus, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the phrase “in a single orientation” is indefinite under § 112(b). For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpretated to indicate “the axle-engaging portion that can be attached to the wheel-support portion in only one allowable geometrical alignment.”
Claim 14 recites: “the axle engaging portion (17) is configured to reversibly engage a wheel axle (20) intended for engagement.” The term “reversibly engage” lacks any objective boundary defining what mechanical condition constitute “engagement”, what degree of retention or constraint is required. It is unclear whether “reversibly engage” refers to axial capture, radial constraint, keyed alignment, frictional retention, or any other specific structural interaction. A person of ordinary art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the term “reversibly engage” is indefinite under § 112(b). For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation “reversibly engage” is being interpretated to indicate “the axle engaging portion which can connect to the wheel axle in a way that holds it in place.”
Claim 15 recites the limitation "a wheel axle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the phrase “predetermined position” is indefinite because the claim does not identify the reference point, coordinate system, or structural datum that defines the position being “predetermined”. A person of ordinary skill cannot tell what location qualifies, since the claim does not specify whether the position is predetermined by the manufacturer, the user, a design specification, or any other standard. Without an objective reference or measurable boundary, the scope of the limitation cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. The term therefore indefinite under § 112(b). For the sake of compact prosecution, the phrase “predetermined position” is being interpretated to be “the personal mobility apparatus relative to the flat horizontal ground.”
Claim 21 recites: “the axle engaging portion is configured to engage a wheel axle in a more forward position or a more rearward position or a more upward position or a more downward position compared to a previous position or a standard position.” The term “more forward,” “more rearward,” “more upward,” “more downward,” “a previous position,” and “a standard position” are inherently comparative, yet the claim does not identify the reference frame, datum, coordinate system, or structural feature against which the comparison is made. The claim does not specify whether the comparison is relative to the frame of the personal mobility apparatus, the ground plane, the user’s seating position, a manufacturer-defined baseline, or any other fixed reference. Without identifying datum, a person of ordinary skill cannot determine whether a given axle position is “more forward” or merely differently located along an undefined axis. Because the limitation relies on subjective, relative terminology without objective boundaries or a defined coordinate reference, the metes and bound of the claim cannot be determine with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the phrase recited above is indefinite under § 112(b). For the sake of compact prosecution, the term “more downward” is being interpretated to indicate “downward on the vehicle interior” relative to ground surface.
Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. 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.
17. 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 1-10, 14-19, 21, 23-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furukawa Hisashi (JPH09238984 A; hereinafter, “Hisashi”).
Regarding claim 1, Hisashi discloses: a system (“adjusting the camber angle of the rear wheel”; figs 1-8, ‘Abstract’) comprising: a personal mobility apparatus (Wheelchair, ‘Title’) comprising a wheel (19) support portion (‘axle mounting bracket 9 with 18; fig. 2; [0029]), and an axle (20) engaging portion (17, fig. 2) that is attachable (via 13, fig. 2) to the wheel support portion (mounting bracket 9 and socket 18). See figs. 2 and 6 and paragraphs [0026-0029].
Regarding claim 2, Hisashi further teaches wherein the axle engaging portion (17) is detachable from the wheel support portion (18; fig. 2 shows detachable configuration).
Regarding claim 3, Hisashi further teaches that the wheel support portion (18) is a body portion or a frame portion (9 or frame 2 and 3; [para. 0007 teaches: “the rear wheel axle is held in a circular mounting hole provided in an axle mounting bracket fixed to the frame”]) of the personal mobility apparatus (wheelchair).
Regarding claim 4, Hisashi further teaches that the axle engaging portion (17, fig. 2) is formed separately to the wheel support portion (18 and 9; [fig. 2 configuration shows two 17 is formed separately to the wheel support portion]).
Regarding claim 5, Hisashi further teaches that the wheel support portion (18) is shaped so as to fit a complementary shape of the axle engaging portion (17, [see fig. 2 where 18 gets engaged into 17 to fit a complementary shape of axle engaging portion 17]).
Regarding claim 6, Hisashi further teaches that the complementary shape of the wheel support portion (18 with 9) is (i) a cavity (18a, fig. 4; [0034]) formed in the wheel support portion (18) or (ii) a protuberance (18d of 18c, fig. 2) extending from the wheel support portion (18).
Regarding claim 7, Hisashi further teaches that the cavity or the protuberance (flange 18d, figs. 2 and 4 and [0034]) is generally wedge-shaped in cross-section [ See dictionary definition of ‘wedge’; attached to the IPL section of the document where it is defined as “a piece of a substance that tapers to a thin edge”. Accordingly, as depicted in fig. 2. flange 18d is positioned on element 18c which has a ‘wedge-shaped’ structure in cross-section.
Regarding claim 8, Hisashi further teaches that reversible fixing means or a reversible fixing sub-system (Hisashi’s screws 13, [0031] and screw 16 [0033] is understood to be equivalent to the recited fixing means or a reversible fixing sub-system, see 112(f) discussion above) configured to reversibly fix [para. 0035 teaches: “socket 18 (wheel support portion) is comprised so that the axial direction Y1 of the assembly hole 18a may cross intersect with the axial direction Y0 of the outer peripheral surface of the site”; note that: cross intersect between Y0 and Y1 as depicted in figs. 2 and 5-6 is being interpretated to indicate screws are configured to reversibly fix] the axle engaging portion (17) to the wheel support portion (18 with 9). Also, see claim rejection 35 USC § 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 9, Hisashi further teaches that the reversible fixing means or the reversible fixing sub-system (see 112(f) discussion above from parent claim 8) comprises any one or more of a fastener (screws 13, [0031] and screw 16 [0033]; fig. 10), a fastener hole formed (holes 10a, 11a [0045] and 10f; [0033]) in the wheel support portion (18 with 9) and/or the axle engaging portion (17), a fastener receiving portion (fig. 10) formed in the wheel support portion (18, fig. 10) and/or the axle engaging portion (17), a clip (clamp portion 12, [0045]), a band, or a clamp (also clamp 14; [0047]).
Regarding claim 10, Hisashi further teaches that the wheel support portion (18 with 9) and/or the axle engaging portion (17) is/are configured such that the axle engaging portion (17) is attachable in a single orientation (see claim rejection 35 USC § 112(b) above) to the wheel support portion (18; [ see fig. 8 configuration where the axle engaging portion (17) is attachable in a single orientation to the wheel support portion (18)]).
Regarding claim 14, Hisashi further teaches that the axle engaging portion (17) is configured to reversibly engage (see claim rejection 35 USC § 112(b) above) a wheel axle (20) intended for engagement [see figs. 8-10 where axle engaging portion 17 is engaged in such a way that the axial direction Z1 intersects with axial direction Z0 as disclosed by para. 0064; thus, Hisashi anticipates the claimed configuration and is configured to reversibly engage a wheel axle intended for engagement.]
Regarding claim 15, Hisashi further teaches that the reversible engagement is reliant on a structure of a wheel axle (20) intended for engagement (fig. 2 and fig. 6 show that the reversible engagement is reliant on a structure of a wheel axle (20) intended for engagement as further depicted in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Hisashi further teaches that the axle engaging portion (17) comprises a passage (17a, figs. 3 and 6; [0037]) configured to receive a wheel axle (20) intended for engagement (fig. 1 engagement).
Regarding claim 17, Hisashi further teaches that the axle engaging portion (17) comprises an extension portion (A, annotated fig. 8 of Hisashi below) configured to extend generally laterally outwardly (see annotated fig. 8 of Hisashi below) from the personal mobility apparatus (wheelchair).
PNG
media_image1.png
763
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 8 of Hisashi
Regarding claim 18, Hisashi further teaches that the axle engaging portion (17) comprises a passage (17a, fig. 3; [0037]) configured to receive a wheel axle (20) intended for engagement (fig. 8 engagement), and wherein the passage (17a, figs. 3 and 6; [0037]) is formed at least in part in the extension portion [fig. 8 shows the configuration where passage 17a is extended to form at least in part in the extension portion.]
Regarding claim 19, Hisashi further teaches that the axle engaging portion (17) is configured to engage a wheel axle (20) at (i) a predetermined position (fig. 1 position and [ para. 0038 teaches: “a stop is achieved, and it is fixedly mounted in the through hole 17a” via C-RING 22]) relative to a point (“end of axle 20”; [0038]) of the personal mobility apparatus (wheelchair), or relative to the ground (fig. 1) and/or (ii) at an angle relative to the ground (angle α as depicted in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 21, Hisashi further teaches that the axle engaging portion (17) is configured to engage a wheel axle (20) in a more forward position or a more rearward position (direction “V”, fig. 6) or a more upward position or a more downward position (see fig. 8) compared to a previous position or a standard position (angle α is zero; fig. 6; [0039]; [ as disclosed by para. 0042, when the axial direction X0 of the outer peripheral surface of the first socket 17 as the center, the crossing angle β of 3 ° with the axial direction X1 of the through hole 17a is arranged downward on the vehicle interior, thus, more downward position.]). Also see claim rejection 35 USC § 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 23, Hisashi further teaches that a wheel axle (20) configured to be engageable (via 17, 18) by the axle engaging portion (17).
Regarding claim 24, Hisashi further teaches that a range of axle engaging portions (17, 18 and 9), each member of the range (± 6 °; [0044]) being differentially configured (with respect to angles β, γ; [0048]) such that when attached to a frame member ( 2 and 3, [0024]) of a personal mobility apparatus (wheelchair), each member of the range positions and/or angles the axle differently [ para. 0044 teaches that the camber angle α can be adjusted in a stepless manner within a range of ± 6 ° by appropriately setting the rotation angles of the first and second axle engagement portion and wheel support portion; thus, each member of the range positions and/or angles the axle differently.]
Regarding claim 26, Hisashi further teaches that the personal mobility apparatus is a wheelchair [ see ‘Title’].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5143391 A to Robertson discloses: a modular wheelchair that is fully adjustable for a wide range of users in a wide range of uses includes a wheelchair chassis, a wheel assembly and a seat assembly. Drive wheels of the wheel assembly may be adjusted to
have a different camber angle without changing the wheelbase or the height of the wheelchair chassis.
CA 2612923 A1 to Jaimie discloses: wheel mount assembly for mounting a drive wheel to a frame of a wheelchair is provided. The assembly includes a camber body attachable to an axle of one of the drive wheels and operable to pivotably couple about the frame through a range of camber angles.
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 11, 2026