DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because They do not meet Standards for Drawings in 37 CFR 1.84 sections:
(a) Drawings. Blank ink. Black and white drawings are normally required. Figures 1-10 contain non black ink.
(b) Photographs. Figures 10 contain what appears to be to be photographs and are not ordinarily permitted in utility patent application.
(m) Shading; figures 6A, 6B and 6C contain shading which prevents clear understanding of images.
(p) Numbers, letters, and reference characters; figures 1, 2, 4, 7A, 7B, 9A, 9B contain excessive writing.
(u) Numbering of views.
(1) The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Drawings do not contain a figure 8, but do have a figure 9A. which is nonconsecutive.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the slot, major axis, minor axis, distance relative to the base, second throughbore, second distance relative to the base, a distance relative to the rail, second distance relative to the rail, third throughbore must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15 objected to because of the following informalities: Preamble reading “Seat interface of claim 1 wherein” or similar to, should have a comma after the claim number. 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.
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.
Claims 1-16 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.
Dependent claims not addressed below are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 1 and 6, attempt to positively connect mobility apparatus to the seat interface but the claim is only to the seat interface. It is unclear if only the seat interface is required by the claim limitations or if the whole mobility apparatus is being seat interface so as to positively claim the mobility apparatus. As the claims are unclear, appropriate correction is required.
Claims, 1-7 and 13-15, attempt to positively claim a “base”. However the base is only in reference in ‘relative to’ and therefor is not positively claimed. It is unclear if the base is required by the claim limitations or only the bracket. See above in reference to mobility apparatus. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15, recite limitation. It is unclear what element this is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims, 2, 8 and 13, recite limitation “major axis”. It is unclear what element this is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 11 and 15, recite limitation “minor axis”. It is unclear what element this is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 14 recite limitation “distance relative to the base”. It is unclear what this is referring to and how the throughbore can define a distance. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4, line 1 recites limitation “second distance relative to the base”. It is unclear what this is referring to and how the throughbore can define a distance. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14, lines 1-2 recites limitation “third distance relative to the base”. It is unclear what this is referring to and how the throughbore can define a distance. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7, line 3 recites limitation “a tongue (element 220) configured for affixing relative to the base and having a second throughbore”. It is unclear if the tongue has the second throughbore as there is no first throughbore for the tongue. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4813693 A Lockard; Walter G. et al.
Regarding claim 1, Lockard teaches, seat interface for a mobility apparatus comprising a bracket (element 250) configured for affixing relative to a base and having a throughbore configured for registering with a bore in a seat frame (fig. 2, element 250 mounts to frame element 24 and 26).
Regarding claim 2, Lockard teaches, seat interface of claim 1 wherein said throughbore defines a slot (element 252) having a major axis that is not aligned with the base.
Regarding claim 3, Lockard teaches, seat interface of claim 1 wherein said throughbore defines a slot (element 250) having a minor axis that is not aligned with the base.
Regarding claim 4, Lockard teaches, seat interface of claim 1, wherein said throughbore defines a distance relative to the base, further comprising a second throughbore that defines a second distance relative to the base (element 250 has multiple throughbores).
Regarding claim 5, Lockard teaches, Seat interface of claim 4 wherein said throughbore and/or said second throughbore defines a slot having a minor axis that is not aligned with the base (element 252).
Regarding claim 6, Lockard teaches, mobility device comprising: the seat interface (element 100) of claim 1; and a footrest configured for affixing relative to the base (element 174).
Regarding claim 7, Lockard teaches, Seat interface of claim 1 further comprising: a rail (elements 22, 24, 26, 14, 16) interposed between said bracket and the base; and a tongue (element 220) configured for affixing relative to the base and having a second throughbore configured for registering with a second bore in said rail.
Regarding claim 8, Lockard teaches, seat interface of claim 7 wherein said throughbore defines a slot (element 252) having a major axis that is not aligned with the rail.
Regarding claim 9, Lockard teaches, seat interface of claim 7 wherein said throughbore defines a slot (element 252) having a minor axis that is not aligned with the rail.
Regarding claim 10, Lockard teaches, seat interface of claim 7, wherein said throughbore defines a distance relative to the rail, further comprising a second throughbore that defines a second distance relative to the rail (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Lockard teaches, seat interface of claim 10 wherein said throughbore and/or said second throughbore defines a slot (element 252) having a minor axis that is not aligned with the rail.
Regarding claim 12, Lockard teaches, seat interface of claim 7 wherein said rail has an end configured for pivoting relative to said tongue (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Lockard teaches, seat interface of claim 7 wherein said second throughbore defines a slot (element 250) having a major axis that is not aligned with the base.
Regarding claim 14, Lockard teaches, seat interface of claim 7, wherein said second throughbore defines a distance relative to the base, further comprising a third throughbore that defines a third distance relative to the base (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Lockard teaches, seat interface of claim 14 wherein said throughbore and/or said second throughbore defines a slot (element 250) having a minor axis that is not aligned with the base.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDI M. CURRY whose telephone number is (469)295-9296. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/C.M.C/
Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642