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 .
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.
Claim 3 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. The claim recites “said RF communication module” which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the “wireless communication module” is recited in Claim 1, it is not limited to RF communication in that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooksey et al. in US Publication 2024/0041679.
Regarding Claim 1, Cooksey teaches a technology assisted walker system, comprising; a walker (1) comprising a controller (the “control unit” – see Claim 15); a motor (the “motor” – see Claim 14); one or more wheels (11L/11R/13L/13R); and a wireless communication module (through which the “wireless communication” is performed – see Claim 13); one or more grips(7R/7L); a mechanical folding mechanism (29L/29R); and a locator beacon (the “tracking device” – see Claim 15).
Regarding Claim 2, Cooksey teaches (see Paragraph 0044 and Claim 14) that said motor is configured to cause said wheels to turn when receiving a signal from said controller.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooksey as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Flaherty et al. in US Publication 2006/020617. Cooksey teaches that (see Paragraph 0044) said locator beacon is a wearable device configured to be worn by a user (“worn by an apparatus user”); wherein said controller is in electronic communication with said locator beacon via said communication module; wherein said controller is configured to cause said motor to turn said one or more wheels pursuant to information received regarding a location of said locator beacon , such that said technology assisted walker is brought to within a couple feet of said locator beacon (“drives the … apparatus to the user”). Cooksey is silent on the type of wireless communication used. Flaherty teaches the use of RF wireless communication (see paragraph 0046). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cooksey by using RF wireless communication as taught by Flaherty in order to provide a low-cost and reliable communication for the device. While Cooksey, as modified, is silent on how closely the device is moved to the user when it is summoned, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the device to move with a couple feet of the user upon summoning in order to allow the user to reach the device, as a normal person cannot usually reach further than a couple feet away from themselves.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooksey as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Lybbert in US Publication 2021/0370997. Cooksey is silent on the use of an inverse braking mechanism. Lybbert teaches a walker system including a walker (100) comprising one or more wheels (106); and one or more grips (104) wherein said grips comprise a braking mechanism (110), wherein brakes (108) are configured to be applied as an inverse to a pressure detected by said one or more grips (see step 406). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cooksey by adding a braking system as taught by Lybbert in order to provide a walker that does not slide away when the user grasps the handles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Norton et al., Guo et al., Ota et al., Burkholder et al., O’Sullivan, Yu, Wu et al., and Shen et al. teach driven, motorized walkers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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 Guo Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah Chandler Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636