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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 04/16/2026. Claims 1-19 are pending. The specification and abstract have been amended. The objections to the drawings and abstract have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 18-19 have been rejected as follows.
Response to Arguments
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.130 filed 04/16/2026 is sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-19. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made, as detailed below under Claim Rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pettigrew (US 20200214913 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pettigrew teaches a wheelchair securement system for a vehicle (abstract, "A restraint apparatus for securing a mobility device in a vehicle") comprising:
a latch (Fig. 3-4, claw assemblies 342 and 344 with locking members 354 and 356) configured to grasp an axle of a wheelchair (par. 75, "The axle 906 may come into contact with the first latching member 354 and the second latching member 356 at two spaced locations along the length of the axle 906. In particular, the axle 906 may first come into contact with the first finger 706 of the respective latching members to induce pivotal movement of both latching members. As it does, both latching members may pivot about their respective pivot axes 800 in a counterclockwise direction");
actuators operatively coupled to the latch (Fig. 5, solenoid 516; par. 7, "A locking system comprising a solenoid and a cable system coupled to the locking means to provide a user control of the locking means engagement of the securing means in an open of close position");
and a controller configured to generate control signals that control movement of the actuators to place the latch in an operative position before the wheelchair enters the vehicle, the operative position comprising a location where the axle of the wheelchair can be grasped securely (abstract, “A control system operably controls the pivotal movement of the latching member between its latched position to its unlatched positions. In the unlatched position, the claw assembly provides an opening for receiving the device”).
Regarding claim 2, Pettigrew teaches the wheelchair securement system of claim 1. Pettigrew further teaches comprising a remote control in communication with the controller (par. 83, "The restraint apparatus 300 may include a control button 1104 that may be coupled to the apparatus or located remotely from the apparatus 30"), wherein operations on the remote control provide instructions to the controller for generating the control signals (par. 86, "When a user wants to release the mobility device from the restraint apparatus, the user may press the control button 1104 which sends an electrical signal to the solenoid 516").
Regarding claim 3, Pettigrew teaches the wheelchair securement system of claim 1. Pettigrew further teaches an application software executing in an electronic device, wherein the application software provides instructions to the controller for generating the control signals (par. 88, "The controller 1106 may include a memory and processor for executing a set of instructions or software for controlling the release of the restraint apparatus").
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pederson (US 20210100701 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Pederson teaches a method for securing a wheelchair in a vehicle (par. 1, "The present invention relates to transportation of wheelchair users, and more particularly to means adapted to secure the wheelchair into a transport vehicle"), the method comprising:
receiving wheelchair settings of a wheelchair to be secured in a vehicle (claim 8, "The height adjustable wheelchair docking system (100) according to claim 1, wherein the means configured to slide the middle frame (300) in relation to the base frame (200) is configured to horizontally slide the middle frame (300) to a predefined position relative to the base frame (200) in response to a user input signal");
generating control signals according to the wheelchair settings (user input signal will generate the control signals to move the wheelchair docking system);
communicating the control signals to an actuator of a wheelchair restraint, wherein the actuator moves the wheelchair restraint to secure the wheelchair according to the control signals (the user input signal will move the wheelchair docking system to a correct height in order to dock it).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettigrew in view of Nagata (US 20210275368 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Pettigrew teaches the wheelchair securement system of claim 1. Pettigrew fails to explicitly the latch is located at a front-facing rear passenger-side of the vehicle. Pettigrew does not specify where in the vehicle the wheelchair securement system is placed.
However, Nagata teaches the latch is located at a front-facing rear passenger-side of the vehicle (see Fig. 2, wheelchairs 16 are positioned front facing and in the rear passenger side of the vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pettigrew to incorporate the teachings of Nagata to specify the latch is located at a front-facing rear passenger-side of the vehicle in order to allow users with a wheelchair to board a transportation vehicle (par. 2) and would have been an obvious position to place the wheelchair securement system.
Regarding claim 5, Pettigrew teaches a wheelchair restraint for a vehicle (abstract, "A restraint apparatus for securing a mobility device in a vehicle") comprising:
a bottom chassis securely fastened to a floor of the vehicle (Fig. 3-4, base 302);
a top chassis configured to slide up and down relative to the bottom chassis (Fig. 3-4, backing plate 310; par. 52, "The vertical channels 312 allow for the backing plate 310 to be vertically adjustable relative to the support body 304");
an arm configured to rotate around a pivot axis at a first end proximate to the top chassis (Fig. 3-4, upper portion 322; par. 49, "upper portion 322 is pivotally coupled to the lower portion 320 about a pivot axis 316"—although not explicitly called an “arm”, the upper portion could be interpreted as one);
a latch configured to securely grasp an axle of a wheelchair (Fig. 3-4, claw assemblies 342 and 344 with locking members 354 and 356; par. 75, "The axle 906 may come into contact with the first latching member 354 and the second latching member 356 at two spaced locations along the length of the axle 906. In particular, the axle 906 may first come into contact with the first finger 706 of the respective latching members to induce pivotal movement of both latching members. As it does, both latching members may pivot about their respective pivot axes 800 in a counterclockwise direction”), the latch being attached to a second end of the arm distant from the top chassis (Fig. 3-4, claw assemblies are on the top of the top portion) and configured to slide relative to the arm toward and away from the top chassis (Fig. 3-4, the claw assemblies are positioned on the top of upper portion 322, and can slide using arms 338 and 340 in a direction away from the backing plate 310);
Pettigrew fails to teach a first actuator configured to slide the top chassis relative to the bottom chassis; a second actuator configured to rotate the arm around the pivot axis; and a third actuator configured to slide the latch relative to the arm. An actuator (Fig. 5, solenoid 516) is only used to open and close the latch (par. 7, "A locking system comprising a solenoid and a cable system coupled to the locking means to provide a user control of the locking means engagement of the securing means in an open of close position"). The sliding of the top chassis relative to the bottom chassis, the rotating the arm around the pivot axis, and the sliding of the latch relative to the arm do not appear to be done with an actuator. It can be assumed this is instead done manually. These movements are done in order to latch onto the wheelchair and to secure it to the vehicle.
Nagata teaches using actuators to put a wheelchair restraint into position to secure a wheelchair (par. 44, “the at least one locking mechanism 65 may be extended, via the at least one actuator 56 (FIG. 3A) from the seat frame 50 through the at least one aperture 67 of the floor surface 42a. As such, it should be understood that the at least one locking mechanism 65 may be actuator driven from either beneath the floor surface 42a or from the seat frame 50 and may be configured to engage with a side edge of the at least one aperture 67 of the floor 42 and the at least one actuator 56 to prevent the seat 43c from unwanted movement across the floor 42”).
Pettigrew’s sliding of the top chassis relative to the bottom chassis, the rotating the arm around the pivot axis, and the sliding of the latch relative to the arm put the wheelchair restraint into position to secure the wheelchair, and appear to be done manually. However, Nagata teaches that an actuator can be used to put a wheelchair restraint into position. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pettigrew to incorporate the teachings of Nagata to make Pettigrew’s wheelchair restraint use actuators to move it into position. Combining references is considered to be obvious if "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so" DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and "an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves" Id. at 1368, 80 USPQ2d at 1651.
Modifying Pettigrew’s wheelchair restraint to be moved using actuators instead of manually would have been an obvious improvement, and simply adding actuators to automate Pettigrew’s movements would have been a trivial addition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a modification would result in a wheelchair restraint that can be more easily moved into position to receive a wheelchair.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Pettigrew in view of Nagata teaches the wheelchair restraint of claim 5. Pettigrew further teaches the latch comprises a horizontal clasp and a vertical clasp (Fig. 3-4, claw assemblies 342 and 344 are made of two u-shaped arms that can hold the axle horizontally and vertically) and the wheelchair restraint further comprises a fourth actuator configured to move the horizontal clasp and the vertical clasp to securely grasp the axle of the wheelchair (par. 8, "in the unlatched position, the claw member and latching member provide an access opening configured for receiving the mobility device; wherein, in the latched position, the latching member blocks the access opening”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Pettigrew in view of Nagata teaches the wheelchair restraint of claim 5. Pettigrew further teaches the top chassis slides relative to the bottom chassis using a sliding mechanism comprising rails (Fig. 6, vertical channels 312).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Pettigrew in view of Nagata teaches the wheelchair restraint of claim 5. Pettigrew further teaches the top chassis slides relative to the bottom chassis using a sliding mechanism comprising slots and pins (Fig. 6, vertical channels 312 and fasteners 314).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson in view of Seko (US 20200113755 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Pederson teaches the method of claim 10. Pederson fails to explicitly teach prompting a user for the wheelchair settings. Pederson only teaches adjusting the wheelchair docking system in response to a user input signal, but does not teach if the input signal was prompted.
However, Seko teaches prompting a user for wheelchair settings (Fig. 4A-4F, device displays prompts for a user to input commands for securing a wheelchair).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pederson to incorporate the teachings of Seko to add an interface that can prompt the user to input wheelchair settings in order to secure the wheelchair. This can “increase the ease with which mobility devices can be brought into vehicles” (par. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Pederson in view of Seko teaches the method of claim 11. Pederson fails to explicitly the prompting is through an application software installed in an electronic device. Pederson only teaches adjusting the wheelchair docking system in response to a user input signal, but does not teach if the input signal was prompted through an application software installed in an electronic device.
However, Seko teaches the prompting is through an application software installed in an electronic device (Fig. 4A-4F, device displays prompts for a user to input commands for securing a wheelchair).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pederson to incorporate the teachings of Seko to add an interface that can prompt the user to input wheelchair settings in order to secure the wheelchair. This can “increase the ease with which mobility devices can be brought into vehicles” (par. 1).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson in view of Seko, and further in view of Pettigrew.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pederson in view of Seko teaches the method of claim 11. Pederson fails to teach the prompting is through a remote control coupled to a controller in the vehicle. Pederson only teaches adjusting the wheelchair docking system in response to a user input signal, but does not teach if the prompting is through a remote control coupled to a controller in the vehicle.
Seko teaches the prompting is through an electronic device such as a “a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone, a wearable computer, a special-purpose chipset, a transmission fob, or any other device having the capabilities attributed in this disclosure” (Seko, par. 36). Seko does teach prompting can be done via a vehicle display (par. 60, “Where one or more manual components are necessary, a mobility device display, vehicle display, or mobile device display may prompt a user to carry out the necessary steps”).
Seko does not explicitly teach that the prompting for wheelchair settings is done through a remote control coupled to a controller in the vehicle. However, there are many wheelchair securement systems where the controls are located on the vehicle rather than a mobile electronic device like Seko.
Pettigrew teaches controlling a wheelchair securement system using a remote control coupled to a controller in the vehicle (par. 83, "The restraint apparatus 300 may include a control button 1104 that may be coupled to the apparatus or located remotely from the apparatus 30"). Seko teaches prompting a user for wheelchair settings, and also communicating with the user via a vehicle display. Pederson teaches the method of claim 10. Pettigrew teaches that control for the wheelchair securement system can be done with a remote control in the vehicle. Seko teaches that the user can be prompted to input wheelchair settings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that Seko’s mobile electronic device could instead be a remote control coupled to a controller in the vehicle, such as seen in Pettigrew.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson in view of Pettigrew.
Regarding claim 18, Pederson teaches the method of claim 10. Pederson further teaches a bottom chassis securely fastened to a floor of the vehicle (Fig. 1, base frame 200); a top chassis configured to slide up and down relative to the bottom chassis (par. 38 and Fig. 1, “The top frame 500 is adapted for covering at least a part of the base frame 200 and middle frame 300, and adapted to move up and down in a vertical direction in relation to the base frame 200”).
Pederson fails to teach the wheelchair restraint comprises: an arm configured to rotate around a pivot axis at a first end proximate to the top chassis; a latch configured to securely grasp an axle of a wheelchair, the latch being attached to a second end of the arm distant from the top chassis and configured to slide relative to the arm toward and away from the top chassis.
However, Pettigrew teaches the wheelchair restraint (abstract, "A restraint apparatus for securing a mobility device in a vehicle", Fig. 3-4, restraining apparatus 300) comprises:
a bottom chassis securely fastened to a floor of the vehicle (Fig. 3-4, base 302);
a top chassis configured to slide up and down relative to the bottom chassis (Fig. 3-4, backing plate 310; par. 52, "The vertical channels 312 allow for the backing plate 310 to be vertically adjustable relative to the support body 304");
an arm configured to rotate around a pivot axis at a first end proximate to the top chassis (Fig. 3-4, upper portion 322; par. 49, "upper portion 322 is pivotally coupled to the lower portion 320 about a pivot axis 316"—although not explicitly called an “arm”, the upper portion could be interpreted as one);
a latch configured to securely grasp an axle of a wheelchair (Fig. 3-4, claw assemblies 342 and 344 with locking members 354 and 356; par. 75, "The axle 906 may come into contact with the first latching member 354 and the second latching member 356 at two spaced locations along the length of the axle 906. In particular, the axle 906 may first come into contact with the first finger 706 of the respective latching members to induce pivotal movement of both latching members. As it does, both latching members may pivot about their respective pivot axes 800 in a counterclockwise direction”), the latch being attached to a second end of the arm distant from the top chassis (Fig. 3-4, claw assemblies are on the top of the top portion) and configured to slide relative to the arm toward and away from the top chassis (Fig. 3-4, the claw assemblies are positioned on the top of upper portion 322, and can slide using arms 338 and 340 in a direction away from the backing plate 310).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pederson to incorporate the teachings of Pettigrew to use Pettigrew’s locking mechanism for “securing a mobility device, such as a wheelchair, in a safe manner and fixing the mobility device in a desired position that is easily engaged or disengaged by the mobility device occupant without additional assistance” (par. 3).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Pederson in view of Pettigrew teaches the method of claim 18. Pederson and Pettigrew fail to explicitly teach the actuator comprises: a first actuator configured to slide the top chassis relative to the bottom chassis; a second actuator configured to rotate the arm around the pivot axis; and a third actuator configured to slide the latch relative to the arm.
Pettigrew’s sliding of the top chassis relative to the bottom chassis, the rotating the arm around the pivot axis, and the sliding of the latch relative to the arm do not appear to be done with an actuator. It can be assumed this is instead done manually. These movements are done in order to latch onto the wheelchair and to secure it to the vehicle. However, Pederson teaches that an actuator can be used to put a wheelchair restraint into position.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Pederson in view of Pettigrew to make Pettigrew’s wheelchair restraint use actuators to move it into position, as is taught by Pederson. Combining references is considered to be obvious if "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so" DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and "an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves" Id. at 1368, 80 USPQ2d at 1651.
Modifying Pettigrew’s wheelchair restraint to be moved using actuators instead of manually would have been an obvious improvement, and simply adding actuators to automate Pettigrew’s movements would have been a trivial addition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a modification would result in a wheelchair restraint that can be more easily moved into position to receive a wheelchair.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14-17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights