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 .
Status of Claims
This is the second and final action on the merits.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-22 of Applicant’s reply, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant contends the following (pages 2-8 of Applicant’s reply):
PNG
media_image1.png
108
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Office respectfully disagrees. Regarding the combination of Norton and Ferreira, Norton does not limit its disclosure to monochrome imaging, nor does it teach away or exclude the use of color cameras. Both monochrome and color cameras (RGB-D cameras) are well-known commercially available alternatives for computer vision and AI-based image analysis systems. The modification of Norton via the teaching of Ferreira does not affect the core functionality of Norton; it merely affects the type of image data input as the AI system still captures images and performs automated analysis. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a color camera for several well-known and predictable reasons. Color provides for discriminative features useful for object classification, scene understanding, and contextual inference. Increased processing of heavier color data merely amounts to a known and routine engineering tradeoff, not a technical barrier. Additionally, the potential in reduction in sharpness or tonal range does not discredit or discourage the modification of Norton with Ferreira. Color cameras would provide for richer semantic information, and the choice between color and monochrome cameras reflects routine engineering judgment. The asserted drawbacks of greater processing demands and potential reductions in sharpness reflect routine, predictable tradeoffs that engineers regularly navigate and do not constitute a teaching away or lack of motivation.
Regarding the combinations of Norton with Zheng and Mhatre, it has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCP A 1969). In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to Applicant's argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCP A 1969).
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include an emergency battery power switch as taught by Zheng. One would be motivated to make this modification to improve support for helping a user operate the rollator safely and accurately (Zheng - Par. 3-5). Furthermore, including a power cut-off to the battery would ensure complete stoppage of the rollator in a situation where the user intends an emergency stoppage. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Zheng.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include the additionally claimed sensors as taught by Mhatre. One would be motivated to make this modification to improve the prevention of failure and injury when using mobility systems (Mhatre - rollator embodiment -> Par. 4, Par. 15). Furthermore, the use of these sensors are well-known in the context of wheelchairs, rollators, and mobility aids. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Mhatre.
Applicant further contends (pages 8-11 of Applicant’s reply):
PNG
media_image2.png
52
611
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Office respectfully disagrees. The arguments discussed above pertaining to absence of bodily incorporation, hindsight, and no suggestion to combine similarly apply to the obviousness rejection of claim 2. In this case, the combination of Norton, Ferreira, Zheng, and Mhatre renders the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2 obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include route/path planning and a customized IO module as taught by Ferreira. One would be motivated to make this modification to provide more accurate navigation and control of the mobility vehicle (Ferreira - route/path planning module -> Par. 4096, Par. 5365, Par. 5781). Furthermore, this modification would provide for a more accurate control of the vehicle on behalf of the user. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Ferreira.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include a manual driving module as taught by Zheng. One would be motivated to make this modification to allow a user to access manual control whenever desirable (Zheng - manual control mode/manual driving module -> Par. 26, Par. 29-30). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Zheng.
Mhatre teaches a system and method for automatic condition monitoring of mobility systems, in the same field of endeavor, that suggests incorporating a deep learning system in the rollator context (Mhatre - deep learning for rollator -> Par. 15, Par. 20; motion monitoring -> Par. 22; plurality of acceleration/impact detection sensors -> Par. 15, Par. 22) 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 artificial intelligence function disclosed by Norton to include deep learning, motion monitoring, and acceleration/impact detection as taught by Mhatre. One would be motivated to make this modification to improve the prevention of failure and injury when using mobility systems (Mhatre - rollator embodiment -> Par. 4, Par. 15). Furthermore, the application of sensor data to a deep learning neural network is well-known in the context of self-driving vehicles. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Mhatre.
Applicant further contends (page 12 of Applicant’s reply):
PNG
media_image3.png
49
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Office respectfully disagrees. To clarify the rejection of claim 3, the Office maintains its interpretation that a foldable seat equates to the rollator itself being foldable. Thus, Norton discloses the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 3 (Norton - foldable -> Par. 104).
Applicant further contends (pages 12-13 of Applicant’s reply):
PNG
media_image4.png
53
609
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Office respectfully disagrees. The emergency battery power switch taught by Zheng provides the same structural limitations and intended result as the emergency battery safety features as claimed in claim 7. The specialized structural or chemical safeguards referred to by Applicant are not reflected in the claim language. Thus, Zheng teaches the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7 (Zheng - emergency battery power switch -> Par. 25).
Applicant further contends (page 13 of Applicant’s reply):
PNG
media_image5.png
53
608
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Office respectfully disagrees. Norton provides for an embodiment where a plurality or subset of the cameras may be 360-degree cameras (Norton - 360-degree camera -> Par. 70, Par. 149). This subset of cameras is interpreted as a part of the previously referenced proximity sensors in claim 1. Thus, Norton discloses the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 8.
Applicant further contends (pages 13-14 of Applicant’s reply):
PNG
media_image6.png
53
615
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Office respectfully disagrees. Norton discloses that the disclosed optical distance sensors may be any suitable type or kind of distance sensor such as a laser distance sensor (Norton – Par. 74). Thus, Norton discloses the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 9.
Applicant further contends (pages 14-15 of Applicant’s reply):
PNG
media_image7.png
53
611
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Office respectfully disagrees. Pasqui teaches a brushless direct current hub motor and further specifies that a brushless motor is the preferred embodiment (Pasqui - brushless direct current hub motors -> Par. 100, Par. 134). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include brushless direct current hub motors as taught by Pasqui (any type of electric motor could be used -> Pasqui - Par. 100). Furthermore, using brushless direct current hub motors amounts to a design choice of engineering routine. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Pasqui.
Applicant further contends (pages 15-16 of Applicant’s reply):
PNG
media_image8.png
55
603
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The Office respectfully disagrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include remote control via a smartphone application as taught by Nicolao (Nicolao - remote control manual drive -> Par. 47-48, claim 3). One would be motivated to make this modification to operate the mobility aid without the help of another person (Nicolao - Par. 3). Furthermore, this modification would enable the user to control the mobility aid to return to the user if the mobility aid is out of reach. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Nicolao.
Applicant further contends (page 16 of Applicant’s reply):
PNG
media_image9.png
80
619
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The Office respectfully disagrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include remote control via a smartphone application as taught by Nicolao (Nicolao - remote control manual drive -> Par. 47-48, claim 3). One would be motivated to make this modification to operate the mobility aid without the help of another person (Nicolao - Par. 3). Furthermore, this modification would enable the user to control the mobility aid to return to the user if the mobility aid is out of reach. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Nicolao.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore the Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments.
It is respectfully noted that during examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification (MPEP 2173.01(I)). Further, it is noted that for any additionally argued limitations or features to be considered, the claims should be amended such that the limitations are explicitly recited in the claims themselves. Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim language (In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
In this case, appropriate consideration of each and every feature of the claims has been made and the present claims, in their current form, do read on the cited prior art. Thus, it remains the Office’s stance that the cited prior art anticipates or renders obvious this claimed subject matter.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton (US 2019/0365592 A1) in view of Ferreira (US 2020/0284883 A1), Zheng (US 2018/0344560 A1), and Mhatre (US 2023/0176558 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Norton discloses (Norton does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
A battery-powered, motorized rollator comprising: (Norton - battery-powered, motorized rollator -> Par. 40-44, Fig. 1A-1B)
a rollator; a plurality of motorized wheels; a plurality of swivel wheels; a plurality of mechanical hand brakes; a front (Norton - battery-powered, motorized rollator -> Par. 40-44, Fig. 1A-1B; motorized wheels and swivel wheels -> Par. 41-45, Par. 49; hand brakes -> Par. 49, Par. 59, Par. 73, Fig. 1A (110, 111); cameras -> Fig. 3 (327, 328, 329), Par. 69-72; rechargeable battery -> Par. 44, Par. 92-93, Par. 148; instrument panel/electronics module and control module/controller -> Fig. 1A-1B (112, 113), Par. 50; embedded computer -> Par. 148 (CPU); software modules for memory devices -> Fig. 9, Par. 50, Par. 72; proximity/distance sensors -> Par. 69, Par. 74)
wherein said front (Norton - data provided for self-driving -> Par. 17-18, Par. 89-93)
Ferreira teaches a component for a lidar sensor system, lidar sensor system, lidar sensor device, method for a lidar sensor system and method for a lidar sensor device, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
(Ferreira - color camera for rollator embodiment -> Par. 2304, Par. Par. 2382, Par. 2393, Par. 4282)
wherein said front color camera, said rear color camera, (Ferreira - color camera for rollator embodiment -> Par. 2304, Par. Par. 2382, Par. 2393, Par. 4282)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include color cameras as taught by Ferreira.
One would be motivated to make this modification to provide more detailed predictive data gathering in a rollator context (Ferreira - Par. 2304, Par. 2382, Par. 2393, Par. 4282). Furthermore, a color camera would be recognized as the default camera choice, especially in the context of computer vision, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Ferreira.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of computer vision and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Norton and Ferreira from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Zheng teaches an active robotic walker and associated method, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
(Zheng - emergency battery power switch -> Par. 25)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include an emergency battery power switch as taught by Zheng.
One would be motivated to make this modification to improve support for helping a user operate the rollator safely and accurately (Zheng - Par. 3-5). Furthermore, including a power cut-off to the battery would ensure complete stoppage of the rollator in a situation where the user intends an emergency stoppage. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Zheng.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle battery operation and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Norton and Zheng from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Mhatre teaches a system and method for automatic condition monitoring of mobility systems, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
(Mhatre - plurality of acceleration/impact detection sensors -> Par. 15, Par. 22; magnetometer -> Par. 20, Par. 22, Par. 29)
(Mhatre - plurality of acceleration/impact detection sensors -> Par. 15, Par. 22; magnetometer -> Par. 20, Par. 22, Par. 29)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include the additionally claimed sensors as taught by Mhatre.
One would be motivated to make this modification to improve the prevention of failure and injury when using mobility systems (Mhatre - rollator embodiment -> Par. 4, Par. 15). Furthermore, the use of these sensors are well-known in the context of wheelchairs, rollators, and mobility aids. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Mhatre.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of mobility aids and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Norton and Mhatre from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 2, Norton, Ferreira, Zheng, and Mhatre teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Norton further discloses (Norton does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
The battery-powered, motorized rollator of claim 1,
wherein said plurality of software program modules further comprise: (Norton - software modules for memory devices -> Fig. 9, Par. 50, Par. 72)
a WiFi module; a Bluetooth module; a (Norton - WiFi -> Par. 88; Bluetooth -> Par. 79, Par. 136, Par. 139; cameras -> Fig. 3 (327, 328, 329), Par. 69-72; video -> Par. 144; computer vision -> Par. 92; facial recognition -> Par. 87, Par. 90, Par. 145, Par. 148; smartphone interface -> Par. 79, Par. 81-83; proximity/distance sensors -> Par. 69, Par. 74; motor controller -> Par. 148)
wherein said embedded computer executes software program modules to realize artificial intelligence function including (Norton - artificial intelligence function -> Par. 78, Par. 85-92)
Ferreira teaches a component for a lidar sensor system, lidar sensor system, lidar sensor device, method for a lidar sensor system and method for a lidar sensor device, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
module; a customized IO module; (Ferreira - route/path planning module -> Par. 4096, Par. 5365, Par. 5781; customizable IO module -> Par. 974, Par. 2920, Par. 2984, Par. 5426, Par. 5540)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include route/path planning and a customized IO module as taught by Ferreira.
One would be motivated to make this modification to provide more accurate navigation and control of the mobility vehicle (Ferreira - route/path planning module -> Par. 4096, Par. 5365, Par. 5781). Furthermore, this modification would provide for a more accurate control of the vehicle on behalf of the user. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Ferreira.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of self-driving vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Norton and Ferreira from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Zheng teaches an active robotic walker and associated method, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
(Zheng - manual control mode/manual driving module -> Par. 26, Par. 29-30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include a manual driving module as taught by Zheng.
One would be motivated to make this modification to allow a user to access manual control whenever desirable (Zheng - manual control mode/manual driving module -> Par. 26, Par. 29-30). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Zheng.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of self-driving vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Norton and Zheng from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Mhatre teaches a system and method for automatic condition monitoring of mobility systems, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
(Mhatre - deep learning for rollator -> Par. 15, Par. 20; motion monitoring -> Par. 22; plurality of acceleration/impact detection sensors -> Par. 15, Par. 22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include deep learning, motion monitoring, and acceleration/impact detection as taught by Mhatre.
One would be motivated to make this modification to improve the prevention of failure and injury when using mobility systems (Mhatre - rollator embodiment -> Par. 4, Par. 15). Furthermore, the application of sensor data to a deep learning neural network is well-known in the context of self-driving vehicles. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Mhatre.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of self-driving vehicles and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Norton and Mhatre from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 3, Norton, Ferreira, Zheng, and Mhatre teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Norton further discloses:
The battery-powered, motorized rollator of claim 1, wherein said rollator is foldable. (Norton - foldable -> Par. 104)
Regarding claim 7, Norton, Ferreira, Zheng, and Mhatre teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but Norton does not disclose:
The battery-powered, motorized rollator of claim 1, wherein said battery further comprises emergency battery safety features from combustion or explosion in case of impact or damage.
Zheng teaches an active robotic walker and associated method, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The battery-powered, motorized rollator of claim 1, wherein said battery further comprises emergency battery safety features from combustion or explosion in case of impact or damage. (Zheng - emergency battery power switch -> Par. 25)
Regarding claim 8, Norton, Ferreira, Zheng, and Mhatre teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Norton further discloses:
The battery-powered, motorized rollator of claim 1, wherein said plurality of proximity sensors can view and record a 360-degree field of view together with computer vision to form 3D environment awareness capability for collision avoidance. (Norton - 360-degree camera -> Par. 70, Par. 149)
Regarding claim 9, Norton, Ferreira, Zheng, and Mhatre teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Norton further discloses:
The battery-powered, motorized rollator of claim 1, wherein said plurality of proximity sensors are laser-based proximity sensors. (Norton - laser-based proximity sensors -> Par. 74)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton in view of Ferreira, Zheng, Mhatre, and Pasqui (US 2023/0013606 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Norton, Ferreira, Zheng, and Mhatre teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but Norton does not disclose:
The battery-powered, motorized rollator of claim 1, wherein said plurality of motorized wheels are brushless direct current hub motors.
Pasqui teaches a robotized walker and associated method for preventing falls, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The battery-powered, motorized rollator of claim 1, wherein said plurality of motorized wheels are brushless direct current hub motors. (Pasqui - brushless direct current hub motors -> Par. 100, Par. 134)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include brushless direct current hub motors as taught by Pasqui.
One would be motivated to make this modification to achieve one of the embodiments as suggested by Pasqui (any type of electric motor could be used -> Pasqui - Par. 100). Furthermore, using brushless direct current hub motors amounts to a design choice. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Pasqui.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of motorized wheel design and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Norton and Pasqui from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Claims 5-6, 10-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton in view of Ferreira, Zheng, Mhatre, and Nicolao (US 2022/0409453 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Norton, Ferreira, Zheng, and Mhatre teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but Norton does not disclose:
The battery-powered, motorized rollator of claim 1, further comprising: a smartphone application, wherein said smartphone application can remotely control said embedded computer to manually drive said rollator.
Nicolao teaches a motorized wheelchair with adjustment and compaction system and attachable off-road kit with assembly system, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The battery-powered, motorized rollator of claim 1, further comprising: a smartphone application, wherein said smartphone application can remotely control said embedded computer to manually drive said rollator. (Nicolao - remote control manual drive -> Par. 47-48, claim 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Norton to include remote control via a smartphone application as taught by Nicolao.
One would be motivated to make this modification to operate the mobility aid without the help of another person (Nicolao - Par. 3). Furthermore, this modification would enable the user to control the mobility aid to return to the user if the mobility aid is out of reach. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Norton and Nicolao.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of self-driving vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Norton and Nicolao from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 6, Norton, Ferreira, Zheng, and Mhatre teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but Norton does not disclose:
The battery-powered, motorized rollator of claim 1, further comprising: a remote controller, wherein said remote controller can remotely control said embedded computer to manually drive said rollator.
Nicolao teaches a motorized wheelchair with adjustment and compaction system and attachable off-road kit with assembly system, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The battery-powered, motorized rollator of claim 1, further comprising: a remote controller, wherein said remote controller can remotely control said embedded computer to manually drive said rollator. (Nicolao - remote control manual drive -> Par. 47-48, claim 3)
Regarding claim 10, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1 and 5-6, and it has been determined that claim 10 does not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 1 and 5-6; therefore, claim 10 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1 and 5-6.
Regarding claim 11, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-2 and 5-6, and it has been determined that claim 11 does not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 1-2 and 5-6; therefore, claim 11 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1-2 and 5-6.
Regarding claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1, 3, and 5-6, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 1, 3, and 5-6; therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1, 3, and 5-6.
Regarding claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1 and 5-7, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 1 and 5-7; therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1 and 5-7.
Regarding claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1, 5-6, and 8, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 1, 5-6, and 8; therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1, 5-6, and 8.
Regarding claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1, 5-6, and 9, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 1, 5-6, and 9; therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1, 5-6, and 9.
Claims 13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton in view of Ferreira, Zheng, Mhatre, Pasqui, and Nicolao.
Regarding claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1, 4, and 5-6, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 1, 4, and 5-6; therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1, 4, and 5-6.
Regarding claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1 and 4-8, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 1 and 4-8; therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1 and 4-8.
Regarding claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-2 and 4-8, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 1-2 and 4-8; therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1-2 and 4-8.
Regarding claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1 and 3-8, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 1 and 3-8; therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1 and 3-8.
Regarding claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1 and 3-9, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations that have not been analyzed beyond those previously recited in claims 1 and 3-9; therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1 and 3-9.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICAH C CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8983. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm ET.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/MICAH CHUEN-HIM CHENG/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669