DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 06/25/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 06/25/2024 is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10-11, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 11, the phrase “an upper segment pivotally coupled the base portion” should be changed to “an upper segment pivotally coupled to the base portion.”
In claims 10 and 20, the phrase “support device” should be changed to “the support device.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishihira et al. (US 6,279,927 B1), hereinafter referred to as Nishihira.
Regarding claim 1:
Nishihira discloses the following limitations:
“A support device comprising: a base portion; a leg coupled to the base portion, the leg comprising: an upper segment pivotally coupled the base portion; a lower segment pivotally coupled to the upper segment at a lower joint.” (Nishihira col. 4 ll. 41-67, col. 5 ll. 24-39, and FIG. 12 shown below disclose an electric motor-powered wheelchair that corresponds to the support device, comprising a base portion with a seat 4. The wheelchair further comprises a pipe member 11a, a link member 11, and a connecting point P1 that read on the upper segment, lower segment, and lower joint, respectively.)
PNG
media_image1.png
677
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“a rear wheel coupled to the lower segment.” (Nishihira col. 4 ll. 41-67 and FIG. 12 above disclose a drive wheel 1 that is connected to link member 11; this drive wheel 1 reads on the claimed rear wheel.)
“and a rotating bracket pivotally coupled to the upper segment and the lower segment at the lower joint, wherein a front wheel and an engagement wheel are fixedly coupled to one another by the rotating bracket.” (Nishihira col. 4 ll. 41-67 and FIGS. 10-11 shown below disclose a body frame 10 that reads on the claimed rotating bracket, where the body frame 10 connects a front caster wheel 2 and a rear caster wheel 3. The front caster wheel 2 and the rear caster wheel read on the claimed front wheel and engagement wheel, respectively. It can be seen in the figures below that the caster wheels are fixedly coupled to one another by the body frame 10.)
PNG
media_image2.png
340
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
311
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4:
Nishihira discloses “The support device of claim 1,” and Nishihira also discloses “wherein the rotating bracket is positionable between an engaged position, in which the engagement wheel is positioned at or below the front wheel, and a disengaged position, in which the engagement wheel is positioned above the front wheel.” (Nishihira col. 7 ll. 10-19 and FIGS. 10-11 disclose that the wheelchair can drive in a forward direction with the front and rear caster wheels in line with each other, and then climb a step by positioning the front wheel 2 above wheel 3. Also, Nishihira col. 3 ll. 17-26 disclose that this illustrated configuration can be reversed in a way that reads on the instant claim limitation: “When the rear caster wheel runs into a stepped portion of a floor surface as the wheelchair moves backward, the second link member turns around the point of connection between the body frame and the second link member so as to reduce the distance between the rear caster wheel and the drive wheels while, at the same time, the rear end of the body frame tilts upward around the front caster wheel. The rear caster wheel thereby lands on the upper surface of the step, and successfully rides over the step.”)
Regarding claim 9:
Nishihira discloses “The support device of claim 1,” and Nishihira additionally discloses “wherein the support device is movable onto an obstacle by moving the front wheel upward onto the obstacle by rotation of the rotating bracket such that the support device is supported on a surface by the engagement wheel and the rear wheel.” (Nishihira col. 7 ll. 10-19 and FIGS. 10-11 disclose that the wheelchair can move onto a stepped portion by moving the front wheel 2 upward onto the stepped portion by rotation of the body frame 10, such that the wheelchair is supported on the floor surface by the rear wheel 3 and drive wheel 1.)
Regarding claim 10:
Nishihira discloses “The support device of claim 1,” and Nishihira also discloses “wherein support device is movable off of an obstacle by moving the rear wheel downward off of the obstacle by rotation of the rotating bracket such that the support device is supported on a surface by the front wheel and the engagement wheel.” (Nishihira col. 7 ll. 10-19 and FIGS. 10-11 disclose that the wheelchair can move onto a stepped portion by moving the front wheel 2 upward onto the stepped portion by rotation of the body frame 10, while the wheel 3 remains on the floor surface. It can be seen that the same principle could apply to the wheelchair moving backward and descending from the stepped portion, such that the wheel 3 would move off of the stepped portion by rotation of the body frame 10, and the wheelchair would be supported on the surface of the stepped portion by the front wheel 2 and the drive wheel 1.)
Regarding claim 11:
Nishihira discloses “A wheelchair comprising: a base portion comprising a seat.” (Nishihira col. 4 ll. 41-67 and FIG. 1 disclose a motor-powered wheelchair with a seat 4.)
The remaining limitations of claim 11 are disclosed by Nishihira using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 14 and 19-20:
Claims 14 and 19-20 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 4 and 9-10 above, respectively.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihira as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0083335 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhang.
Regarding claim 2:
Nishihira discloses “The support device of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein at least one of the front wheel, the rear wheel, and the engagement wheel is a mecanum wheel.” However, Zhang does teach this limitation. (Zhang ¶ 118 discloses a wheelchair in which “The omnidirectional wheels in the embodiments as described above can preferably be Mecanum wheels.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the wheelchair of Nishihira by using a mecanum wheel for at least one of the wheels as taught by Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Zhang ¶ 119 teaches that “the wheelchair system having the Mecanum wheels as described above has advantages such as a strong bearing capacity, a simple structure, and flexible motion control, and is thus suitable for a wheelchair.”
Regarding claim 3:
Nishihira discloses “The support device of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein at least one of the front wheel, the rear wheel, and the engagement wheel is an omni-wheel.” However, Zhang does teach this limitation. (Zhang ¶ 111: “The wheelchair comprises a chair 24, a set of four omnidirectional wheels 23 mounted on a bottom of the chair 24, a set of in-wheel motors 221, and a set of motor drivers 21, wherein each in-wheel motor 221 is coupled with an omnidirectional wheel 23 and with a motor driver 21.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the wheelchair of Nishihira by using an omni-wheel for at least one of the wheels as taught by Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Zhang ¶ 112 teaches that with this modification, “omnidirectional wheel 23 can adjust a moving direction, move forward, move backward, or make turns, and so on.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this would provide improved flexibility by allowing the wheelchair to move in any direction.
Regarding claims 12-13:
Claims 12-13 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 2-3 above, respectively.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihira as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Cazali (US 2019/0231617 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
Nishihira discloses “The support device of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose the device “further comprising an actuator engaged with the leg and a controller communicatively coupled to the actuator, the controller comprising a processor and a non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium comprising a computer readable and executable instruction set that, when executed, causes the actuator to rotate the rotating bracket thereby moving the front wheel and the engagement wheel with respect to one another.” However, Cazali does teach these limitations. (Cazali ¶¶ 63-64: “The control means 19 control the various actuators 90a-90d and 100a-100d of the articulations 9a-9d, 10a-10d of the legs 6a-6d and the motors enabling the wheels 11a-11d to move the wheelchair 1 or to cause it to turn. Commands can be sent in a controlled manner by the passenger via the joystick 14 of the control console 13 but may equally be sent automatically as a function of the environment around the wheelchair. The control means 19 include a computer (not shown) that is adapted to take into account the orders of the passenger or the user via the control console 13 but also to take into account the state of the wheelchair (i.e. in particular the position of the legs 6a-6d, the wheels 11a-11d and the seat 3) and the surrounding obstacles to enable the computer to send automatic commands if required, for example for negotiating an obstacle 33, 35. The control means 19 also include a memory space in which the characteristics of the wheelchair 1 according to the invention are stored.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the wheelchair of Nishihira by using an automatic controller for automatically moving an actuator to move the wheels in relation to each other as taught by Cazali with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Cazali ¶ 53 teaches that this allows the wheelchair to automatically ascend or descend a staircase or other obstacle, which provides the benefit of enhanced autonomy for the wheelchair user. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that allowing the wheelchair to operate autonomously would also improve the level of convenience for the wheelchair user by removing the need to operate a joystick or other input device each time an obstacle is encountered.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Nishihira and Cazali teaches “The support device of claim 5,” and Cazali additionally teaches “wherein the computer readable and executable instruction set, when executed, causes the actuator to rotate the rotating bracket in response to receiving a signal indicative of a presence of an obstacle.” (Cazali ¶ 60: “The first segment 7a-7d, which may be regarded as the “thigh” of the leg 6a 6d, is mounted on and rotates on the mechanical structure 20 at the level of its second end by a second articulation 10a-10d motorized by another actuator 100a-100d also controlled by the control means 19.” Also, Cazali ¶ 63: “The control means 19 control the various actuators 90a-90d and 100a-100d of the articulations 9a-9d, 10a-10d of the legs 6a-6d and the motors enabling the wheels 11a-11d to move the wheelchair 1 or to cause it to turn. Commands can be sent in a controlled manner by the passenger via the joystick 14 of the control console 13 but may equally be sent automatically as a function of the environment around the wheelchair.” Additionally, Cazali ¶ 66: “The vision system 15 therefore makes it possible to characterize the obstacles 33, 35 coming into the field of view of the vision system 15, i.e. to define the position and the dimensions of the obstacle 33, 35 in the orthonormal frame of reference with axes X, Y and Z relative to the frame of reference of the wheelchair 1.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the wheelchair of Nishihira by using an automatic controller for automatically moving an actuator to move the wheels based on environmental data indicative of an obstacle as taught by Cazali with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Cazali ¶ 53 teaches that this allows the wheelchair to automatically ascend or descend the obstacle, which provides the benefit of enhanced autonomy for the wheelchair user. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that allowing the wheelchair to operate autonomously would also help to improve the level of convenience for the wheelchair user by removing the need to operate a joystick or other input device each time an obstacle is encountered.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Nishihira and Cazali teaches “The support device of claim 5,” and Nishihira additionally teaches “to rotate the rotating bracket such that the engagement wheel is positioned at or below the front wheel.” (See Nishihira col. 3 ll. 17-26, col. 7 ll. 10-19, and FIGS. 10-11 as explained regarding claim 4 above.)
Nishihira does not specifically disclose “wherein the computer readable and executable instruction set, when executed, causes the actuator to” move the wheels in relation to each other. However, Cazali does teach this limitation. (Cazali ¶¶ 63-64 disclose control means including a computer for automatically controlling the actuators and moving the wheels.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the wheelchair of Nishihira by using an automatic controller for automatically moving an actuator to move the wheels in relation to each other as taught by Cazali with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Cazali ¶ 53 teaches that this allows the wheelchair to automatically ascend or descend a staircase or other obstacle, which provides the benefit of enhanced autonomy for the wheelchair user. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that allowing the wheelchair to operate autonomously would also improve the level of convenience for the wheelchair user by removing the need to operate a joystick or other input device each time an obstacle is encountered.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Nishihira and Cazali teaches “The support device of claim 5,” and Nishihira additionally discloses “to rotate the rotating bracket such that the engagement wheel is positioned at or above the front wheel.” (See Nishihira col. 3 ll. 17-26, col. 7 ll. 10-19, and FIGS. 10-11 as explained regarding claim 4 above.)
Nishihira does not specifically disclose “wherein the computer readable and executable instruction set, when executed, causes the actuator to” move the wheels in relation to each other. However, Cazali does teach this limitation. (Cazali ¶¶ 63-64 disclose control means including a computer for automatically controlling the actuators and moving the wheels.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the wheelchair of Nishihira by using an automatic controller for automatically moving an actuator to move the wheels in relation to each other as taught by Cazali with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Cazali ¶ 53 teaches that this allows the wheelchair to automatically ascend or descend a staircase or other obstacle, which provides the benefit of enhanced autonomy for the wheelchair user. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that allowing the wheelchair to operate autonomously would also improve the level of convenience for the wheelchair user by removing the need to operate a joystick or other input device each time an obstacle is encountered.
Regarding claims 15-18:
Claims 15-18 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 5-8 above, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Maccagnani et al. (WO 2019/239279 A1) Abstract, ¶ 35, and FIGS. 3-5 disclose a wheelchair that can be automatically controller to climb an obstacle by rotating supporting arms attached to each of the wheels.
Newfellow (the online video “Electric Stair Climbing Wheelchair” which is found at the link <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0WsjQwkqwA>) discloses a wheelchair that can climb stairs by changing between an engaged mode and disengaged mode, where each mode relies on different wheels of the three sets of wheels for supporting the weight of the wheelchair.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662