DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 09/19/25 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are still pending with claims 15-20 being elected. Despite the claim amendments, the previous 102 rejection is maintained as detailed below. 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 § 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.
Kodama
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kodama et al. (WO 2014/188726). Kodama is directed to a method of controlling an electric walking assistance device. See Abstract.
Claim 15: Kodama discloses a method [Fig. 8] for controlling a brake of a walker (100b), the method comprising: receiving, from a distance sensor (630, 630b) positioned higher than a seat of the walker [note: “walker” and “seat” is intended, not required, structure; see also Fig. 17], an indication of a distance between the distance sensor and a person at a back of the walker [see Translation (“The leg detection sensor 630b can detect the movement of the leg by measuring the distance to the left and right knees of the user of the electrically assisted walking vehicle 100b”)]; and determining whether to cause a brake actuator of the walker to place the brake in a disengaged state or in an engaged state based on the indication of the distance between the distance sensor and the person at the back of the walker [see Translation (“Next, when it is determined that the leg detection sensor 630 has detected the leg (Yes in Step S21), it is determined whether or not the user's leg is moving (Step S22). When it is determined that the user's leg is stopped (No in Step S22), the speed limiting unit 500 stops or brakes the operation of the motor 320 (Step S23)”)]. See Figs. 1, 8, 17.
Claim 16: Kodama discloses causing the brake actuator to place the brake in the engaged state responsive to a determination, based on the indication from the distance sensor, that the person is approaching a seat (251b) of the walker to sit on the seat, the person is seated on the seat, the person is rising from the seat, or the walker is moving away from the person. See Translation (“Specifically, the leg detection sensor 630b of FIG. 17 is directed backwards in the range 630BR, whether the user's leg is moving, whether it is stopped, away, or approaching. It can be determined whether the user is about to sit on the seat 251b”).
Claim 17: Kodama discloses receiving, over time, a plurality of indications of a respective plurality of distances between the distance sensor and the person at the back of the walker; determining an action of the person based on the plurality of indications; and causing the brake actuator to place the brake in the disengaged state or the engaged state based on the determined action. See Translation (step S22 determines “whether the user's leg is moving in the range 630AR, is it stopped, is separated, or is approaching,” which is a determination based on multiple distance measurements over time).
Claim 18: Kodama discloses determining the action comprises: determining a change in the distances between the distance sensor and the person at the back of the walker over time; and determining the action based on a recently-received distance and the change in the distances. See Translation (step S22 determines “whether the user's leg is moving in the range 630AR, is it stopped, is separated, or is approaching,” which is a determination based on multiple distance measurements over time).
Claim 19: Kodama discloses causing the brake actuator to place the brake in the engaged state responsive to the determined action being one of: approaching a seat of the walker to sit on the seat, being seated on the seat, rising from the seat, or moving away from the back of the walker. See Translation (“Specifically, the leg detection sensor 630b of FIG. 17 is directed backwards in the range 630BR, whether the user's leg is moving, whether it is stopped, away, or approaching. It can be determined whether the user is about to sit on the seat 251b” and then in step 23 actuates brakes.).
Claim 20: Kodama discloses receiving, from a wheel-rotation sensor, an indication of a rotation speed of a wheel of the walker; and determining whether to cause the brake actuator to place the brake in the engaged state or in the disengaged state based on the rotation speed of the wheel. See Translation (“As shown in FIG. 10, the speed limiting unit 500 checks the speed detection sensor 610, and determines whether the rotation of the wheels…is a predetermined value or less. It is determined whether or not (step S41)…On the other hand, when it is determined that the rotation of the wheel or the speed of the electrically assisted walking vehicle 100 exceeds the predetermined value (No in step S41), the speed limiting unit 500 stops the assist control and the motor 320 is driven. A braking process is performed by stopping, generating power or regenerative braking, or generating a driving force in the reverse direction (step S42).”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant adds a new limitation to method claim 15 and asserts that Kodama fails to disclose it. Specifically, Applicant contends that since the distance sensor is “positioned higher than a seat of the walker,” and Kodama’s sensor (630, 630b) in Figure 4 is located at/near the feet of the user, the claim overcomes the Kodama reference. See Remarks, pages 8-9.
First and foremost, this claim is directed to “a method for controlling a brake” and is intended to be used in a walker, but the walker and the “seat of the walker” are NOT required structural limitations of the claim. Thus, the limitations concerning the location of the sensor relative to “the seat of the walker” need not be disclosed in the reference. So long as the Kodama brake system (and sensor) are capable of meeting the recited limitations, the rejection is proper. It is for this primary reason that the rejection is maintained.
Second, Applicant points to Figure 4 of Kodama where the distance sensor is located at the user’s feet, but Kodama explicitly contemplates the sensor can be located at/near the user’s knees. See Fig. 17; see also Translation. It is certainly possible for this Kodama distance sensor, which is at knee-level, to be at or above seat-level. For this additional reason, the limitation is properly disclosed.
Finally, it should be noted that even if the claim is amended to be directed to a walker and the “seat of the walker” is positively recited, this claim would at least be ripe for a 103 rejection in light of Figure 17 of Kodama and WO 2012/118263 (cited by Applicant) as a teaching reference. Looking at Figures 6 and 8 and paragraph [0054] of the ‘263 Patent, it is quite clear that the feature of a distance sensor being located above a walker seat is known to those skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Applicant should consider substantive amendments to move prosecution forward.
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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached on 571-272-7124. 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 September 23, 2025
Prosecution Insights