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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility patent applications (Figs. 11-20). The photographs or photomicrographs must show the invention more clearly than they can be done by India ink drawings and otherwise comply with the rules concerning such drawings, see MPEP §608.02(VII)(B). Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 is drawn to “A method of using the wheelchair of claim 1” which does not include all of the limitations of claim 1 because claim 1 is drawn to the structure of “A wheelchair”, and not all of the claimed features of claim 1 are required to perform the functions of claim 18. For the purpose of examination claim 18 will be interpreted as being drawn to “A method of using a wheelchair, the method comprising: providing the wheelchair of claim 1…”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because the word “to” is missing from the phrase “…the second push rim is configured {to} rotate relative to…”. See a corresponding passage in Para. [0077] of the applicant’s written disclosure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3-4. and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GIRALDEZ (DE-202005020495-U1).
Regarding Claim 1, GIRALDEZ teaches a wheelchair (Wheelchair 1, Fig. 1a) comprising:
a frame (Frame 2, Fig. 1a);
a drive wheel (Wheelchair Wheel 3, Fig. 1a) coupled to the frame (1), wherein the drive wheel (3) is configured to rotate relative to the frame about a first axis of rotation (being the center of Wheelchair Wheel 3 as illustrated in Fig. 1a);
a first push rim (Grip Ring 11, Fig. 1a) coupled to the frame (1), wherein the first push rim (11) is configured to rotate relative to the frame (1) about a second axis of rotation (being the center of Grip Ring 11 as illustrated in Fig. 1a) that extends parallel or substantially parallel to the first axis of rotation (Grip Ring 11 being illustrated as coaxial to Wheelchair Wheel 3 in Fig. 1a, it can be said that their axes of rotations are substantially parallel);
a second push rim (Handwheel 34, Fig. 1a) coupled to the frame, wherein the second push rim (34) is configured to rotate relative to the frame (1) about a third axis of rotation (being the center of Handwheel 34 as illustrated in Fig. 1a) that extends parallel or substantially parallel to the first axis of rotation (the axes of Wheelchair Wheel 3 and Handwheel 34 both extending into/ out of the page in Fig. 1a; they can thus be characterized as substantially parallel to each other);
a transmission (Transmission Means 22, Fig. 1a) configured to transmit rotation of each of the first (11) and second (34) push rims to the drive wheel (3) to cause rotation of the drive wheel (3), wherein movement of the first push rim (11) by a first arc length is configured to cause the drive wheel (3) to rotate by a first angular displacement, wherein movement of the second push rim (34) by the first arc length is configured to cause the drive wheel (3) to rotate by a second angular displacement that is greater than the first angular displacement (Paras. [0007] & [0015] teach the transmission being configured such that a small movement of the Handwheel 34 produces a large movement in the Wheelchair Wheel 3, such that it can be said that an angular displacement applied to the Handwheel 34 causes a larger angular displacement of the Wheelchair Wheel 3),
wherein the first push (11) rim is coupled to the second push rim (34) so that rotation of the first push rim (11) by a third angular displacement causes rotation of the second push rim (34) by a fourth angular displacement that is not equal to the third angular displacement (the Sprockets 33 & 37 being different sizes, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the Grip Ring 11 and Handwheel 34 turn at different rates to one another such that an angular displacement applied to the Grip Ring 11 causes a different angular displacement of the Handwheel 34).
Regarding Claim 3, GIRALDEZ further teaches that the first push rim (11) has a first diameter, wherein the second push rim (34) has a second diameter that is not equal to the first diameter (as illustrated in Fig. 1a).
Regarding Claim 4, GIRALDEZ further teaches that the second diameter (diameter of 34) is less than the first diameter (diameter of 11) (as illustrated in Fig. 1a).
Regarding Claim 18, GIRALDEZ teaches a method of using a wheelchair (Paras. [0002]- [0015] teach the operation of a Wheelchair 1), the method comprising:
providing the wheelchair of claim 1 (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above, as well as the corresponding 112d rejection above),
pushing the first push rim (11) to propel the wheelchair (1) (Para. [0009]); and
pushing the second push rim (34) with the wheelchair in motion while the wheelchair has momentum from pushing the first push rim (Para. [009] teaches using a push rim to start motion of the wheelchair and then switch to a Folding Handle 61, which is attached to Handwheel 34- Fig. 3 and Para. [0053]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 5-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIRALDEZ in view of Jeffries et al. (US-5482305-A).
Regarding Claim 2, GIRALDEZ does not teach that the second and third axes of rotation are coaxial.
Jeffries teaches, in another multispeed wheelchair (Abstract), a first push rim (Rim 18, Fig. 1) having an axis of rotation (being the center of Rim 18 as illustrated in Fig. 1) and second push rim (Hand Wheel Assembly 30, Fig. 1) having an axis of rotation (being the center of Hand Wheel Assembly 30 as illustrated in Fig. 1) where the axes of rotation of the first (18) and second (30) push rims are coaxial (as illustrated in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the wheelchair of GIRALDEZ such that the axes of rotation of the first and second push rims were coaxial as in Jeffries, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 5, GIRALDEZ does not teach that the first push rim is positioned inward of the second push rim.
Jeffries teaches a first (Rim 18, Fig. 1) and second (Hand Wheel Assembly 30, Fig. 1) push rim where the first push rim (18) is inwardly positioned (to the right in Fig. 1) relative to the second push rim (30) along a first axis of rotation (as illustrated in Fig. 1 where the first axis of rotation is along the axis of rotation of Wheel Assembly 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the wheelchair of GIRALDEZ such that the first push rim is positioned inward of the second push rim as in Jeffries, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 6, GIRALDEZ does not teach an epicyclic gear train.
Jeffries teaches that the first push rim (18) is coupled to the second push rim (30) by an epicyclic gear train (Planetary Gear Assembly 58, Fig. 4) comprising: a sun gear (Sun Gear 60, Fig. 4), a ring gear (Ring Gear 66, Fig. 4) that is coaxial with the sun gear (60) (as illustrated in Fig. 4), at least one planetary gear (Planetary Gears 68 & 70, Fig. 4) disposed between the sun gear (60) and the ring gear (66), and a carrier (Planet Cage 64, Fig. 4) that is coupled to the at least one planet gear and coaxial with the sun gear (as illustrated in Fig. 4).
The epicyclic gear train (58) of Jefferies is configured such that the first push rim (18) defines the ring gear (66) (Col. 4: Lines 30-44 teaches that the Ring Gear 66 is attached to a Hub 22 and Col. 3: Lines 52-57 teach the Hub 22 and Rim 18 both being part of Wheel Assembly 14).
The epicyclic gear train (58) of Jefferies is further configured such that first push rim (18) is configured to rotate relative to the drive wheel (14) at a ratio of 1:1 (Fig. 1 and Col. 3: Lines 52-57 teach the Rim 18 being part of Wheel Assembly 14 such that they can be said to rotate at a 1:1 ratio relative to each other) and the second push rim (30) is configured to rotate relative to the drive wheel (14) at a ratio of 1:1 (Col. 4: Lines 2-14 teach a mode in which the Hand Wheel Assembly 30 and Wheel Assembly 14 operate at a 1:1 ratio relative to each other).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of GIRALDEZ and Jefferies in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify GIRALDEZ’s wheelchair to include an epicyclic gear train as suggested by Jefferies. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of the high power density and compact size inherent to an epicyclic gear train that would beneficially provide a more compact system.
Regarding Claim 7, GIRALDEZ, as modified above by Jefferies, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 6 above for the teachings of Jefferies and motivation to combine) except for the second push rim being fixedly coupled to the carrier.
Jefferies teaches the second push rim (30) being coupled to the sun gear (60) (Fig. 1 teaches a Hand Wheel Hub 36 as a component of Hand Wheel Assembly 30, Fig. 2 and Col. 5 Lines 23-25 teach the Hand Wheel Hub 36 being connected to a Driver 90 and Fig. 4 teaches Driver 90 connecting to Sun Gear 60 through Shift Member 52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the epicyclic gear train of the wheelchair of GIRALDEZ as modified above such that the second push rim was fixedly coupled to the carrier, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
It is further noted that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second push rim fixedly coupled to the carrier because the arrangement of driving and driven components of an epicyclic gear train is a recognized method of controlling the drive ratios between components and the manipulation of drive ratios is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the final drive ratio, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, arriving at the claimed arrangement of the second push rim fixedly coupled to the carrier would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding Claim 8, GIRALDEZ further teaches that the first push rim (11) is configured to rotate relative to the drive wheel (3) at a ratio of between 3:1 to 3:5 (Grip Ring 11 being connected directly to Wheelchair Wheel 3, as illustrated in Fig. 1a, they can be said to rotate at a 1:1 ratio relative to each other; 1:1 being between the ratios of 3:1 and 3:5).
In addition, GIRALDEZ, as modified above by Jefferies, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 6 above for the teachings of Jefferies and motivation to combine), including a ratio of 1:1 which is between the claimed range of 3:1 and 3:5.
Regarding Claim 9, GIRALDEZ, as modified above by Jefferies, teaches all limitations (see the 103 rejection of claim 6 above for the teachings of Jefferies and motivation to combine), including a ratio of 1:1 which is between the claimed range of 3:1 and 3:5.
To the extent it may be argued that the modified Giraldez/Jefferies wheelchair operates at a ratio between the claimed range of 3:1 to 3:5 ratios (specifically a 1:1 ratio), but without covering the entirety of the claimed range of ratios, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the specific ratio is directly correlated to handleability/maneuverability of the wheelchair by the operator, which is a desirable characteristic of the wheelchair (as a “result effective variable”, per MPEP 2143 and 2144.05-II-B). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to modify the Giraldez/Jefferies wheelchair to specifically have the specific ratio in the 3:1 and 3:5 range of ratios, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 10, GIRALDEZ further teaches that one of the first push rim (11) or the second push rim (34) is configured {to} rotate relative to the drive wheel (3) at a ratio of 1:1 (Grip Ring 11 being directly coupled to Wheelchair Wheel 3 as illustrated in Fig. 1a, the two can be said to rotate relative to each other at a ratio of 1:1) (see also the corresponding claim objection above).
Regarding Claim 17, GIRALDEZ does not teach that the second push rim is positioned outward of the first push rim.
Jeffries teaches a first (Rim 18, Fig. 1) and second (Hand Wheel Assembly 30, Fig. 1) push rim where the second push rim (30) is outwardly positioned (to the left in Fig. 1) relative to the first push rim (18) along an axis that extends from and perpendicularly to a central plane that bisects the wheelchair (as illustrated in Fig. 1 where the axis can be understood to extend parallel to Main Axle 38, the central plane that bisects the wheelchair being parallel to and between the two Wheel Assemblies 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the wheelchair of GIRALDEZ such that the second push rim is positioned outward of the first push rim as in Jeffries, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claims 11-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIRALDEZ.
Regarding Claim 11, GIRALDEZ further teaches that the axis of rotation of a push rim (Handwheel 34 having an axis of rotation being the center of Handwheel 34 as illustrated in Fig. 1a) is offset from the first axis of rotation of the drive wheel (Wheelchair Wheel 3 having an axis of rotation being the center of Wheelchair Wheel 3 as illustrated in Fig. 1a) in a direction orthogonal to the first axis of rotation of the drive wheel (as illustrated in Fig. 1a).
GIRALDEZ does not teach that the second push rim is offset from the drive wheel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the wheelchair of GIRALDEZ such that the second push rim was offset from the drive wheel in the same way as the first, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 12, GIRALDEZ further teaches that the transmission comprises a pair of sprockets (Sprockets 33 & 37, Fig. 3, Para. [0051]) and a belt or chain (Roller Chain 36, Fig. 3) extending between the pair of sprockets (as illustrated in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 13, GIRALDEZ further teaches that the pair of sprockets (33 & 37) comprises a first sprocket (33) that is fixedly coupled to {a} push rim (34) and a second sprocket (37) that is fixedly coupled to the drive wheel (3) (as illustrated in Fig. 3).
GIRALDEZ does not teach that the first sprocket is coupled to the first push rim.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the wheelchair of GIRALDEZ such that the first sprocket was coupled to the first push rim, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 14, GIRALDEZ does not teach that the sprocket ratio is equal to 1.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sprocket ratio is equal to 1 because the sprocket ratio is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the sprocket ratio, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed arrangement of the sprocket ratio being equal to 1 would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding Claim 15, GIRALDEZ further teaches that the pair of sprockets (33 & 37) define a sprocket ratio that is not equal to 1 (Para. [0057] teaches the Sprockets 33 & 37 having a ratio of between 2:1 and 4:1).
Regarding Claim 16, GIRALDEZ further teaches that at least one sprocket (33 & 37) of the pair of sprockets is configured for removal and replacement (Fig. 3 illustrates both Sprockets 33 & 37 in an exploded view such that a person with reasonable skill in the art would recognize them as removable and replaceable).
Regarding Claim 19, GIRALDEZ teaches a kit (Para. [0016] and Fig. 3) comprising:
a second push rim (34) coupled to a frame (the frame of a wheelchair the kit is applied to), wherein the second push rim (34) is configured to rotate relative to the frame about a third axis of rotation (Axis X, Fig. 3) that extends parallel or substantially parallel to a first axis of rotation (Axis Y, Fig. 3) (the two axes being illustrated as parallel in Fig.3);
a transmission (Transmission Means 22, Fig. 1a) configured to transmit rotation of each of the first (11) and second (34) push rims to the drive wheel (3) to cause rotation of the drive wheel (3), wherein the transmission (22) comprises a pair of sprockets (Sprockets 33 & 37, Fig. 3, Para. [0051]) and a belt or chain (Roller Chain 36, Fig. 3) extending between the pair of sprockets (as illustrated in Fig. 3), wherein at least one sprocket (33 & 37) of the pair of sprockets is configured for removal and replacement (Fig. 3 illustrates both Sprockets 33 & 37 in an exploded view such that a person with reasonable skill in the art would recognize them as removable and replaceable), wherein movement of the first push rim (11) by a first arc length is configured to cause the drive wheel (3) to rotate by a first angular displacement, wherein movement of the second push rim (34) by the first arc length is configured to cause the drive wheel (3) to rotate by a second angular displacement that is greater than the first angular displacement (Paras. [0007] & [0015] teach the transmission being configured such that a small movement of the Handwheel 34 produces a large movement in the Wheelchair Wheel 3, such that it can be said that an angular displacement applied to the Handwheel 34 causes a larger angular displacement of the Wheelchair Wheel 3).
GIRALDEZ further teaches that that the sprockets (33 & 37) could have a ratio of between 2:1 and 4:1 (Para. [0057]) which a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize is varied by changing the size of one or both of the sprockets; and also that it would be advantageous to alter the transmission ratio for different purposes such as causing a large rotation of the wheels (3) with a small rotation of the hand wheel (34) or conversely improving the ability to start movement of the wheelchair (Para. [0015]).
The kit as taught by GIRALDEZ does not include a wheelchair frame, drive wheel, and first push rim; however GIRALDEZ does teach these elements (see the 102 rejection of claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of GIRALDEZ in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify GIRALDEZ’s kit to include the wheelchair frame, drive wheel, and first push rim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a complete wheelchair as a kit that would beneficially provide a more usable system.
GIRALDEZ, as modified above, does not teach an additional sprocket for replacing one of the sprockets.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of GIRALDEZ in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify GIRALDEZ’s kit to include an additional sprocket for replacing one of the sprockets to achieve the advantage of altering the transmission ratio as taught by GIRALDEZ and discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lambert (US-4732402-A): teaches elements of the claimed invention drawn to a wheelchair with offset push rim and chain and sprocket connection.
LOVEGROVE (GB-2322835-A): teaches elements of the claimed invention drawn to a wheelchair with dual coaxial push rims and an epicyclic gear train.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights