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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on July 14, 2025. Claims 1-17 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on July 14, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for DE10 2024 206 683.4 dated July 16, 2024.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome potential future rejections made using references falling between the filing date and the foreign priority date, because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is a dependent claim yet recites limitations without antecedent basis including A mobile medical apparatus, a first wheel, and a second wheel. It is unclear whether claim 11 is supposed to pertain to a different or the same mobile medical apparatus as claim 10 or if it is a new, different mobile apparatus. Furthermore, it is unclear whether claim 11 is intended to be interpreted in independent form as it is presented as an apparatus which cannot comprise another apparatus. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting claim 11 as being an independent claim and the claimed controller of claim 10 to be a controller capable of storing and executing control logic. Examiner suggests re-writing claim 11 in independent form to add clarity to the record.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 1-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0023514 (hereinafter, “Shima”).
Regarding claim 1, Shima discloses A method for braking a mobile medical apparatus (see at least Fig. 1 and [0058]; Examiner notes that the term “medical” is interpreted as an intended use and has limited patentable weight), wherein the mobile medical apparatus comprises a first wheel and a second wheel (see at least Fig. 1 and [0058]; the apparatus may include at least two wheels), the method comprising:
determining a first wheel speed for the first wheel and a second wheel speed for the second wheel (see at least [0058]; the wheels may be controlled individually and may have their own respective speeds and braking forces);
determining a first braking quantity for the first wheel and a second braking quantity for the second wheel, the first braking quantity describing a strength with which the first wheel is braked and the second braking quantity describing a strength with which the second wheel is braked, wherein a smaller braking quantity is determined for a wheel with a lower wheel speed than for a wheel with a higher wheel speed among the first wheel and the second wheel (see at least [0058]-[0061]; the braking forces may be proportional to the speeds of each wheel such that the braking of the vehicle as a whole is stabilized (i.e., no slipping)); and
applying the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity to brake the first wheel and the second wheel (see at least [0058]-[0061] and [0192]; the respective braking forces may be applied to each of the first and second wheel).
Regarding claim 2, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shima discloses wherein in the determining of the braking quantity for the wheel that has the higher wheel speed, a maximum braking quantity is applied as the braking quantity for the wheel that has the higher wheel speed (see at least [0058]-[0061] and [0065]; the braking force applied to each wheel by each respective motor results in stabilized stopping which necessarily requires the stopping time to be the same in order to prevent slip/be unstable. Additionally, the disclosure includes a situation in which an emergency stop switch is engaged which initiates a maximum braking amount to the faster of the two wheels in order to maintain stability of the whole vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Shima discloses wherein a braking period is determined based on the maximum braking quantity and the wheel speed of the associated wheel, wherein the braking quantity for the wheel with the lower wheel speed is based on the determined braking period and the wheel speed (see at least [0058]-[0061] and [0065]; the braking force applied to each wheel by each respective motor results in stabilized stopping which necessarily requires the stopping time to be the same in order to prevent slip/be unstable. Additionally, the disclosure includes a situation in which an emergency stop switch is engaged which initiates a maximum braking amount to the faster of the two wheels in order to maintain stability of the whole vehicle. In such a case, the slower wheel would necessarily be limited based on the stopping period and wheel speed of the faster wheel).
Regarding claim 4, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Shima discloses wherein the determining the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity determines the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity such that the first wheel and the second wheel have a same braking time as a result of applying the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity (see at least [0058]-[0061]; the braking force applied to each wheel by each respective motor results in stabilized stopping which necessarily requires the stopping time to be the same in order to prevent slip/be unstable).
Regarding claim 5, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim . Additionally, Shima discloses wherein the determining the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity determines the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity such that the first wheel and the second wheel come to a standstill simultaneously as a result of applying the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity (see at least [0058]-[0061]; the braking force applied to each wheel by each respective motor results in stabilized stopping which necessarily requires the stopping time to be the same in order to prevent slip/be unstable).
Regarding claim 6, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shima discloses wherein the determining the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity determines the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity such that a wheel-speed difference between the first wheel and the second wheel is reduced evenly over a braking phase as a result of applying the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity (see at least [0058]-[0061]; the braking force applied to each wheel by each respective motor results in stabilized stopping which necessarily requires the stopping time to be the same in order to prevent slip/be unstable).
Regarding claim 7, Shima discloses A method for braking a mobile medical apparatus (see at least Fig. 1 and [0058]; Examiner notes that the term “medical” is interpreted as an intended use and has limited patentable weight), wherein the mobile medical apparatus comprises a first wheel and a second wheel (see at least Fig. 1 and [0058]; the apparatus may include at least two wheels), the method comprising:
determining a first wheel speed for the first wheel and a second wheel speed for the second wheel (see at least [0058]; the wheels may be controlled individually and may have their own respective speeds and braking forces);
verifying whether the first wheel and the second wheel have a same direction of rotation (see at least [0058]-[0061], [0096], and [0104]; the braking forces may be proportional to the speeds of each wheel such that the braking of the vehicle as a whole is stabilized (i.e., no slipping). All of the wheels go the same direction when the cart goes forward and the same direction when the cart goes backwards (i.e., the same rotation direction));
determining a first braking quantity for the first wheel and a second braking quantity for the second wheel based on whether the first wheel and the second wheel have a same direction of rotation, the first braking quantity describing a strength with which the first wheel is braked and the second braking quantity describing a strength with which the second wheel is braked, wherein a smaller braking quantity is determined for a wheel with a lower wheel speed than for a wheel with a higher wheel speed among the first wheel and the second wheel (see at least [0058]-[0061], [0096], and [0104]; the braking forces may be proportional to the speeds of each wheel such that the braking of the vehicle as a whole is stabilized (i.e., no slipping). All of the wheels go the same direction when the cart goes forward and the same direction when the cart goes backwards (i.e., the same rotation direction)); and
applying the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity or a special braking program to brake the first wheel and the second wheel, based on whether the first wheel and the second wheel have a same direction of rotation (see at least [0058]-[0061], [0096], [0104], and [0192]; the respective braking forces may be applied to each of the first and second wheel All of the wheels go the same direction when the cart goes forward and the same direction when the cart goes backwards (i.e., the same rotation direction)).
Regarding claim 8, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shima discloses further comprising:
determining whether an activation element of the mobile medical apparatus is actuated, wherein at least one of the determining the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity or the determining the first wheel speed and the second wheel speed is performed once the activation element is no longer engaged (see at least [0278]; the braking quantity is determined when the driving of the motors concludes).
Regarding claim 9, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shima discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, when executed by a system, causes the system to perform the method of claim 1 (see at least [0086]; the MCU is equivalent to a processor plus non-transitory memory).
Regarding claim 10, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shima discloses A controller for a mobile medical apparatus, the controller being configured to cause the mobile medical apparatus to perform the method of claim 1 (see at least [0086]; the MCU).
Regarding claim 12, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Shima discloses wherein the maximum braking quantity is at least one of a maximum permitted acceleration, a maximum permitted braking force or a maximum permitted braking torque (see at least [0058]-[0061] and [0065]; the braking force applied to each wheel by each respective motor results in stabilized stopping which necessarily requires the stopping time to be the same in order to prevent slip/be unstable. Additionally, the disclosure includes a situation in which an emergency stop switch is engaged which initiates a maximum braking force to the faster of the two wheels in order to maintain stability of the whole vehicle).
Regarding claim 13, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Shima discloses wherein the determining the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity determines the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity such that the first wheel and the second wheel have a same braking time as a result of applying the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity (see at least [0058]-[0061]; the braking force applied to each wheel by each respective motor results in stabilized stopping which necessarily requires the stopping time to be the same in order to prevent slip/be unstable).
Regarding claim 14, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Shima discloses wherein the determining the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity determines the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity such that the first wheel and the second wheel come to a standstill simultaneously as a result of applying the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity (see at least [0058]-[0061]; the braking force applied to each wheel by each respective motor results in stabilized stopping which necessarily requires the stopping time to be the same in order to prevent slip/be unstable).
Regarding claim 15, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Shima discloses wherein the determining the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity determines the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity such that a wheel-speed difference between the first wheel and the second wheel is reduced evenly over a braking phase as a result of applying the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity (see at least [0058]-[0061]; the braking force applied to each wheel by each respective motor results in stabilized stopping which necessarily requires the stopping time to be the same in order to prevent slip/be unstable).
Regarding claim 16, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Additionally, Shima discloses further comprising:
determining whether an activation element of the mobile medical apparatus is actuated, wherein at least one of the determining the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity or the determining the first wheel speed and the second wheel speed is performed once the activation element is no longer engaged (see at least [0278]; the braking quantity is determined when the driving of the motors concludes).
Regarding claim 17, Shima discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Additionally, Shima discloses further comprising:
determining whether an activation element of the mobile medical apparatus is actuated, wherein at least one of the determining the first braking quantity and the second braking quantity or the determining the first wheel speed and the second wheel speed is performed once the activation element is no longer engaged (see at least [0278]; the braking quantity is determined when the driving of the motors concludes).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0277397 (hereinafter, “Monson”).
Regarding claim 11, Monson discloses A mobile medical apparatus (see at least Fig. 2; Examiner notes that the fact it is “medical” is interpreted as intended use) comprising:
a differential drive unit (see at least [0171]);
a first wheel (see at least Fig. 2);
a second wheel (see at least Fig. 2);
the controller of claim 10 (see at least [0269]; the controller of Monson is equivalent to the controller of claim 10 and capable of the storing/executing the same); and
at least one further wheel (see at least Fig. 2),
wherein the controller is configured to cause the differential drive unit to drive the first wheel and the second wheel (see at least Fig. 2, [0025], and [0269]; the controller ).
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0207822 which relates to differential steering for vehicle trailers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights