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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the structure and means that enable the operation the lifting arms to lift an incapacitated crew member into the body, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). It appears the lifting arms are below an upper rail of the body and it is unclear how the lifting arms operate to move the crew member from the ground into the basket without further injury
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 1-3, 5, 8-10, 13-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0155380 to Xu et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20140054915 to Miller
Claims 1 and 10, Xu discloses a transport device having a lifting arm defined by side ramps and retention members (40,60) connected to a body 20 capable of lifting an incapacitated crew member into the body; wherein retention members are extendable across the body and over the incapacitated crew member to secure the incapacitated crew member in the body (fig. 4D)[0037]-[0039]. Xu is silent to a drive mechanism. Miller discloses a drive mechanism 3 connected to a vehicle body. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the drive mechanism in Miller with the body of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an a means to maneuver through very rough terrain.
Claims 2 and 14, Xu, as modified, discloses the device wherein the lifting arm is movable and capable of securing the incapacitated crew member into the body [0039].
Claims 3 and 15, Xu, as modified, discloses the device, regarding the Applicant’s recitation a basket, a basket is customarily defined as a container used to hold or carry items and the body of Xu meets the definition of a container used to hold or carry items and therefore meets the Applicant’s structural limitations.
Claim 5, Xu, as modified, discloses the device wherein Miller further discloses the device is configured for remote controlled operation [0007].
Claim 7, Xu, as modified, discloses the remote rescue vehicle wherein the vehicle is autonomously operated.
Claims 8 and 18, Xu, as modified, discloses the device, wherein Miller further comprises a winch defined by a conveyor belt [0007].
Claims 9 and 19, Xu, as modified, discloses the device wherein Miller further discloses the drive mechanism comprises a motor [0021]; and a plurality of wheels 2 operably connected to the motor to propel the vehicle.
Claim 13. Miller discloses the remote rescue vehicle system wherein the control system is connected to the remote rescue vehicle wirelessly, but is silent to a Bluetooth connection. Selecting from a plethora of known wireless connections is considered an obvious modification and it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a Bluetooth connection with the remote system of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative means to wirelessly connect the remote control to the vehicle of Miller.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0155380 to Xu et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20140054915 to Miller, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0306112 to Thompson et al.
Claims 4 and 6, Xu, as modified, discloses the device, wherein Miller further discloses the remote control is achieved via a connection means 8, but is silent to a battery. Thompson discloses a battery 212 and a wireless control unit [0041]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the battery and wireless remote control in Thompson with the transport device of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative source of power to operate the transport of Xu.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0155380 to Xu et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20140054915 to Miller, in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0306112 to Thompson et al., and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,671,582 to Hanley.
Claims 11-12 and 16, Xu discloses the transport device, but is silent to the control system having a smart glove and a solar panel. Hanley discloses a wireless remote system including a wearable computer and a VR glove that is capable of tracking hand movements and a solar panel (col. 7 lines 10-27 & 51-63).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine glove and solar panel in Hanley with the transport device of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an equivalent and alternative means to remotely control and power the transport device of Xu.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0155380 to Xu et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20140054915 to Miller in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0306112 to Thompson et al., and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0150806 to Hu et al.
Claims 7 and 17, Xu discloses the transport device, but is silent to the device being autonomously operated. Hu discloses a rescue vehicle employing an autonomous navigation system [Abstract][0061]. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine autonomous navigation system in Hu with the control system of Xu with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the transport device to self navigate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,942,226 to Walkingshaw discloses a rescue vehicle.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,254,159 to Wieczorek et al. discloses a rescue vehicle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FREDRICK C CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached on (571) 272-8525. 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.
/FREDRICK C CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights