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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosures of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 15/339,360 and 16/201,156, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Neither of the previously filed applications provides support for at least that which is newly claimed in this application including that the belt extends from a top half of the spool to the wheelchair connector “in a substantially uninterrupted line”.
For the purposes of examination on the merits, the effective filing date for the current application is 2/28/23.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to as containing minor informalities:
In claim 1 there is no clear delineation or distinction of where the preamble ends and the body of the claim begins such as a semi-colon after the term “comprising” on line 1. This makes the claims confusing as to what is being positively recited and what is meant to be included as a preamble limitation. That is to make clear that the limitations of “a spool, a belt, and a wheelchair connector” are components of the retractor and not features of the preamble, a semi-colon should be inserted after “comprising” on line 1. For the purposes of examination on the merits the features of claim 1, line 2 will be considered positive limitations of the claim.
In claim 14, line 4, a semi-colon should be inserted after “comprising” for clarity thus making separate the body of the claim (the recited step) from the preamble.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 all recites that the belt extends in a substantially uninterrupted line which is not found in the specification nor is the subject matter of the substantially uninterrupted line being a “straight” line as recited in claims 6, 12, and 16. The lack of these details in the specification (with regard to the terms “substantially uninterrupted” and “straight line”) raises questions as to whether applicant had possession, at time of filing, of the retractor and belt. FIG.6B is said to show a take-off point (190) of the retractor but is not set forth as being to scale.
Moreover, the specification makes clear that the belt (webbing 40) extends around the webbing guide (115) (see [0027] which discloses that the webbing is received and guided by the webbing guide (115)) which makes the recitation that the belt extends substantially “uninterrupted” unclear. Doesn’t the guide (115) interrupt the webbing?
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
All independent claims (claims 1, 7, and 14) recite the belt extends from a top half of the spool to the wheelchair connector in “a substantially uninterrupted line” which is indefinite because it is unclear. The specification discloses the webbing (40) is received and guided (and therefore “interrupted”) by at least the webbing guide (115). Further explanation is requested but the claims will be examined on the merits as best understood.
Claims 6, 12, and 16 further recite the substantially uninterrupted line is a “straight” line which is indefinite and unclear because the webbing is guided around the webbing guide (115) and therefore the path in which the webbing extends is not “straight” as recited.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cardona et al. (2003/0190208).
For claim 1, as best understood, Cardona et al. disclose a retractor (14a,b) in a securement system securing a wheelchair, the retractor comprising:
a spool (50), a belt (15), and a wheelchair connector (34), wherein:
a proximal end of the belt is connected to and at least partially wound around the spool;
a terminal end of the belt is connected to the wheelchair connector;
the wheelchair connector (34) is releasably connected to the wheelchair; and,
the belt (15) extends from a top half of the spool (FIG.2A) to the wheelchair connector in a substantially uninterrupted line (that is, but for the loop around the pins (68,88) within the housing the belt extends uninterrupted to the wheelchair connector 34, FIG.1).
For claim 7, as best understood, Cardona et al. further disclose a wheelchair accessible vehicle comprising:
a vehicle access device (implicit, not shown) for ingress and egress of a wheelchair;
a wheelchair securement area (FIG.1) for receiving the wheelchair; and,
a wheelchair securement system comprising at least one retractor as set forth above.
For claims 2 and 8, further comprising a housing (30) with an opening, the belt extending through the opening.
For claims 3 and 9, the opening is a top opening (as seen in FIG.1).
For claims 4, 10, and 15, the belt extends at an angle in a range of 35° to 55° (note the device of FIG.2a reasonably teaches a PHOSITA that the belt extends at an angle within the prescribed range).
For claims 6, 12, and 16, as best understood, the belt extends in the substantially uninterrupted line as set forth above, the line being a straight line (see where after the belt leaves the housing opening, the belt extends in a straight line to the connector 34).
For claim 13, the at least one retractor comprises at least two retractors (14a,14b).
For claim 14, as best understood, Cardona et al. inherently discloses the recited method.
For claim 18, as seen in FIG.1 the retractor can comprise two retractors (14a,14b) where the metho of securing the second is inherently disclosed.
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 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 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardona et al. as set forth above and alternatively in view of Gale (2017/0231844).
Cardona et al. disclose two retractors (14a,14b) and two additional (third and fourth) retractors (FIG.1) but fails to provide the additional retractors identical to the first and second.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided in place of the third and fourth retractors shown in FIG.1 of Cardona et al. two additional identical retractors to those shown at 14a,14b for it is a mere duplication of part to serve the same predictable result of securing the opposite side (the front) of the wheelchair. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and MPEP 2144.04(iv)(B). The court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this instance, providing two identical retractors (14a,b) would not provide a new or unexpected result.
Additionally, or alternatively, Gale teaches providing four identical retractors (wheelchair securement devices 38A, 38B, 38C, 38D, FIG.1) spaced around a wheelchair (two at the front and two at the rear) at a wheelchair securement area.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided in place of the third and fourth retractors shown in FIG.1 of Cardona et al. two additional identical retractors to those shown at 14a,14b as taught by Gale in order to provide the same predictable result of securing the opposite side (the front) of the wheelchair.
Cardona et al., as modified, inherently discloses the method of claims 17, 19 and 20.
Claims 5 and 11, respectively, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardona et al. above with respect to claims 4 and 10, respectively, and in view of KR 079.
Cardona et al. fail to disclose the retractor further comprising an angle indicator that provides an indication of the angle.
This feature is known from at last KR 079 (KR 20070032079A) which teaches a vehicle seat belt safety arrangement including an energy absorber and a retractor (5). The retractor (5) comprises a spool with a seatbelt wound up. Additionally, the retractor includes an angle meter (angle indicator). When an impact/collision occurs, the retractor locks and the energy absorber absorbs energy upon rotation of the spool. The rotation angle of the spool measures the amount of energy absorbed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided such a safety device known from KR 079 for use with the spool of Cardona et al. in order to protect a wheelchair occupant in the event of vehicle collision.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other references showing angle indicators or angle indicating devices include: Bolz et al. (2005/0107932), CN 208984049U, CN 207792382U, and CN 220446232U.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights