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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 4 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/18/2025. Although the election was made without traverse in line 2 of the second page of the response, the following line then ‘traverses’ which provides some confusion. Especially since the arguments provided don’t appear to contradict the species/invention requirements set forth since the examiner acknowledges that the figures provided were merely examples of those specific embodiments elected as fig. 27 does include its corresponding fig.’s 27-32C inherently, and same with fig. 37 which inherently includes fig.’s 27-48. It seems, as best understood, that the examiner agrees with the applicant that these figures are included in the respective elected embodiments/inventions as it was intended they did in the requirements set forth originally despite not specifically including these said figures originally for brevity purposes. Since it is unclear how the arguments contend the species/restriction requirement, the arguments are not found persuasive until further clarity is provided.
Furthermore, claim 26 is not directed to the elected platform system of species C drawn to fig. 37 because the claim requires ‘wheels “coupled to respective bottom ends of” the first and second pair of spaced apart rails’ which is not included in the elected species C as shown in fig. 37 and fig. 47. Therefore, claims 26-30 are withdrawn.
Consequently claims 4 and 26-30 are hereby withdrawn as not directed to the elected species/invention(s). Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 21-25 are elected and examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “3762” has been used to designate two different parts as shown in fig. 37 [see zoomed in section of fig. 37 below]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Zoomed in Fig. 37:
PNG
media_image1.png
118
233
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because the handles don’t automatically brake rotation all the time as claimed, but they only automatically brake rotation when no force is applied to the handle. It seems the applicant means that the handle(s) are --configured to automatically brake rotation-- or are --biased toward braking rotation--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-3 and 5-7 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.
Regarding Claim 1, in lines such as but not limited to 8 and 10, “the bottom end” is indefinite since multiple bottom ends were introduced in line 2 and 5 respectively. To which one are these “the bottom end” recitations referring to?
Claims 2, 3, and 5-7 are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Halsey (US 3520382).
Regarding Claim 1,
A drivable platform, comprising: a first rail (14/18 left side of fig. 1) having a bottom end (see fig. 1); a first wheel (17 left side of fig. 1) positioned at [near or in the vicinity of] the bottom end of the first rail (as seen in fig. 1), the first wheel being coupled with a first driver (at 28; see fig. 4 for example - note that a first element can be coupled with a second element by way of elements in between and this interpretation is in alignment with the applicants disclosure in which the first wheel and first driver are not directly contacting or coupled either - the examiner is interpreting this in alignment with applicants disclosure); a second rail (14/18 right side of fig. 1) having a bottom end; a second wheel (17 right side of fig. 1) positioned at the bottom end of the second rail (see fig. 1), the second wheel being coupled with a second driver (at 28; see fig. 4 for example); a first control assembly (at 25/26/etc. for example on the left side of fig. 1; see fig.’s 1-4) coupled with the first rail (coupled with 14 via 27 or via 32; note in general that a first element can be coupled with a second element by way of elements in between) above the bottom end (as depicted in fig. 1) and including a first handle (at 25; left side of fig. 1) and a third driver (at 31-33/etc. for example; see fig. 3); a second control assembly (at 25/26/etc. for example on the right side of fig. 1; see fig.’s 1-4) coupled with the second rail above the bottom end and including a second handle (at 25; right side of fig. 1) and a fourth driver (at 31-33/etc. for example; see fig. 3); a first transmission member (at but not limited to 29 left side of fig. 1; see fig. 1 and 4 for example) configured to [functional use] couple (a first element can be coupled to a second element by way of elements in between) rotation of the first driver and the third driver; a second transmission member (at but not limited to 29 right side of fig. 1) configured to [functional use] couple rotation of the second driver and the fourth driver; and a platform (12; fig. 1) coupled to the first rail and the second rail (as seen in fig. 1); wherein the first handle is rotatable [capable of rotating] to [intended use] drive rotation of the first wheel and the second handle is rotatable to drive rotation of the second wheel (they can perform this function or intended use as claimed); and wherein the first wheel is rotatable independent of the second wheel (as discussed in the final line of the abstract inserted below as well as the excerpt from col. 3 inserted below claim 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
289
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
796
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2. (Original) The drivable platform of claim 1, wherein the first control assembly includes a crank (at 26) coupled with the third driver and with the first handle (see fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3. (Original) The drivable platform of claim 1, wherein the first wheel is rotatable [capable of rotating] in an opposite direction from the second wheel by operation of the first and second control assemblies (see excerpt from col. 3 inserted below).
PNG
media_image4.png
183
561
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5. (Original) The drivable platform of claim 1, wherein at least the first transmission member comprises an upper transmission member (upper 36; see fig. 4) coupled with the first driver and a lower transmission member (lower 36 and/or 30 and/or etc.) coupled with the third driver (see fig. 3).
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 of this title, 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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Halsey as applied above, in further view of Hill (US 5192122).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Halsey teaches (claim 6) the crank coupled with at least one of the first and second rails, the brake being rotatable to a position braking movement of at least one of the first and second transmission members (when the crank is not rotated); and (claim 7) wherein at least one of the first and second handles (when not being rotated).
However, as seen via the strikeouts above, all of the elements are discussed above except for (claim 6) a brake and the ability that (claim 7) automatically brakes rotation.
Attention is therefore directed to another platform driving crank system [crank means 88 to drive platforms 26] taught by Hill which teaches an automatic brake (see fig.’s 5 and 6; specifically at 120/140 which is the automatic braking means for the crank) that automatically brakes transmission of wheels 28. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crank means of Halsey to incorporate an automatic braking means as taught by Hill in order to ensure the wheels are only driven when the operator intends to drive them for preference, safety, or driving accuracy as non-limiting reasons.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Hill clearly provides the suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art that it would be obvious to provide automatic braking means to a crank, and such modification or incorporation would be of low level to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the crank and connection of the crank to rails/platform to incorporate the automatic braking means.
PNG
media_image5.png
565
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Moore (US 2189432), in further view of Hill (US 5192122).
Regarding Claim 21, Moore teaches:
A drivable platform, comprising: a platform (5; fig. 1); a rail (9) coupled with the platform; a drive system (34, 24-26, etc.; see fig. 1) extending from a bottom end of the rail to a position above the bottom end of the rail (as depicted in fig. 1); a wheel (22) connected to the drive system at the bottom end of the rail; a crank arm (at 25/26) rotatably coupled to a portion of the drive system at the position above the bottom end of the rail (as depicted in fig. 1); and a handle (26) coupled to the crank arm and movable between a first position and a second position relative to the drive system (via rotation).
All of the elements are discussed above except for with the handle in the first position, a brake limits rotation of the crank arm; and wherein with the handle in the second position, the brake is released, and the crank arm is rotatable to drive the drive system.
Attention is therefore directed to another platform driving crank system [crank means 88 to drive platforms 26] taught by Hill which teaches an automatic brake (see fig.’s 5 and 6; specifically at 120/140 which is the automatic braking means for the crank) such that with the handle in the first position, a brake limits rotation of the crank arm (as seen in fig. 5); and wherein with the handle in the second position (as seen in fig. 6), the brake is released, and the crank arm is rotatable to drive the drive system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crank means of Moore to incorporate an automatic braking means as taught by Hill in order to ensure the wheels are only driven when the operator intends to drive them for preference, safety, or driving accuracy as non-limiting reasons.
Regarding claim 22. (New) The drivable platform of claim 21, wherein the handle is biased to the first position (as seen in fig.’s 5 and 6 via spring 132).
Regarding Claim 23. (New) The drivable platform of claim 21, wherein the brake comprises a pin (128 in Hill; fig. 5) movable [capable of moving; intended use] between a braking position engaging a plate (120; fig. 5 of Hill) of the drive system (note that the crank system is part of the drive system) while the handle is in the first position (fig. 5) and a released position spaced away from the plate while the handle is in the second position (as seen in fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 24. (New) The drivable platform of claim 23, wherein the plate radially extends relative to an axis of rotation of the crank arm (as seen in fig. 7 of Hill).
PNG
media_image6.png
274
686
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 25. (New) The drivable platform of claim 21, wherein the brake is released by rotating the handle from the first position to the second position (as seen between fig.’s 5 and 6 of Hill).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuzmin (US 11560755).
Regarding Claim 1,
A drivable platform, comprising: a first rail (15 left side of fig. 1) having a bottom end (see fig. 1); a first wheel (55 left side of fig. 1) positioned at [near or in the vicinity of] the bottom end of the first rail (as seen in fig. 1), the first wheel being coupled with a first driver (see system revolving around 80 in fig. 2); a second rail (15 right side of fig. 1) having a bottom end; a second wheel (55 right side of fig. 1) positioned at the bottom end of the second rail (see fig. 1), the second wheel being coupled with a second driver (see system revolving around 80 in fig. 2 but represents both sides); a first control assembly (at 90; fig. 1) coupled with the first rail above the bottom end (as depicted in fig. 1) and including a first handle and a third driver (as seen in fig.’s 1 and 2); a second control assembly (at 90) coupled with the second rail above the bottom end and including a second handle and a fourth driver (as understood via fig.’s 1 and 2); a first transmission member (at 80) configured to [functional use] couple rotation of the first driver and the third driver (as understood via fig.’s 1 and 2); a second transmission member (at 80) configured to [functional use] couple rotation of the second driver and the fourth driver; and a platform (30; fig. 1) coupled to the first rail and the second rail (as seen in fig. 1); wherein the first handle is rotatable [capable of rotating] to [intended use] drive rotation of the first wheel and the second handle is rotatable to drive rotation of the second wheel (they can perform this function or intended use as claimed); and wherein the first wheel is rotatable independent of the second wheel (see excerpt from col. 4 inserted below).
PNG
media_image7.png
540
368
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
555
369
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Excerpt from Kuzmin Col. 4
PNG
media_image9.png
235
374
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2 and 3 are readily taught via fig.’s 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 5, chains comprise many parts such that the transmission member 80 has many upper and lower transmission members that are coupled with both drivers since a first element can be coupled with a second element by way of elements in between.
Regarding Claim 6, claim 1, further comprising a brake (140; fig. 2) coupled with at least one of the first and second rails (fig. 2), the brake being rotatable [capable of rotating; see path of brake “3” represented by 150 in fig. 2] to a position braking movement of at least one of the first and second transmission members (it can perform this function as claimed).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kuzmin as applied above, in further view of Hill (US 5192122).
Regarding Claim 7, Halsey teaches wherein at least one of the first and second handles (when not being rotated).
However, as seen via the strikeouts above, all of the elements are discussed above except for the limitation ‘automatically’ in ‘automatically brakes’.
Attention is therefore directed to another platform driving crank system [crank means 88 to drive platforms 26] taught by Hill which teaches an automatic brake (see fig.’s 5 and 6; specifically at 120/140 which is the automatic braking means for the crank) that automatically brakes transmission. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crank means of Kuzmin to incorporate an automatic braking means as taught by Hill in order to ensure the wheels are only driven when the operator intends to drive them for preference, safety, or driving accuracy as non-limiting reasons.
Conclusion
Contact Information:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P CAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-5616. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-8.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NAMRATA BOVEJA can be reached on (571) 272-8105. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights