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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 21-23 objected to because of the following informalities:
“Wheelchair storage section” should read “rearward wheelchair storage section” to be consistent with claim 1.
“Battery section” should read “forward section” to be consistent with claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 16-18, 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood in further view of Kiser.
Re: claim 1, Lehtinen teaches an automobile (Fig. 3) comprising: a body (Fig. 3 – 2); a base floor part (Fig. 1 - 1) configured to carry a wheelchair adapted to be connected to the body of the automobile (Fig. 3 – 2); a battery configured to provide at least part of a driving force of the automobile (Paragraph 0024), the base floor part (Fig. 2) includes, in a longitudinal direction of the base floor part: a rearward wheelchair storage section (Annotated Fig. 2 – Wheelchair section) configured to carry rear wheels and front wheels of the wheelchair. Lehtinen fails to teach the base floor part being arranged at least partly above the battery; a forward section arranged at a forward end of the rearward wheelchair storage section; and a step is formed between the rearward wheelchair storage section and the forward section such that the forward section is stepwise elevated from the forward end of the rearward wheelchair storage section, wherein a top side of the rearward wheelchair storage section is inclined at an angle between 1% and 15% with respect to a horizontal direction.
However, Brotherwood teaches a forward section (Fig. 1 – Area of 14) arranged at a forward end of the rearward wheelchair storage section (See Annotated Fig. 1); a step (Annotated Fig. 1 – Step) is formed between the rearward wheelchair storage section (Fig. 1 - 13) and the forward section (Fig. 1 – Area of 14) such that the forward section is stepwise elevated from the forward end of the rearward wheelchair storage section (See Annotated Fig. 1). Brotherwood fails to teach wherein a top side of the rearward wheelchair storage section is inclined at an angle between 1% and 15% with respect to a horizontal direction.
Lehtinen and Brotherwood are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of automotive wheelchair ramps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Lehtinen’s apparatus with those of Brotherwood’s forward section and step in order to provide for a stable and easier to install system (i.e., Having a step allows for larger batteries to be present in a vehicle, which makes installation of the ramp easier; this would also increase stability as the area of attachment is greater).
However, Kiser teaches wherein a top side of the rearward wheelchair storage section is inclined. Kiser is silent on wherein a top side of the rearward wheelchair storage section is inclined at an angle between 1% and 15% with respect to a horizontal direction.
Lehtinen, Brotherwood, and Kiser are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of automotive wheelchair ramps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Lehtinen’s Wheelchair section with those of Kiser et al.’s wheelchair and incline in order to provide for an easier to use and more stable system (i.e., having the angle on the storage section allows for the wheelchair to remain secure in the vehicle and not to rock forward or backwards during operation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood in further view of Kiser to have a wheelchair storage section inclination angle between 1% and 15% since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood in further view of Kiser would not operate differently with the claimed angle and since the wheelchair storage section is meant to hold the wheelchair the device would function appropriately having the claimed angle. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
508
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
483
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Lehtinen fails to teach claim 2. Brotherwood teaches wherein the base floor part (Fig. 1 – 13 & 14) comprises a horizontal battery section (14) that includes a horizontal top side (Annotated Fig. 1 – top side) and/or a horizontal bottom side (Annotated Fig. 1 – bottom side).
Re: claim 3, Lehtinen fails to teach claim 3. Brotherwood teaches wherein the base floor part (Fig. 1 – 13 & 14) comprises a horizontal battery section (14), the base floor part being configured such that the battery section is arrangeable above the battery over an entire length of the battery section (See Annotated Fig. 1 – 14 & 3). Brotherwood and Kiser are silent on a length of the battery section is between 10 cm and 30 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood in further view of Kiser to have a battery section length be between 10 cm and 30 cm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood in further view of Kiser would not operate differently with the claimed length and since the battery section is to be mounted above the battery in an electric vehicle the device would function appropriately having the claimed length. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the length claimed is “to provide a base floor part requiring minimal installation space”, of which Lehtinen teaches (See Paragraph 0022 and 0024).
Re: claim 5, Kiser et al. teaches wherein a bottom side (Annotated Fig. 5 – Bottom Side) of the wheelchair storage section (Fig. 2 - 220) is inclined at a same angle with respect to the horizontal direction as the top side (Annotated Fig. 5 – Top Side) of the wheelchair storage section.
PNG
media_image3.png
420
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 6, Kiser et al. teaches wherein the top side (Annotated Fig. 5 – Top Side) and/or the bottom side (Annotated Fig. 5 – Bottom Side) has the same inclination angle over an entire length (See Fig. 2 - 220) of the wheelchair storage section (Fig. 2 – 220).
Re: claim 7, Lehtinen and Brotherwood fail to teach wherein a length of the wheelchair storage section is shorter than the wheelchair.
However, Kiser et al. teaches wherein a length of the wheelchair storage section (Fig. 3 – 220) is shorter than the wheelchair (Fig. 3 – 206) (See Annotated Fig 2 & 3 – Foot plate positioning relative to 220 is ahead of the Front Wheel, placing the Foot plate on the Flat Section of the base part).
Lehtinen, Brotherwood, and Kiser are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of automotive wheelchair ramps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Lehtinen’s base part with those of Kiser’s Flat Section in order to provide for a system that does not damage the wheelchair and increases ease of use by a user (i.e., the flat section allows for a user to plant their feet either on the floor of the base part easily or to allow adjustment of the Foot Plate without making contact with the base part).
PNG
media_image4.png
503
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 9, Brotherwood teaches wherein the step (Annotated Fig. 1 – step) comprises a lower end (Annotated Fig. 1 – Lower end) and an upper end (Annotated Fig. 1 – upper end), wherein the lower end (Annotated Fig. 1 – Lower end) and/or the upper end (Annotated Fig. 1 – upper end) is linear and/or extends perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (See Annotated Fig. 1 – Longitudinal Direction).
Re: claim 10, Brotherwood teaches wherein the step (Annotated Fig. 1 – step) comprises a planar rearward side (Annotated Fig. 1 – Planar rear) and/or a planar forward (Annotated Fig. 1 – Planar Fwd) side, the rearward side and the forward side extending parallel to each other (See Annotated Fig. 1).
Re: claim 11, Brotherwood teaches wherein the step (Annotated Fig. 1 – step) is configured to extend in a vertical direction (See Annotated Fig. 1 – Vertical Direction) or is inclined with respect to the vertical direction at an angle between 1 and 300.
Re: claim 12, Brotherwood is silent on wherein a height of the step in a vertical direction is between 10 mm and 80 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood to have a height of the step in the vertical direction between 10 mm and 80 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood would not operate differently with the claimed vertical height and since the wheelchair the step is meant to accommodate the battery under the battery section the device would function appropriately having the claimed vertical height. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Re: claim 13, Lehtinen teaches a battery section (Annotated Fig. 2 – Battery Section) (Paragraph 0024). Lehtinen is silent on wherein the battery section and the wheelchair storage section are manufactured as a single piece. Lehtinen fails to teach the step. Brotherwood is silent on wherein the battery section, the step, and the wheelchair storage section are manufactured as a single piece.
The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Re: claim 16, Brotherwood teaches wherein the base floor part (Fig. 1 – 13 & 14) comprises a horizontal forward section (14) located forward in a longitudinal direction of the automobile (See Fig. 1), the forward section (14) being arranged at least partly above the battery (3).
Re: claim 17, Lehtinen, Brotherwood, and Kiser are silent on wherein the base floor part is arranged above the battery over at least 10% of a length of the base floor part, the forward section being arranged above the battery over at least 50% of a length of the forward section.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood in view of Kiser to have the base floor part arranged above the battery over at least 10% of a length of the base floor part and the forward section arranged above the battery over at least 50% of a length of the forward section since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood in view of Kiser would not operate differently with the claimed length and since the ramp would need to be mounted in a way where the wheelchair user can access the majority of the vehicle (As seen in Fig. 1) the device would function appropriately having the claimed length. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Re: claim 18, Brotherwood teaches wherein a top side of the battery (Fig. 1 – 3) and at least part of a bottom side (Annotated Fig. 1 – bottom side) of the forward section (14) extend parallel to each other (See Annotated Fig. 1).
Re: claim 21, Lehtinen teaches wherein the base floor part (Fig. 1- 1) further comprises: the [rearward] wheelchair storage section (Annotated Fig. 2 – Wheelchair Section) being located rearward (Annotated Fig. 2 – Rear) in a longitudinal direction of the automobile (Fig. 1 – 2). Lehtinen fails to teach a [forward]
However, Brotherwood teaches a [forward]
Re: claim 22, Brotherwood teaches wherein the battery has a predefined shape (Fig. 1 – 3), a bottom side of the [forward]
Re: claim 23, Brotherwood is silent on a gap formed between a side surface of the battery and a forward surface of the step facing the battery is between 5 mm and 15 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood in further view of Kiser to have the gap between the side surface of the battery and the forward surface of the step facing the battery is between 5 mm and 15 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood in further view of Kiser would not operate differently with the claimed gap size and since the gap is present to prevent additional heat transfer to the floor of the vehicle the device would function appropriately having the claimed gap size. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Re: claim 24, Lehtinen teaches a system comprising: a base floor part (Fig. 1 - 1) configured to carry a wheelchair and to be connected to an automobile (Fig. 3 – 2) that includes a battery for providing at least part of a driving force of the automobile (Paragraph 0024), wherein: the base floor part comprises, in a longitudinal direction (Annotated Fig. 2 – Longitudinal Direction) of the base floor part (Fig. 1 – 1) and/or the automobile (Fig. 3 – 2). Lehtinen fails to teach a wheelchair; an inclined rear section and a horizontal forward section, the inclined rear section being inclined within respect to the longitudinal direction and configured to carry a wheelchair; a length of the inclined rear section being shorter than the wheelchair such that a footrest of the wheelchair is arranged above the forward section; and at least a portion of the forward section is adapted to a shape of the battery and disposed over the battery in the longitudinal direction.
However, Kiser et al. teaches a wheelchair (Fig. 3 – 206); an inclined rear section (Fig. 2 – 220) and a horizontal forward section (Annotated Fig. 2 – Flat Section), the inclined rear section being inclined within respect to the longitudinal direction (Annotated Fig. 2 – Longitudinal Direction) and configured to carry a wheelchair (Fig. 2 – 206); a length of the inclined rear section (Fig. 2 – 220) being shorter than the wheelchair (Fig. 2 – 206) such that a footrest (Annotated Fig. 2 – Foot Plate) of the wheelchair is arranged above the forward section (Annotated Fig. 2 – Flat Section). Kiser et al. fails to teach at least a portion of the forward section is adapted to a shape of the battery and disposed over the battery in the longitudinal direction.
Lehtinen and Kiser et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of automotive wheelchair ramps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Lehtinen’s base part with those of Kiser et al.’s Flat Section in order to provide for a system that does not damage the wheelchair and increases ease of use by a user (i.e., the flat section allows for a user to plant their feet either on the floor of the base part easily or to allow adjustment of the Foot Plate without making contact with the base part).
However, Brotherwood teaches at least a portion of the forward section (Fig. 1 – 14) is adapted to a shape of the fuel tank (Fig. 1 – 3) and disposed over the fuel tank in the longitudinal direction (Annotated Fig. 1 – Longitudinal Direction).
It is noted that the “fuel tank” of the art of Brotherwood, when the reference is incorporated into the art of Lehtinen in view of Kiser et al. would be that of a battery for an electric vehicle (Lehtinen describes the embodiment of an electric vehicle within paragraph 0024).
Lehtinen, Kiser et al., and Brotherwood are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of automotive wheelchair ramps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Lehtinen’s Battery section with those of Brotherwood’s step/shaping in order to provide for a stable and easier to install system (i.e., Having a step allows for larger batteries to be present in a vehicle, which makes installation of the ramp easier; this would also increase stability as the area of attachment is greater as it fits the form of the fuel source).
Re: claim 25, Brotherwood teaches wherein the stepwise elevation (Annotated Fig. 1 – step) of the forward section (14) from the forward end of the rearward wheelchair storage section (13) is configured to provide that a footrest of the wheelchair carried by the base floor part is disposed above the forward section (See Fig. 1 – 14 has a top side where the user of the wheelchair can rest their feet).
Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood in view of Kiser in further view of Matsuoka.
Re: claim 15, Lehtinen, Brotherwood, and Kiser fail to teach claim 15.
However, Matsuoka teaches wherein the battery (Fig. 5 – 68) is arranged in an initial position as provided by a manufacturer of the automobile (Fig. 3 - 10) (See also Specification – Solution to Problem – Paragraph 1 and 2).
Lehtinen, Brotherwood, Kiser, and Matsuoka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of automotive wheelchair ramps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Lehtinen’s apparatus with those of Matsuoka et al.’s positioning in order to provide the advantage of a system that is easier to install without the rearrangement of the entire vehicle structure.
Re: claim 19, Lehtinen, Brotherwood, and Kiser fails to teach wherein a gap between the bottom side of the forward section and the top side of the battery is between 5 mm and 15 mm.
However, Matsuoka et al. teaches a gap (Fig. 5 – 65) between the bottom side of the forward section (Fig. 5 – 81) and the top side of the battery (Fig. 5 – 68). Matsuoka et al. is silent on the gap is between 5mm and 15 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood in further view of Kiser in further view of Matsuoka to have the gap between the bottom side of the forward section and the top side of the battery is between 5 mm and 15 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lehtinen in view of Brotherwood in further view of Kiser in further view of Matsuoka would not operate differently with the claimed gap size and since the gap is present to prevent additional heat transfer to the floor of the vehicle the device would function appropriately having the claimed gap size. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the amendments necessitated the new ground of rejection.
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 PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP C ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612