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
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 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “extended access component”. It is unclear exactly what is referred to by this as the specifications, drawings or claims do not make it clear if this component includes the door or not.
Claims 2-8 and 12-13 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210276642 A1 ("Gillett").
Claim 1: Gillett teaches a vehicle comprising: a) a plurality of wheel-leg (200) components configured to provide wheeled locomotion (Fig. 10A; motor on during step i. in Fig. 3) and walking locomotion (Fig. 10B; walking function during step ii. in Fig. 3); and b) the vehicle has one or more extended access components (1100 cabin and its door) (Fig. 1).
Claim 2: Gillett teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gillett further teaches the vehicle, wherein the plurality of wheel-leg components are coupled to a chassis (101) of the vehicle (Fig. 2A).
Claim 3: Gillett teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gillett further teaches the vehicle, wherein at least one extended access component is positioned on a side of the vehicle (door of 1100 of Fig. 1).
Claim 9: Gillett teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gillett further teaches the vehicle, wherein one or more of the wheel-leg components are operable to position the vehicle bottom surface in at a height lower than the bottom surface position during wheeled locomotion of the vehicle. (when in folded position, leg 200 folds to lower the vehicle in wheeled locomotion mode; Fig, 10A).
Claim 10: Gillett teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gillett further teaches the vehicle, wherein one or more of the wheel-leg components are operable to position the vehicle bottom surface a height elevated relative to the bottom surface position during wheeled locomotion of the vehicle (when in folded position, leg 200 raises to raise the vehicle in walking mode; Fig, 10B).
Claim 11: Gillett teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gillett further teaches the vehicle, wherein the plurality of wheel-leg components are collectively operable to elevate the vehicle bottom surface to a height of an elevated platform (Fig. 10B; when elevated it can reach elevated platforms).
Claim 12: Gillett teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gillett further teaches the vehicle, wherein each of the wheel-leg components can be operated and articulated independently with respect to each of the other wheel-leg components (para. 128, lines 1-8).
Claim 13: Gillett teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gillett further teaches the vehicle, wherein each of the wheel-leg components can be operated and articulated independently and in coordination with one or more of the other wheel-leg components (para. 128, lines 1-8) (Fig. 4A and 4B show the legs able to work in coordination for cases such as climbing uneven terrain like stairs).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210276642 A1 ("Gillett") in view of In re Japikse.
Claim 4: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gillett further teaches the vehicle, wherein at least one extended access component is positioned on the vehicle
The claim differs only in that the least one extended access component is positioned at the rear of the vehicle. This is a rearrangement of parts, where the access component would be on the rear part of the vehicle. Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of the In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) With the rearrangement of door, the device of Gillett would still work for its intended purpose, mainly allowing access to the back to reach the cargo spot of 111 of Fig. 1.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210276642 A1 ("Gillett") in view of In Re Aller.
Claim 5: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. The cited prior art does not teach the vehicle, wherein at least one extended access component has a horizontal dimension of at least 1.4 meters.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Gillett to make a door at least 1.4 meters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 6: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. The cited prior art does not teach the vehicle, wherein at least one extended access component has a horizontal dimension of at least 2 meters.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Gillett to make a door at least 2 meters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210276642 A1 ("Gillett") and Zero Ramp Design ("ATC").
Claim 7: Gillett teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. The cited prior art does not teach the vehicle, wherein the extended access component comprises a lower hatch and an upper hatch.
However, ATC teaches the vehicle, wherein the extended access component comprises a lower hatch (ramp) and an upper hatch (gull wing door) (page. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Gillett with the features of ATC. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as ATC teaches a zero clearance ramp design allows passengers that need wheelchairs to enter the vehicle with their wheelchair.
Claim 8: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. Gillett further teaches the vehicle, wherein the lower hatch comprises a ramp (zero clearance ramp) (page. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights