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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: locking means in claim 1. That said “locking means” in claim 2 is interpreted as means plus function as claim 2 does not recite additional structure of the locking means.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,441,995 to Sobota.
Regarding claims 1 and 10 Sobota discloses a lift device for vehicles for wheelchair users (or a vehicle having a lift device), comprising; a roll-over flap (70), wherein the roll-over flap is mounted rotatably relative to a lifting platform (12), the lifting platform for loading with a load, a support arm (10) for raising and lowering the load to a desired position, wherein the support arm has a first sub-arm (14) and a second sub-arm (30) which are rotatably coupled to one another, and wherein the second sub-arm (30) of the support arm is rotatably connected to the lifting platform and the roll-over flap, wherein the lift device is configured to extend or retract the roll-over flap and to lock the roll-over flap in at least one position, wherein the extending or retracting and the locking are carried out according to the position of the lifting platform and the support arm (see figures 7-8) , the lift device further comprising: a telescopic rod that (40) is configured with a first inner rod (40b), a second outer rod (40a), and a spring (120), and a locking means (200) is provided, wherein the locking means is disposed on the telescopic rod (see figure 7) and is adapted to lock the roll-over flap, wherein the locking means is designed as a pawl, and the pawl (214) engages with the telescopic rod (see figure 7) in such a way during locking that the first inner rod of the telescopic rod is no longer movable relative to the second outer rod (lock passes through both inner and outer rod preventing relative motion between the 2), and the inner rod of the telescopic rod has a projection or piston (see 112 on 40b), wherein the pawl locks the projection or piston during locking (figure 7).
Regarding claim 3 Sobota discloses the lift device has a pull rod which is configured to actuate the locking means according to an orientation of the support arm (see 210 and figure 7).
Regarding claim 4 Sobota discloses a stop member with a slider (42), which is rotatably connected to the telescopic rod (at 62) and the pull rod (210 see figure 7b) and is rotatably connected via a bar (see figure 7) to the second sub-arm (30) of the support arm ,wherein the stop member with a slider rests against the first sub-arm of the support arm and, by changing an angle (a) between the first and second sub-arms of the support arm, transfers a force to the pull rod, thus actuating the locking means (see figure 8 and cam action of 230 along 42).
Regarding claim 5 Sobota discloses the slider (42) is attached rotatably or pivotably by a rotary joint (62) to the telescopic rod, such that the slider can be positioned in different rotational positions relative to the support arm (see figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 6 Sobota discloses a section of the slider on one side of the rotary joint is longer and/or heavier than the section at an opposite end of the slider (see figure 7b 62 is offset from center of 42).
Regarding claim 7 Sobota discloses a handle (see figure 7) to hold onto for the person or load to be lifted, and which is attached, with limited rotatability relative to the bar (see figure 7) and the second sub-arm (30) of the support arm, at an attachment point of the bar to the second sub-arm of the support arm.
Regarding claim 8 Sobota discloses a roll-over flap guide (80) which is rotatably connected to the telescopic rod and the roll-over flap (see figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 9 Sobota discloses the roll-over flap guide (80) has an elongate hole (see figures 7 and 8) and is connected to the telescopic rod via the elongate hole (see connection of 80 to 40a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior fails to disclose the claimed locking means which is actuated by a torque induced by a weight balance of a component to which is connected when those limitations are considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other locking arrangements for roll-over plates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights