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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites “said at least one person lies thereon in the exposed position”. This claim element is directed towards the body of a human organism.
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 1-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 7 recites, “at least one of a net and a mesh”. The phrasing of this limitation is confusing, does Applicant mean one of either a net or a mesh, or requiring a net “and” a mesh simultaneously? By having the option of only one, it is indefinite for the apparatus to have both a net and a mesh. Clarification is required. For this office action, the examiner is interpreting this to mean “at least one of a net or a mesh”.
Further, claim 1 sets precedence for a “net” and a “mesh” to be two different structures as written and recited in the following dependent claims: 10, 11, 12, 14, 15. However, the Applicant does not denote how the “mesh” and “net” are structurally distinct. In the English language, net and mesh are considered to be synonymous and both defined as structures made of interconnected strands. Therefore, the examiner does not see a discernable difference between the two and is interpreting these to mean the same thing unless Applicant provides further clarification.
Claims 14 and 15 are generally confusing. The phrasing of “at least one of said at least one net, said at least one mesh, a further net and a further mesh” appears to be a poor translation into English from a foreign document. It is unclear exactly how many layers of mesh/net there can be, making the claims indefinite. This also relates to the previous points above regarding the “at least one” and “and” phrase, as well as any discernable difference between “net” and “mesh”. Correction is required. For the purposes of continued examination, the examiner is interpreting claim 14 to require an additional layer of net/mesh as the “fall arrester” and claim 15 to require a cutout in the net/mesh from claim 1.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of the claims they respectively depend upon.
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 1-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 3625304 (hereinafter “Siefermann”).
Regarding claim 1, Siefermann discloses an apparatus that has at least one fixed frame (Fig. 1, 3I), on said at least one fixed frame at least one pivoting frame (Fig. 1, 5I) is supported in an articulated manner about an approximately horizontal pivot axis (Fig. 1, β angles), it being possible for said pivoting frame to be pivoted between an essentially vertical, closed position (Fig. 2) and a pivoted, exposed position (Fig. 5), at least one of a net and a mesh (Col. 7, lines 55-57) is retained in said pivoting frame wherein said at least one pivoting frame can be adjusted by means of at least one threaded spindle (Fig.2, 10 and Col. 3, lines 37-43) with a self-locking thread pitch (Col. 10, lines 56-59, screw spindle inherently has threads and is described as “self-locking”).
Regarding claim 2, Siefermann further discloses that the threaded spindle is driven to rotate (Col. 7, lines 70-72).
Regarding claim 3, Siefermann further discloses that the threaded spindle is motor-driven (Col. 7, lines 70-72).
Regarding claim 4, Siefermann further discloses that the threaded spindle is in operative connection with at least one crank (Col. 6, lines 57-66 – the spindle drives motion of the cage so it is inherent that the hand lever is connected to it for manual operation).
Regarding claim 5, Siefermann further discloses that the pivoting frame is connected to at least one spring (Fig. 2, 16) which pre-stresses said at least one pivoting frame in the direction of said closed position.
Regarding claim 6, Siefermann further discloses that the threaded spindle is in operative connection with said at least one pivoting frame via at least one lever mechanism (Fig. 2, 12).
Regarding claim 8, Siefermann further discloses a side member is provided on said at least one pivoting frame (Fig. 2, 5 – it is inherent that the cage has a 3D rectangular space and side “members” or walls to safely hold people).
Regarding claim 9, Siefermann further discloses on said at least one side member at least one of a side frame and a side wall is fitted, for protecting said at least one person (Fig. 2, 5 and Col. 7, lines 55-57; Explanation as stated regarding claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 10, Siefermann further discloses a net for protecting said at least one person is fitted on said side member (Fig. 2, 5 and Col. 7, lines 55-57; explanation as stated regarding claim 8 above. Net and mesh are being interpreted as the same, as stated supra).
Regarding claim 11, Siefermann further discloses a mesh for protecting said at least one person is fitted on said side member (Fig. 2, 5 and Col. 7, lines 55-57; explanation as stated regarding claim 8 above. Net and mesh are being interpreted as the same, as stated supra).
Regarding claim 12, Siefermann further discloses a further net for protecting said at least one person is fitted on said side member (Fig. 2, 5 and Col. 7, lines 55-57; explanation as stated regarding claim 8 above. Net and mesh are being interpreted as the same, as stated supra).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3625304 (hereinafter “Siefermann”) in view of US 10835835 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 7, Siefermann discloses all the limitations of claim 6; however, it does not expressly teach a lever mechanism that has a step-up transmission ratio, said transmission ratio being lower in the vicinity of said exposed position than in the vicinity of said closed position. Lee, in the analogous art of moving rides, discloses a configuration system for controlling step-wise rotational movement (Fig. 8, and Col. 2, 34-36). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a transmission ratio controller to adjust how fast the frame pivots to avoid injury or dangerous angles.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siefermann in view of US 6126550 (hereinafter “Moser”).
Regarding claim 13, Siefermann discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose having a shoulder restraint, which restricts the freedom of movement of said at least one person, is provided on said at least one pivoting frame. Moser, in the analogous art of moving rides, discloses shoulder restraints (Figs. 2 & 3, 31) to prevent passengers from falling out during tilting action of the ride. Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add shoulder restraints to Siefermann’s design to increase safety and stability of persons in the moving cage.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3625304 (Siefermann).
Regarding claim 14, Siefermann discloses all the limitations of claim 1. However, it does not disclose having a fall arrester is formed beneath at least one of said at least one net, said at least one mesh, a further net and a further mesh, being fastened on said pivoting frame. This claim is being interpreted as stated supra due to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues as requiring two layers of mesh/net. However, the mere duplication of pates has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the instant case, having two layers of netting instead of 1 as a backup “fall arrester” would only add additional barriers to prevent falling through, and as such would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include. See MPEP 2144 – In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siefermann in view of US 20060185085 (hereinafter “Brenner”).
Regarding claim 15, Siefermann discloses an apparatus that has all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly state that a cutout is formed in the region of said at least one person's head in at least one of said at least one net, said at least one mesh, a further net and a further mesh. Due to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, this claim is being interpretated as requiring a cutout in one layer of net/mesh, as stated supra. Brenner, in a same field of endeavor of supporting persons, discloses a face opening for a suspended sleeping bag with the specific purpose of allowing a person to breath. (Fig. 1, 23 and Para. 0045). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a cutout in the net/mesh to provide greater comfort and ease of breathing to passengers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siefermann in view of US 20130090176 (hereinafter “Ochi”).
Regarding claim 16, Siefermann discloses an apparatus that has all the limitations of claim 1. However, Siefermann is silent regarding a sensor is provided which senses a torque of said at least one pivoting frame, wherein the situation where said at least one pivoting frame pivots out further when a predetermined torque is exceeded is prevented. Ochi, in the analogous art of moving rides, discloses a torque sensor capable of limiting torque to protect the drive motor (Para. 0048). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a torque sensor that prevents overloading of the drive motor to protect the machine and prevent accidents.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/S.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3711