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 .
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: in Paragraph [0051] Applicant refers to multiple groups of components as a range, but the item numbers within that range are not one of those items, for example “a pair of adjustable handles 160-165” would also include 162 and 164, which are also identified as brake handles, also this would include 161 and 163, which are not disclosed in the Specification as a whole or in the drawings. The above is just one example, this happens multiple times with different element ranges throughout the Specification.
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) 1-3, 7, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knopow et al. (US 2014/0031176).
With regards to claim 1, Knopow et al. discloses an ambulation aid apparatus (600) comprising: a first panel (611); a second panel (612); and a third panel (613), the second panel and the third panel interconnected on opposite sides of the first panel and positionable to support a user, the first panel, the second panel, and the third panel formed of a fused collection of air-infused particles (Knopow et al. discloses in Paragraphs [0128] and [0131], that the panels can be filled with foam in order to provide additional support, inserting the foam in panels 611-612 is anticipated by Knopow et al. and foam is a fused collection of air-infused particles.).
NOTE: It is noted by the Examiner that this claim is overly broad, many items can be considered an ambulation aid, one could use a baby gate, collapsible wall partition/divider, privacy screen, etc. to assist in moving themselves from one location to another, and foam is often used in some of these type products due to its light and structural nature. This claim could be rejected using art from many of these movable structures, but a walker is being used in this rejection so as to facilitate compact prosecution of the application.
With regards to claim 2, Knopow et al. discloses the ambulation aid apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first panel, the second panel, and the third panel is formed from steam-chest molding of particles. This claim is a product-by-process claim, and as foam is a fused collection of air-infused particles it can also be made via steam-chest molding. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
With regards to claim 3, Knopow et al. discloses the ambulation aid apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least two of the first panel, the second panel, and the third panel are at least one of formed together or connected using a living hinge (670 and 671 Paragraph [0098]).
With regards to claim 7, Knopow et al. discloses the ambulation aid apparatus of claim 1, further including a seat panel (650) movable with respect to a back side of the first panel (Paragraph [0095], “fold out from against the body”), the seat panel interlocking with the first (through the fold), second, and third panels (Paragraph [0095], “supports designed as part of the geometry in sides of the body 610 are used to support the seat 650 when folded down) in a down position to support a user.
With regards to claim 9, while the embodiment of Knopow et al. relied on thus far discloses storage compartments (660 and 661) it fails to disclose, however, in an alternate embodiment Knopow et al. (Figures 9a-c and Paragraph [0117]) teaches the ambulation aid apparatus of claim 7, further including a storage door panel (910) enclosing a storage compartment (920) formed in the first panel, the storage door panel movable with respect to the first panel to expose the storage compartment at a first position and enclose the storage compartment at a second position.
With regards to claim 14, Knopow et al. discloses a method of manufacturing an ambulation aid, the method comprising: molding a first panel of air-infused particles; molding a second panel of air-infused particles; molding a third panel formed of air-infused particles; and movably affixing the second panel and the third panel on opposite sides of the first panel, wherein the second panel and the third panel are interconnected on opposite sides of the first panel and positionable to support a user. Please refer to the claim 1 rejection above, all of these components have been disclosed by the primary reference.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knopow et al. (US 2014/0031176) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwendeman (US 5,404,684).
With regards to claim 4, while Knopow et al. discloses plate members for attaching to the ambulation aid apparatus of claim 1, Knopow et al. fails to disclose wherein one or more inserts are formed inside one or more of the first, second, and third panels to form at least one of attachment points and reinforcement points, however, Schwendeman (US 5,404,684) clearly teaches the use of threaded inserts formed inside panels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Schwendeman into the invention of Knopow et al. at the time of filing of the instant application in order to provide means for the removable attachement of items to the panels of Knopow et al.
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Knopow et al. and Schwendeman teaches the ambulation aid apparatus of claim 4, further including one or more handles (620 and 621) attachable to one or more of the first, second, and third panels via the attachment points.
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Knopow et al. and Schwendeman teaches the ambulation aid apparatus of claim 4, further including one or more wheels (632 and 633) with brakes attachable to one or more of the first, second, and third panels via the attachment points.
Claim(s) 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knopow et al. (US 2014/0031176).
With regards to claim 8, Knopow et al. fails to disclose that the ambulation aid apparatus of claim 7, wherein the seat panel is formed of air-infused particles, however the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to be obvious Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With regards to claim 12, Knopow et al. fails to disclose the ambulation aid apparatus of claim 9, wherein the storage door panel is formed of air-infused particles, however the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to be obvious Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With regards to claim 13, while Knopow et al. discloses that foam is used in the panels, Knopow et al. fails to specifiy the specific type of foam, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have selected one or more of the foam types: expandable polystyrene (EPS), expanded polyethylene (EPE), expanded polypropylene (EPP), expanded polylactide (EPLA), or expanded thermoplastic polyurethane (ETPU) as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to be obvious Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Furthermore, the last limitation of the claim “for steam-chest molding” is an intended use and as discussed in regards to claim 2 above, this would be product-by-process.
Claim(s) 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knopow et al. (US 2014/0031176) in view of Catamaran (GB 1,446,258).
With regards to claim 15, while Knopow et al. discloses a method of manufacturing an ambulation aid, the focus is on the molding of a polymer shell into which the foam is inserted, however, Catamaran teaches the method comprising: introducing a plurality of particles having entrapped air into a mold (injected with foam particles injected through 204); introducing steam (through pipes 206) into the mold to fuse the plurality of particles within the mold (Page 4, 1st column, lines 36-52); and applying pressure to fuse the plurality of particles (the combination of the vacuum, filling a void with polystyrene beads and providing heat causes the beads to expand and fill the void which in and of itself creates pressure within the mold.) into an ambulation aid panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed to have incorporated the teachings of Catamaran into the invention of Knopow et al. in order to provide strong structural panels for the ambulation aid.
With regards to claim 16, the combination of Knopow et al. and Catamaran teach the method of claim 15, further including applying a vacuum (via 188) to extract air from the mold.
With regards to claim 17, the combination of Knopow et al. and Catamaran teach the method of claim 15, further including cooling the ambulation aid panel in the mold (via 200).
With regards to claim 18, Knopow et al. disclose the method of claim 15, further including introducing an insert in the mold (Paragraph [0109]), and the combination of Knopow et al. and Catamaran teach wherein introducing steam and applying pressure fuse the plurality of particles into the ambulation aid panel including the insert.
With regards to claim 19, Knopow et al. discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the insert includes at least one of a reinforcement, an attachment point (T-slot track), or a hinge.
With regards to claim 20, Knopow et al. discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the ambulation aid panel includes one or more of a center panel (611), a left panel (612), or a right panel (613).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Supervisory Patent Examiner should be directed to JOHN R. OLSZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2706. The Supervisory Patent Examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am - 4:00pm.
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 Supervisory Patent Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Supervisory Patent Examiner’s supervisor, TC Director Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
JOHN R. OLSZEWSKI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617