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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Handles 400, 420 unlock cradle assembly 300 which is supported by the specification (paras. 59, 64). However, the specification does not describe the first and second handles 400, 420 has unlocking or otherwise interacting with the counterbalance assembly 200.
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.
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(s) 1, 2, 3 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shea (US 4,021,070) in view of Kim (US 7,192,391).
With respect to claims 1, 3 & 5, Shea discloses a lift system for an oxygen bottle, comprising:
a frame 12;
a counterbalance assembly, a counterbalance assembly is configured to move relative to a frame, a counterbalance assembly comprising a first biasing device 22 and second biasing device 24;
a cradle assembly 14 configured to support an oxygen bottle 10, and a cradle assembly is affixed to a counterbalance assembly.
Shea discloses that first and second biasing devices are connected to frame 12 via respective eyes 22.1, 22.2. Kim discloses that "although different numbers of springs or other elastically deformable elements can be used to provide the variable resistance, springs and bungie cords, for example, have to be hooked up and unhooked to change the amount of resistance desired. Springs not in use have to be parked out of the way, and the hooking and unhooking of tension springs is time consuming and inconvenient." In other words, Kim teaches that is common practice to attach and detaching springs or variations thereof to adjust the amount of tension exerted. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Shea to provide first and second biasing devices that are each configured to selectively connect and disconnect from a frame, as taught by Kim, where it is well known in the art of spring-applied tension to selectively connect and disconnect springs in various combinations to vary the tension.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shea in view of Kim and further in view of Ziaylek (US 6,883,766).
Shea does not disclose a lift system that is adjustable to lift and lower oxygen bottles of different weight or diameter. Ziaylek discloses a lift system that includes brackets 34, 34 that can accommodate different diameters of bottle due to adjustability from gripping narrower diameter bottles (solid lines in FIG. 3) to wider diameter bottles (dotted lines in FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Shea to include a lift system that is adjustable to lift and lower oxygen bottles of different weight or diameter, as taught by Ziaylek, which improves on the ability of securing tanks, e.g. bottles, by producing less stress on the mechanisms by which the securing brackets clamp and unclamp.
Claim(s) 8 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shea in view of Kim and further in view of Miller (US 3,490,727).
Shea does not disclose a rotary latch that secures a cradle assembly to a frame. Miller discloses a rotary latch 22, 52 with a handle 22 that is spring loaded by spring 61. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Shea to include a rotary latch with a biased handle that secures a cradle assembly to a frame, as taught by Miller, to include "locking means for maintaining the mounting structure at any desired vertical position along the arcuate path, and means accessible to the human upon whom the load is placed for releasing the clamping means and, consequently, the load once it is correctly placed on the human's back."
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shea in view of Kim and further in view of Lackore (US 10,682,537) which discloses a frame 26 which engages door 22 of cabinet (indicated generally as 20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Shea to provide a frame that engages a door of a cabinet, as taught by Lackore, wherein any chemicals that off-gas from the bottle or tank are contained in their own compartment separate from the interior of the cabin of the emergency vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-24 are allowed. And, claims 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17 & 18 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 examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights