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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites “a cogwheel”. It is not clear how this cogwheel is one of the pair of cogwheels recited in claim 1 or if this is an additional cogwheel. If additional, it is recommended that a descriptor be added to the term to ensure clarity.
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, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trenoras et al (FR3106492).
In reference to claim 1, Trenoras teaches a parking device (figure 7) for a motorized self-balancing wheelchair (intended use), wherein the device is connected to a base (11) of the self-balancing wheelchair by means of a pair of leverages (57, 55, 58), wherein each of the leverages is connected, by means of a proximal lever (58), to a shared gear (53) that can be driven by means of a gearmotor assembly (50, note that this is written with the language “can be driven” and therefor the motor is not necessary for this portion of the claim) that in turn is constrained to one of the aforesaid leverages, each of the proximal levers being articulated to a respective distal lever (57, 58), wherein each of the distal levers is guided along a respective guide, wherein the guide is constrained to the base of the wheelchair and has a respective supporting foot (62) for supporting on the ground, wherein the shared gear has a pair of cogwheels meshing with one another, wherein each of the cogwheels is integral to a respective proximal lever of the leverages and has its own rotation axis, in such a way that the operation of the gearmotor assembly puts the pair of cogwheels in simultaneous rotation to drive the leverages up or down.
In reference to claim 8, Trenoras teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the aforesaid supporting feet (62) to be supported on the ground are articulated with respect to the corresponding distal levers (note pivots on the feet), such as to provide a better support on the ground to the parking device.
In reference to claim 10, Trenoras teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the gearmotor assembly (50') can be driven electrically. Please note that can be is treated broadly. Even if positively recited, this feature would not yield patentability.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trenoras et al (FR3106492) in view of Couch et al (1923190).
Trenoras does not teach guides fixed to the base for the levers.
Couch teaches a ground engaging brake with a lever-like device (6) with guides (13, 13’) providing as a guide for the levers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the brake device of Trenoras with lever guides as taught by Couch in order to securely guide Trenoras levers and to add rigidity to the brake device as would be readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9 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 DEVON C KRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7118. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7AM-4PM; Friday Mornings.
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.
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.
DEVON C. KRAMER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3746
/DEVON C KRAMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights