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 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.
Claim16 and 18-20 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 16 is claimed to depend on claim 16, examiner will examine under the assumption that it is dependent on claim 15.
Claims 18-20 recites the limitation "leg element" in claims 18-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 11-16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20080238032 A1 ("Ishikawa").
Claim 11: Ishikawa teaches a footrest apparatus for a tilting vehicle arrangeable on a vehicle component (6) of the tilting vehicle, comprising: at least one receiving unit (16) arranged in or on the vehicle component (para. 26, lines 7-10) and comprising at least one opening (18), through which opening the receiving unit is accessible from outside (Figs. 2 and 3); at least one footrest (7) transferable from a support position, in which a foot of a user of the tilting vehicle is supportable on the footrest (Fig. 2; support position is when 7 is folded out to support leg), into a storage position (Fig. 3 is when 7 is being folded into 16), in which the footrest is pushed entirely or at least partially through the opening into the receiving unit so as to be arranged in the receiving unit completely or at least with a region which is larger than in the support position (para. 27, lines 6-9; Figs. 2 and 3).
Claim 12: Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Ishikawa further teaches the footrest apparatus, wherein the at least one footrest (7) comprises a leg element (12) arranged such that an engage-behind portion is located in the receiving unit in the storage position and in the support position (Fig. 2), and the at least one footrest further comprises a support element (13) arranged at an end of the leg element which faces away from the engage-behind portion and, at least in the support position (Fig. 2), extends obliquely with respect to the leg element and on which the foot of the user of the tilting vehicle is supportable in the support position (para. 32, lines 1-7).
Claim 13: Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Ishikawa further teaches the footrest apparatus, wherein the leg element (12) and the support element (13) of the footrest (7) form an integral, common component (para. 31, lines 3-5; Fig. 2).
Claim 14: Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Ishikawa further teaches the footrest apparatus, wherein the support element (13) is arranged on the leg element (12) immovably relative to the leg element and positionally fixed (para. 31, lines 3-5; Fig. 2), into a folding position, in which a free end of the support element is moved in the direction of the leg element with respect to the support position (Fig. 3).
Claim 15: Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Ishikawa further teaches the footrest apparatus, wherein the receiving unit (16) comprises a wedge-shaped contact portion which is adjacent to the opening (18) and on a first surface of which the leg element lies with its engage-behind portion in the support position so as to form an engagement from behind with respect to the opening and, on a second surface of which, that is adjacent to the first surface, the leg element lies extensively at least in sections in the support position (Fig. 4).
Claim 16: Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Ishikawa further teaches the footrest apparatus, wherein the receiving unit (16) comprises a stop portion (stepped part of 2; Fig. 4) which is arranged on a side of the opening lying opposite the wedge-shaped contact portion and on which the leg element lies extensively or linearly in the support position (para. 29, lines 1-6).
Claim 21: Ishikawa teaches the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Ishikawa further teaches the footrest apparatus, further comprising: at least one mechanically (2; Fig. 4) or magnetically effective securing device by which the at least one footrest (7) is secured releasably against moving in the storage position, wherein the at least one footrest is released from being secured when a retaining force of the securing device is exceeded, and is transferred into the support position (para. 37, lines 14-21).
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.
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.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080238032 A1 ("Ishikawa") in view of US 5997023 A ("Sauter").
Claim 18: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Ishikawa does not teach the footrest apparatus, wherein the leg element of the at least one footrest comprises a solid profile or a hollow profile.
However, Sauter in a similar field of art teaches the footrest apparatus, wherein the leg element (12) of the at least one footrest comprises a solid profile or a hollow profile (hollow outer wall 439 a and b; Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Ishikawa with the features of Sauter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Sauter teaches a hollow profile can be use to accommodate "folding foot pegs or foot pegs that can be expanded from a telescoped position to an extended position." (col. 1, lines 38-40)
Claim 20: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. Sauter further teaches the footrest apparatus, wherein the leg element comprising the hollow profile comprises at least two leg portions (439 a and b, 437 a and b) which are telescopic one inside the other (outer wall 439, inner wall 437), wherein the leg element comprises its longest extent in the support position and its shortest extent in the storage position (Fig. 4, leg for "a" components on left show storage position while for "b" components on right show support position).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim17 and 19 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the references, either alone or in combination, disclose all of the limitations of the claims. Specifically, with regard to dependent claim
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights