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.
Claims 21, 25-34, 36-39 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.
Claims 21, 25-30, 32-34, 36, 37, and 38 recite the limitations: "the predetermined downward movement, “the lower position,” “the upper position,” “the predetermined down movement,” “the first, second, and second control means,” “the downwardly directed path,” “the predetermined up and/or down and/or substantially horizontal movement,” “the fourth control member,” “the additional articulation,” “the predetermined downward movement,” “the coupling structure,” “the at least one additional articulation,” and “the additional section” (see claim 21, line 2; claim 25, lines 2 and 5; claim 26, line 6; claim 27, line 2; claim 29, line 1; claim 30, lines 5 and 6; claim 32, line 13; claim 33, lines 2 and 3; claim 36, line 4; claim 37, lines 3 and 14; claim 38, line 29) in claim 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 31 recites “a frame and an articulation” on line 4. In claim 1, “a frame,” “a first articulation,” and “a second articulation” are recited. It is unclear if the frame and the articulation recited in claim 31 are not the frame and articulation recited in claim 1.
Claim 39 recites the limitations “the predetermined downward movement,” “the at least one additional guide,” and “the additional articulation” (see currently examined claim 39, lines 6, 7) in claim 38. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir.1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum,
686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1, and 21-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 10, 13, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,049,742 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following:
Regarding claim 1 of the currently examined application:
The reference claim 1 and the examined application claim 1 include the following common features: “a frame with displacement means; a working arm connected to the frame and comprising at least a first and a second articulation which are hinged to each other, the working arm being pivotally connected to the frame; at least a first, second and third control device adapted to move the first and second articulation of the working arm and a tool, respectively, at a free end of the second articulation; a control system adapted to control the first, second and third control devices, wherein the control system is adapted to control the first, second and third control devices such that the free end of the second articulation follows a predetermined upward movement along an upwardly directed path and the tool remains in a lifting position, wherein the first, second and third control devices are driven simultaneously, wherein at least one of the working arm and the tool are provided with one or more supports and wherein the frame is provided with a guide for the one or more supports, wherein the guide is adapted to guide the movement of the at least one of the working arm and the tool during the predetermined upward movement.” The reference claim 1 does not include the following: “a sub-frame rotatably connected on the main frame; the working arm comprises a third articulation between the sub-frame and the first articulation, the third articulation being connected by means of pivot points with the first articulation and with the sub-frame.” However, the reference claim 10 includes the limitations of “the frame is rotatable on a mainframe via a pivot point.” The reference claim 17 includes the limitations of “the working arm comprises a third articulation between the sub-frame and the first articulation, the third articulation being connected by means of pivot points with the first articulation and with the frame.” The reference claim 13 includes the limitations of “the working arm and/or the tool are provided with one or more supports and that the frame is provided with a guide for the one or more supports, wherein the guide is adapted to guide the movement of the working arm and/or the tool during the predetermined upward movement.” These make the claims at issue are not identical, but at least claim 1 is not patentably distinct from the reference claims 1, 10, 13, and 17 because the currently examined claim 1 would have been obvious over the reference claims 1, 10, 13, and 17 of the patent No. ‘742 B2.
Regarding claim 38 of the currently examined application:
The reference claim 1 and the examined application claim 38 include the following common features: “a frame with displacement means;
a working arm connected to the frame and comprising at least a first and a second articulation which are hinged to each other, the working arm being pivotally connected to the frame; at least a first, second and third control device adapted to move the first and second articulation of the working arm and a tool, respectively, at a free end of the second articulation; a control system adapted to control the first, second and third control devices; wherein the control system is adapted to control the first, second and third control devices such that the free end of the second articulation follows a predetermined upward movement and the tool remains in a lifting position, wherein the first, second and third control devices are driven simultaneously.” The reference claim 1 does not include the features of “wherein a coupling structure is provided between the end of the second articulation and the tool, and that the third control member is coupled to the coupling structure or to the tool, and wherein the control system is further adapted to control the additional control member during the movement of the tool or the coupling structure; and/or wherein the control system is further adapted to control the additional control element: during the movement of the first articulation, so that the end of the second articulation can reach a greater height; and/or so that the end of the second articulation can extend further from the frame; and/or such that movement over a pivot point between the frame and the additional articulation is blocked as soon as the additional articulation moves into a reclined position; and/or such that movement over a pivot point between a main frame and the frame is blocked as soon as the additional articulation moves into a reclined position; and/or such that the additional section is blocked in an extremely backward position.” However, the reference claims 2, and 18 include the missing features from the reference claim 1. These make the claim at issue are not identical, but at least claim 38 is not patentably distinct from the reference claims 1, 2, and 18 because the currently examined claim 1 would have been obvious over the reference claims 1, 2, and 18 of the patent No. ‘742 B2.
The subject matter claimed in the currently examined application would have been obvious in view of the subject matter claimed in the cited patent.
For at least the reasons set forth above, the examined application claims 1, and 21-39 would have been obvious over the reference claims 1, 2, 10, 13, 17, and 18 of the cited patent No. ‘742 B2.
Response to Amendment
As previously discussed, the U.S. patent application publication No. US 2018/0163364 A1 by Huissoon is the most relevant prior art of record. However, Huissoon is quite silent regarding the features now presented in claims 1 and 38. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is now withdrawn.
The current application cannot be set in a condition since the previous claim 1 and the new claims 21-39 are rejected under the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. Claims 21, 25-34, 36-39 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusions
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P Burgess, can be reached on (571) 272-6011.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661