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 § 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 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to Aitchison (US 2018/0193210) – sited in IDS and in view of Houtveen (US 2010/0054900).
It has been noted that, a claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and the prior art are "such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art." 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2000); KSRInt'lr. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007); Graham v.John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1966).
In Graham, the Court held that that the obviousness analysis is bottomed on several basic factual inquiries: "[(1)] the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; [(2)] differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and [(3)] the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved." 383 U.S. at 17. See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more; than yield predictable results." KSR, at 1739.
"When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or in a different one. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." Id. at 1740.
"For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." Id.
"Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." Id. 11742.
As per claim 1, Aitchison teaches an accessible vehicle (24a) having a door opening with a door comprising: a lifting device (24a) having a PMD receiving portion configured to receive a PMD (Figs. 3-6), the PMD receiving portion being movable from a stow position at an interior of the vehicle through the door opening to a deployed position at an exterior of the vehicle; a seating (10) system with a passenger seat, the passenger seat being moveable from a stow position at an interior of the vehicle through the door opening to a deployed position at the exterior of the vehicle.
However, Aitchison does not expressly teach wherein the passenger seat in the deployed position is disposed adjacent the PMD receiving portion in the deployed position whereby a passenger may transfer from the PMD to the passenger seat. Nonetheless, Houtveen discloses a module for lifting a wheelchair (PMD) into and out of a vehicle, the vehicle having a vehicle body, a seat region, a movably connected door closing the seat region, and a vehicle longitudinal axis (para 0034). Wherein, the passenger seat in the deployed position (extendable lift assembly (see e.g., figure 6) ) is disposed adjacent the PMD receiving portion in the deployed position whereby a passenger may transfer from the PMD (movable between a stowed position any position where 6a is inside vehicle to the passenger seat. ) While Houtveen does not specifically discuss a PDM loading a wheelchair it is readily capable of doing so and thus meets this language of the claim as it represents an intended use.
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 teachings of Aitchison with Houtveen; because Houtveen wheelchair included a passenger side wheelchair support disposed in the passenger side front seat region of the vehicle; wherein the control system is configured to independently operate the driver side extendable lift assembly and the passenger side extendable lift assembly to separately or simultaneously move the driver side wheelchair support and the passenger side wheelchair support between their respective stowed positions and their respective deployed positions because doing so merely entails duplicating parts see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. The placement of the lifts and the implementation of the control system would be routine to provide control of both lifts and final location of the load/passenger to be loaded/unloaded.([0034], Houtveen)
As per claim 2, Aitchison with Houtveen teaches having a computing system configured to sequence the operation of the lifting device and the operation of the seating system to prevent the passenger seat from hitting the PMD receiving portion when deploying the PMD receiving portion and the passenger seat at a pickup location. (Aitchson, [0030-0037), Figs.3-6)
As per claim 10, Aitchison with Houtveen having a computing system configured to sequence the operation of the lifting device and the operation of the seating system to prevent the passenger and the passenger seat from hitting the PMD and the PMD receiving portion when deploying the PMD receiving portion and the passenger seat at a drop off location. (Houtveen, Fig. 6, [0034])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 11-19 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.
RELEVENT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and relied upon is citied to establish the level of skill in the applicant's art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c). 3. Schlangen (US 7,284,944) teaches driver side lifting gate (col. 5, lines 45-65)
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R.I .Hi(c). In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMARA R PEYTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4157. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, EST M-F. 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, Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAMMARA R PEYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184 April 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights