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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the "platform" must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The limitation “handrail comprises a handle affixed to the housing” recited in claims 15-16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the limitation "platform" recited in the claims is not recited in the disclosure and should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification.
The disclosure is objected to for failing to clearly define the structure and function of the subject matter set forth in claims 13-16 because, in light of the specification (¶ [0080]- [0082]), the disclosure does not define how far the handrail extends beyond the front edge of a platform and does not define the handrail as comprising a handle.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-16 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "platform" in line 6. In light of the specification, which is silent on the invention comprising an element designated or defined as a platform, it is unclear how a platform is incorporated to the apparatus.
Claims 3-16, being dependent upon an indefinite claim in the above rejection(s), is/are also indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-9 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Powell Sr (US 2015/0351985), as best understood.
Claim 2- Powell Sr discloses a human lift apparatus, comprising: a substantially vertical guide rail (106); a carriage (104) positioned to be moved up and down along the guide rail; a drive mechanism (112) coupled to the carriage and configured to move the carriage at a controlled rate along the guide rail; a platform coupled mechanically to the carriage (via the seat 102, which includes a sitting surface that encompasses the limitation “platform”) in a manner that allows a human subject to stand on the platform (¶ [0022] discloses the seat is capable of supporting 300-600 lbs.); and extended handrails (116a, 116b) that provide increased safety and stability for the human subject.
Claim 3- Powell Sr discloses the human lift apparatus of claim 2, wherein the extended handrails are removable (¶ 25).
Claim 4- Powell Sr discloses the human lift apparatus of claim 2, wherein the extended handrails (716a, 716b) extend upward and outward from the carriage (fig. 7A shows the armrests are structured to extend upward along the carriage 704 and laterally outward from the edges thereof).
Claim 6- Powell Sr discloses the human lift apparatus of claim 2, wherein the drive mechanism (112) is further configured to provide adjustable lift-height-stop points between 10 and 30 inches (¶ 53).
Claim 7- Powell Sr discloses the human lift apparatus of claim 2, wherein the drive mechanism (112) is further configured to lower the platform to a ground height (¶ 27-28, 30).
Claim 8- Powell Sr discloses the human lift apparatus of claim 2, wherein the drive mechanism is further configured to raise the platform to a height that enables the human subject to move into a seated position (¶ 26-28) on at least one of the following (¶ 5, 40): a medical examination bed, a medical treatment bed, a medical examination bench, a medical treatment bench, a bench comprising a medical diagnostic equipment, a bench comprising a medical treatment equipment, and an MRI.
Claim 9- Powell Sr discloses the human lift apparatus of claim 2, wherein the platform is constructed at least in part of a substantially rigid material (¶ 22), having a size and shape suitable to accommodate a standing human occupant (¶ 27 discloses structure capable of carrying a child in a standing posture).
Claim 15- Powell Sr discloses the human lift apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a handle (842) affixed to the housing of the drive mechanism (fig. 8A).
Claim 16- Powell Sr discloses the human lift apparatus of claim 15, wherein the handle is additionally used to move the human lift apparatus (¶ 46-47).
Claim(s) 2 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komura (US 2003/0011228).
Claim 2- Komura discloses a human lift apparatus, comprising: a substantially vertical guide rail (38); a carriage (28) positioned to be moved up and down along the guide rail (¶ 35); a drive mechanism (M) coupled to the carriage and configured to move the carriage at a controlled rate (“elevated stably”) along the guide rail (¶ 41); a platform (the structural configuration of the seat main body 7 encompasses the limitation “platform”) coupled mechanically to the carriage (fig. 4) in a manner that allows a human subject to stand on the platform (the seat main body 7, being configured to support the weight of a seated user, is capable of supporting a standing user in its horizontal state, fig. 4); and extended handrails (20, 20) that provide increased safety and stability for the human subject.
Claim 10- Komura discloses the human lift apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a platform locking mechanism (provided by oscillation mechanism N) that prevents the platform from tilting. Komura explains that the elements of an oscillation mechanism (N) function to keep the platform (7) horizontal and prevent tilting until the platform is elevated to a predetermined height for allowing tilting (¶ 42-43, 46).
Claim 11- Komura discloses the human lift apparatus of claim 10, wherein the platform locking mechanism comprises a mechanical platform lock (44, elongated hole- not designated). Komura explains that the spring (44) biases the translating pulley (46) toward a forward position along an elongated hole (not designated, fig. 4), which keeps the platform (7) in a horizontal position within a predetermined elevation range and thereby prevents tilting within said range (¶ 44-45).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell Sr (US 2015/0351985) in view of Green (US 2013/0020779).
Claim 5- Powell Sr discloses the human lift apparatus of claim 2, wherein the extended handrails (716a, 716b) extend upward and outward from the carriage (fig. 7A) and bend around to run alongside the platform (the figure shows a framework that extends upward along the opposed edges of the carriage 704 and extends laterally outward therefrom to bend at the lateral ends of the seat 702 and then extend parallel to said ends).
The difference between Powell Sr and the instant claim is Powell Sr does not teach the extended handrails configured to extend forward of a front edge of the platform.
Green discloses a human lift apparatus comprising: an upwardly extending guide rail (provided by frame tubes 122, 124, ¶ 37), a carriage (424, 422) movable along the rail, a drive mechanism (158, 162, 164) coupled to the carriage (fig. 10, ¶ 40), a platform (encompassed by seat pan 134, which carries seat cushion 136) coupled to the carriage, and extended handrails (154, 154) capable of providing increased safety and stability; wherein the extended handrails are configured such that they extend forward of a front edge of the platform (fig. 9). Green teaches providing the extended handrails as an obvious support element of the apparatus (Abstract, ¶ 39), wherein one of the handrails is suitable for housing a control element (156).
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 apparatus of Powell Sr with handrails that extend beyond the front of the platform, as taught by Green, in order to provide an additional support element for a user.
Claims 13-14- Powell Sr discloses the human lift apparatus of claim 2, wherein the extended handrails (716a, 716b) extend outward from the carriage (fig. 7A) into a parallel orientation with the lateral ends of the seat (702).
The difference between Powell Sr and the instant claim is Powell Sr does not teach wherein the handrail extends approximately four inches beyond the front edge of the platform, or at least four inches beyond the front edge of the platform.
Green discloses a human lift apparatus comprising: an upwardly extending guide rail (provided by frame tubes 122, 124, ¶ 37), a carriage (424, 422) movable along the rail, a drive mechanism (158, 162, 164) coupled to the carriage (fig. 10, ¶ 40), a platform (encompassed by seat pan 134, which carries seat cushion 136) coupled to the carriage, and extended handrails (154, 154) capable of providing increased safety and stability; wherein the extended handrails are configured such that they extend forward of a front edge of the platform (fig. 9).
Green teaches providing the extended handrails as an obvious support element of the apparatus (Abstract, ¶ 39), wherein one of the handrails is suitable for housing a control element (156).
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 apparatus of Powell Sr with handrails that extend beyond the front of the platform, as taught by Green, in order to provide an additional support element for a user.
While Green does not teach the specific length of the handrail that extends beyond the front edge of the platform, the specific length is considered a matter of design choice because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a forward length suitable for providing a balanced hand support for an occupant exiting the apparatus from a standing position. Since selecting a suitable length involves only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to configure the length of the handrails to extend approximately four inches or more beyond the front of the platform because the selection would have yielded the predictable result of providing the apparatus with an additional support element for a user.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komura (US 2003/0011228).
Claim 12- Komura discloses the human lift apparatus of claim 10, wherein the platform locking mechanism comprises the translating pulley (46), including the flexible member (39), that is configured to translate along the elongated hole (¶ 44).
Komura does not explicitly disclose that the platform locking mechanism comprises a sliding shaft or pin. However, Komura discloses a movable pulley (62) in another embodiment of the invention (figs. 15-16) that comprises a shaft or pin (not designated, fig. 16); and it is well-known in the art of simple machines that a pulley conventionally comprises a type of wheel, a type of axle, and a type of rope.
Accordingly, Komura teaches that the translating pulley (46) of the locking mechanism would include a shaft or pin. Therefore, Komura teaches that the platform locking mechanism would comprise a sliding shaft or pin (provided by the shaft or pin of the translating pulley 46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2635. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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, DAVID DUNN can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
/T.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636