Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a first office action on the merits for application serail number 18/779,159 filed 7/22/24. Claims 1-10 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 5/23/24. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “paragraphs” [19-38] are actually sentences, not paragraphs. They should end with a period “.” rather than a semi-colon “;” or “; and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to because:
The view numbers must be larger than the refence numbers (37 CFR. 1.84(u)(2)); and
There is not a margin of at least one inch between the figures and the header with the docket number (37 CFR 1.84(g))
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.
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 base plate provided with ramp portion [cl.9] and an extending plate [cl.10] 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.
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 9 and 10 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.
In each of the claims “the base plate” lacks antecedent basis. Note the base plate is not introduced until claim 2. It appears applicant may have intended to recite that the seat plate is provided with the ramp portion [cl.9] and an extending portion [cl.10].
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 19701591 A1 to Janish.
Janish provides an electric lift device, comprising:
a seat assembly; a folding assembly (scissor frame of Fig.1); an electric push rod assembly 20 and electric motor 32; and a clamping assembly -saddle 24; wherein the seat assembly comprises a seat plate 14 and a backrest 18; the backrest is rotatably connected to the seat plate at 34/36; the folding assembly is configured to support the seat assembly; the electric push rod assembly comprises a main body and a push rod (fig.1); the push rod is partially provided within the main body; the main body is provided at the backrest; the push rod is provided with a push rod head (bottom of rod 20); the push rod head is removably provided at the folding assembly (Fig.4); the push rod is configured to extend and retract along an axial direction of the main body, such that the main body drives the folding assembly to become unfolded or folded, so as to drive the seat assembly to ascend or descend; and the clamping assembly is configured to limit the push rod head (Fig.3) to the folding assembly or to release the push rod head from the folding assembly, so as to achieve a removable arrangement of the push rod head relative to the folding assembly (fig.4) and translation.
With respect to claim 2 the folding assembly comprises a base plate 12 and a crisscross arm mechanism (scissor frame of fig.1); the crisscross arm mechanism is provided at the base plate 12; and the crisscross arm mechanism is configured to support the seat plate 14.
With respect to claim 3, as show in Fig 1, the crisscross arm mechanism comprises a first connecting arm and a second connecting arm hinged to each other; the first connecting arm is provided with a first hinged end and a first sliding end; the first hinged end is hinged to the base plate; the first sliding end is slidably provided at a bottom of the seat plate; the second connecting arm is provided with a second hinged end and a second sliding end; the second hinged end is hinged to the bottom of the seat plate; the second sliding end is slidably provided at the base plate; and the push rod is configured to extend along the axial direction of the main body to drive the first sliding end to move away from the second hinged end and drive the second sliding end to move away from the first hinged end, so as to unfold the folding assembly; and the push rod is also configured to retract along the axial direction of the main body to drive the first sliding end to move close to the second hinged end and drive the second sliding end to move close to the first hinged end, so as to fold the folding assembly.
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “plastic” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Note no clamp is required in the clamping assembly of claim 1, the clamping part is not introduced until claim 4.
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.
Claims 8-10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 19701591 A1 to Janish in view of U.S. 2021/0186785 to Smith.
Janish provides each as the elements of the claims as noted above except for the suction cups of claim 8, the ramp of claim 9 and the lateral extension of claim 10.
Smith provides a bath lift device where the base is provided with suction cups 32 for attaching to the bottom of a bath tub, a ramp at the front of the seat plate (fig 3) and lateral extensions 41/45.
It would have been obvious at the time of the effective filing date of the invention that the seat assembly of Janish could have included the ramp and extension plates of Smith to provide a contoured front edge for comfort of the user and lateral supports to be placed over the lip of the4 tub to provide support as taught by Smith.
It would have been obvious to provide the base plate of Janish with suction cups as taught by Smith to attach the bottom of a bathtub.
Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have combined the elements at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art of providing a comfortable seat which may be attached to and supported by a bathtub.
Also note that if applicant positively recites any of the elements of the device are plastic that the second paragraph of column 4 of Smith recites:
“All components of the present invention are contemplated to be comprised of rigid, rust resilient materials. For ease of use, in one embodiment, the present invention is constructed of sturdy lightweight recyclable plastic”.
Claims 4-7 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note:
U.S. Patent 5,978,984 to Gobbers et al. provides a driving mechanism for raising a lowering a seat 1 with pivoted backrest 4 and a biased pawl and latching lever 6.1 for latching the lower end of rod 5.1 which is provide with a journal or head 6.4.
U.S. Patent 5,708,922 to Gobbers et al. provides locking or clamping mechanism.
U.S. 2003/0172452 to and its family of patent documents provide a head 27 at the lower end of rod 25. The spindle foot 27 is supported with its tip at a base 45 of the spindle foot receptacle 28, which is formed in the floor stand 1. The spindle foot receptacle 28 comprises a contact plate 46 with a recess 47 for the spindle foot 27. The contact plate 46 is disposed at a distance from the base 45 and covers the spindle foot receptacle 28. The spindle foot 27 has an annular shoulder 48, the diameter of which is larger than the diameter of the recess 47.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636