DETAILED ACTION
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 1, 2, 4-8 is 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 1 has been amended to add functional and/or conditional limitations to the claim. However, the manner in which these limitations are introduced create several issues and conflicts. First, according to the preamble, the invention is drawn to a removable section of a fixed rail. The functional and/or conditional statement seemingly relies on the need of the cot loading and unloading system and the carriage to be positively claimed. This contradicts the preamble and focus of the claims. Thus, it is unclear if Applicant is now attempting to positively claim the combination instead of simply the removable section as implied by the preamble.
In addition, the limitation themselves are inaccurate since the removable section alone is not solely responsible for placing the entire system into a manual mode. This recitation is inaccurate and quite possibly introduces new matter since the scope appears to require that only removal of the removable section is responsible for the manual mode. However, from reading through Applicant’s specification paragraphs 86-95, it is clear that there is more structure and steps involved in placing the system into a manual mode. Among other things, there are switches and buttons that need to be pressed and support beams that need to be moved. It is not simply removal of a removable section. Thus it is unclear how this structure is solely responsible for the function/condition and as best understood, any prior art having a removable section should be capable of providing functionality that reads on the limitations as written.
If the focus of the claims is drawn to the removable section, it is important to focus on this section per se. If the claim is intended to cover the system as a whole, then it is recommended to change the entire preamble accordingly.
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) 1, 4, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Braun et al. (USP 11077000).
Regarding claim 1, Braun et al. discloses a removable section (10) of a fixed rail (16) for a cot loading and unloading system, the removable section comprising:
a first side (left side of 10 as partially seen in fig 1);
a second side (right side of 10 as partially seen in fig. 1), wherein each of the first side and the second side define a track (outside track 24b, seen in part in fig.3) for wheels of a carriage operable to translate on the fixed rail and the removable section; and
at least one fastening mechanism (the screws and bolts that are part of the stop 50 could read on this since removing them would allow the full detachment of 10 from the rail) for removably attaching the removable section to an end roller support section of the fixed rail; wherein removal of the removable section puts the cot loading and unloading system into a manual mode, whereby the carriage is operable to translate on the fixed rail after removal of the removable section (as best understood, removing the removable section still allows the carriage to translate and allows a manual mode to occur where a user could push the carriage at the very least during a maintenance operation or not normal operation).
Regarding claim 4, Braun et al. discloses the removable section of claim 1, wherein the first side comprises a first extension arm (arms 30 and/or sections of 24m and 22m having tracks on the left could read on this) and a second extension arm (arms 30 and/or sections of 24m and 22m having tracks on the right could read on this) operable to receive wheels of the carriage.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (USP 11077000) in view of Akers, Jr (USP 11896535).
Regarding claim 5, Braun et al. fails to disclose the removable section of claim 1, wherein the track comprises a rack member on at least one of the first side and the second side.
Akers, Jr. teaches the concept of providing a track with a rack member (Fig.1b, 27) on at least one of the sides in order to provide the purpose of allowing automatic actuation of the carriage riding on the track.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the track in Braun to make use of the rack member as taught by Akers, Jr. in order to provide a powered variation of the carriage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. It is noted that the new recitations add 112 b issues as detailed above. As a result of the 112b issues, it is noted that as best understood, Braun still reads on the claim. Further the language added seems to attempt to add in functionality which arguably is not accurately described or explicitly restricted to the removable section. In addition, given the recitations’ broadest and reasonable interpretation, Braun would still read on it since even if the removable section is removed it is still capable of operating in a manual mode or without power assist even if it is during a maintenance operation.
It is important to note that there is no explicit definition for the manual mode per se and as best understood, when read in light of the specification it amounts to any situation in which the carriage can be moved manually or by the user. The arguments appear to be reading in a lot of definition into the wording and also paraphrasing the actual functions and structure involved in what places their system into “manual mode”. The lack of clarity is further compounded by the particular claim set being directed solely to the removable section per se. It is difficult to focus on a specific sub component of invention and then seemingly require elements of the combination to define it’s patentability since it therefore raises the question, what is actually being claimed or being positively required. As mentioned above, it is recommended to focus on the structure pertaining to the removable section.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6-8 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.
Claims 9-20 allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights