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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4, 5 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Nowhere does the disclosure describe the element(s) that provide a condition wherein the platform is inclined by the hinge 16 when the platform is in an upward position.(See also claim 20.) The limitation at issue:
PNG
media_image1.png
96
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As the courts have made clear, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lifly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (hereinafter "Ariad"). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1562-63; Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.
Generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350; Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968(Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement"). In addition, the claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568). In other words, verbatim language in the specification does not qualify as supportive.
MPEP 2163 states that “"The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” In this case, Applicants disclosure is essentially a black box from which an outcome is claimed. The disclosure in the specification and drawings fails to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of the invention at the time of the filing of the instant application. Because the disclosure of the instant application fails adequately to describe the structure and functionality described above, it fails to clearly convey the information that the applicant has invented the subject matter which is claimed.
Applying the above legal principles to the facts of the case at hand, the examiner concludes that the Applicants' disclosure fails to sufficiently disclose possession at the time of invention. Paragraphs 147 & 152 on pages 33 & 35 of the specification describe inclining thusly:
[0147] The slope mode refers to a mode in which the platform 12 moves between the deployed position (see FIG. 9), the upward horizontal position (see FIG. 25), and the inclined position (see FIG. 27) by the actuator 62 of the hinge mechanism 16 in a state in which the platform 12 is fully deployed from the cavity of the case 11. Referring to FIG. 27, the inclined position refers to a position in which the platform 12 is inclined with respect to the case 11 at a predetermined angle.
[0152] When the step body 71 of the step device 17 moves to the extended position in the step mode, the safety cover 76 may move to the uncover position by the link mechanism 80. When the platform 12 moves to the downward horizontal position (see FIG. 26) in the lift mode or moves to the inclined position (see FIG. 27) in the slope mode, the step body 71 of the step device 17 may be in the retracted position to be overlapped with the leading portion of the platform 12, and accordingly the safety cover 76 may not be allowed to move to the uncover position by the actuator 75 and the link mechanism 80. When the platform 12 is in the downward horizontal position in the lift mode or is in the inclined position in the slope mode (that is, when the step body 71 contacts or is close to the ground), it may be necessary to move the safety cover 76 to the uncover position so as to facilitate the ingress and egress of various types of passengers.
Beyond repeating the language in claims 4 & 20 the disclosure fails to describe how hinge 16 can both raise and lower platform 12 while it remains horizontal AND raise and incline platform 12. The cited prior art discloses that spacing of the pivots will tilt a platform when extended by a hinge. (See below rejection of claim 4 and Fretwell US 5,556,250). Another possibility is the platform has thereon an actuator that pivots the platform relative to the hinge. Nowhere in the disclosure is there a description that a skilled artisan would understand that performs inclining the platform.
Accordingly, claims 4 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of depending from claim 4.
Applicant is reminded this is a written description rejection, not an enablement rejection. In other words, it is not what a skilled artisan knew, but what Applicant had in its position at the time of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 –
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3 & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fretwell (US 6,102,648).
With respect to claim 1, Fretwell discloses
a case 18 having a cavity defined therein;
a moving body 16 configured to move in the cavity of the case in a longitudinal direction of the case;
a platform 12, 13 configured to be stowed in and deployed from the cavity of the case by a movement of the moving body; and
a hinge mechanism comprising first lift bar 26, second lift bar 28, wherein a hinge mechanism is configured to pivotally connect the platform to a moving body.
With respect to claims 2 & 3, according to FIG. 1 Fretwell discloses-
the platform is configured to move between a downward horizontal position G and an upward horizontal position F by the hinge mechanism in a state in which the platform is fully deployed from the cavity of the case;
the downward horizontal position G refers to a position in which the platform is substantially horizontal below the case; and
the upward horizontal position F refers to a position in which a bottom wall of the platform is substantially horizontal above a bottom surface of the case.
With respect to claim 6, Fretwell discloses a ramp cover 34.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fretwell in view of Fretwell (US 5,556,250).
With respect to claim 4, Fretwell '648 discloses that an upward horizontal position F refers to a position in which a bottom wall of the platform is substantially horizontal above a bottom surface of the case. Fretwell '648 does not disclose a platform configured to move between an upward horizontal position and an inclined position by the hinge mechanism in a state in which the platform is fully deployed from the cavity of the case. Fretwell '250 discloses a platform configured to move between an upward horizontal (see FIG. 7) position and an inclined position (C6/L45-55) by a hinge mechanism 20, 20A in a state in which a platform is fully deployed from a cavity of a case M; and an inclined position refers to a position in which a platform is inclined with respect to a case at a predetermined angle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Fretwell '648 teaches that inclining a platform when platform is in an upward potion is a "safety feature" that accommodates "the natural gravitational wheelchair motion depending upon whether the platform is raised or lowered."
With respect to claim 5, the platform of Fretwell '648 has a range of motion surpassing a position in which the platform is aligned with a top surface of a case. According to MPEP 2144.05 "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists." Moreover, "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close." Regardless, since Fretwell's range includes placing a platform at an elevated position that is above the top surface of a case Fretwell discloses the ability to move a platform at an upward horizontal position that refers to a position in which a bottom wall of a platform is horizontally aligned with a top surface of a case since that position is within the range of motion that the platform of Fretwell '648 is capable of.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fretwell in view of Dupuy (US 7,306,422).
Fretwell discloses a ramp cover 34 having a first portion at a predetermined angle and does not disclose first and second portions and predetermined angles. Dupuy discloses a ramp cover having a first potion 72 at a first predetermined angle and a second portion 74 at a second preterminal angle. FIG. 1 discloses ramp cover 72, 74 at respective predetermined angles. Claim 4 does not further recite an amount of angle much less whether the angles of each portion have a particular degree relatively. Thus, both angles can be different or equal, and any position provides of the ramp cover provides a predetermined angle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Fretwell to include a ramp cover having a first portion at a predetermined angle and a second portion at a second predetermined angles, as taught by Dupuy, thereby providing dual function of an actuable safety barrier and a bridging structure for passage of a wheelchair when a platform is at an upward horizontal position.
Claim(s) 8, 9 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fretwell in view of Bristow (US 10,370,231).
Fretwell discloses
a case 18 having a cavity defined therein;
a moving body 16 configured to move in the cavity of the case in a longitudinal direction of the case;
a platform 12, 13 configured to be stowed in and deployed from the cavity of the case by a movement of the moving body; and,
a hinge mechanism 26, 28 comprising first lift bar 26, second lift bar 28, wherein a hinge mechanism is configured to pivotally connect the platform to a moving body.
Fretwell does explicitly disclose a hinge having a shaft, actuator and bracket.
Bristow discloses a hinge mechanism 11a, 11b configured to pivotally connect a platform 19, a hinge mechanism comprising:
a shaft 9 disposed between a body 7 and a platform;
an actuator 29a, 29b configured to rotate a shaft;
bracket 57a, 57b (FIG. 10); and
a first end of a first lift bar 55a and a first end of a second lift bar 55b are connected to a bracket assembly 57a, 57b; and
a second end of a first lift bar 57a and a second end of a second lift bar 57b are pivotally connected to a platform 19.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Fretwell to include a hinge having a shaft, actuator and bracket, as taught by Bristow, such that "with the load supported on the lift in its traveling position, the weight of the load is supported by the lift frame and not by the lifting forks."
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit