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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 13, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,857,047. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the structure of the present application claims are taught by the previously patented claims.
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, 4, and 6 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 claim 2, line 4, reference to an “occupied state” when the track assembly is in a storage position is unclear in view of applicant’s detailed disclosure. In applicant’s disclosure, it appears that the apparatus is occupied by a user or cargo when the track assembly is in both the storage position and the deployed position so it is not clear what is meant by the storage position in particular corresponding to an occupied state.
In claim 6, lines 5-6, applicant claims that the slip is determined based on a difference between q desired speed of the track and an actual speed of the track, which does not appear to correspond to the slip detection described in the specification. Therefore, the description of the slip condition appears to be inaccurate.
In claim 12, line 4, it appears that “stat” should be -state-.
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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (USPN 5, 577, 567).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches a patient transfer apparatus comprising: a frame 57 (Figure 46); a seat assembly 65 coupled to the frame; a track assembly 116 supported for pivoting movement relative to the frame, the track assembly including a moveable track 1 and a motor 102 configured to drive the track for traversing stairs in an ascending direction and in a descending direction opposite the ascending direction; a sensor (base unit pitch sensor 88A and cargo platform roll sensor 68; col. 12, lines 10-15) configured to detect an operating state (pitch and roll) of the patient transfer apparatus; and a control system (logic control circuit 32) including a controller configured to control the motor 102 and to adjust a track speed of the patient transfer apparatus based on the operating state of the patient transfer apparatus detected with the sensor (col. 12, lines 16-23; col. 14, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson teaches the control system 32 further includes an operator interface 110 (col. 14, lines 27-33) configured to receive an input from an operator indicative of a desired speed of the patient transfer apparatus; and wherein the controller (motor controllers 11 of controller 32) is further configured to receive the input from the operator interface and operate the motor at the track speed based on the desired speed.
Regarding claim 7, Johnson teaches the track speed of the patient transfer apparatus is further defined as a maximum allowable speed (col. 12, lines 10-23); and wherein the controller is further configured to operate the motor such that the patient transfer apparatus moves at the maximum allowable speed when the desired speed is greater than the maximum allowable speed (a maximum allowable speed is set that the user interface cannot override), and at the desired speed when the desired speed is less than or equal to the maximum allowable speed (user interface requested speed is achieved below the maximum allowable speed).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson teaches the sensor is configured to detect the stairs to define the operating state as a stair traversal state (ultrasound sensors 90-95 detect stairs/surfaces to be climbed or descended and set the controls in a transition mode; col. 13, line 61 through col. 14, line 12).
Regarding claim 18, Johnson teaches a sensor (pitch and roll sensors 67, 68) is further configured to detect a condition of the stairs during operation in the stair traversal state (col. 13, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 19, Johnson teaches traversing up and down stairways and using ultra-sonic sensors to continuously monitor ahead and behind such that it will detect a transition between the stairs and a landing; and wherein the sensor is configured to measure a distance between the stairs and the landing (col. 13, lines 46-54, the ultra-sonic sensors determine distances to upcoming structures, as in the stairs being traversed and the landing that is being approached).
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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negishi (USPN 7,347,426) in view of Johnson.
Regarding claim 1, Negishi teaches a patient transfer apparatus comprising: a frame 20; a seat assembly K coupled to the frame; a track assembly 3 supported for pivoting movement relative to the frame, the track assembly including a moveable track 36 and a motor 31 configured to drive the track for traversing stairs in an ascending direction and in a descending direction opposite the ascending direction; a sensor 51, 52, configured to detect an operating state of the patient transfer apparatus; and a control system (drive control).
Negishi is silent regarding the operation of the controller.
Johnson teaches all of the claimed structure including a controller (logic control circuit 32) configured to control the motor and to adjust a track speed of the patient transfer apparatus based on the operating state of the patient transfer apparatus detected with a sensor (see above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the speed of the Negishi apparatus based on the operating state of the transfer apparatus detected with a sensor, as taught by Johnson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent excessive speed on stairways that could endanger the user.
Regarding claim 2, Negishi teaches a sensor configured to determine movement of the track assembly between: a storage position arranged adjacent to the seat assembly to define the operating state as an occupied state, and a deployed position arranged pivoted away from the seat assembly to define the operating state as a deployed state (Negishi detects the angle of the seat relative to the track using sensor 52 to determine the operating state of the apparatus).
Regarding claim 3, the controller of Negishi is further configured to determine a track angle of the track assembly relative to a vertical axis to define the deployed state (inclination sensor 51).
Regarding claim 4, the controller of the combination is further configured to at least partially limit the track speed of the track based on the track angle during operation in the deployed state (Johnson teaches limiting track speed during transition).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Coulter et al. (PGPub 2017/0259811).
Johnson lacks a sensor is configured to determine an actual speed of the track; and wherein the controller is further configured to: detect slip occurring between the track and the stairs in response to a difference between the desired speed of the track and the actual speed of the track to define the operating state as a slip state, and operate the motor to decrease or halt slip during operation in the slip state.
Coulter teaches a wheelchair driven by electric motors and having a controller with a traction loss processor 1254 (para [0452]) whereby a sensor (inertial sensors and wheel speed sensors) is configured to determine an actual speed of the track; and wherein the controller is further configured to: detect slip occurring between the track and the stairs in response to a difference between the desired speed of the track and the actual speed of the track to define the operating state as a slip state, and operate the motor to decrease or halt slip during operation in the slip state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Johnson wheelchair with slip detection and a controller that reduces operation of the drive motors in response to slip, as taught by Coulter, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve traction and promote the safety of the user.
Claim(s) 8 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Watkins (USPN5,248,007).
Johnson teaches all of the claimed structure except for a sensor configured to detect occupancy of the seat assembly to define the operating state as an occupied state.
Watkins teaches patient transfer apparatus comprising: a frame (Figure 1A); a seat assembly 214 coupled to the frame; a track assembly 212 supported for pivoting movement relative to the frame (seat 212 pivots about pivot point 218 relative to the frame), the track assembly including a moveable track 214 and a motor 66, 68 (col. 6, lines 26-27) configured to drive the track for traversing stairs in an ascending direction and in a descending direction opposite the ascending direction. Watkins teaches a weight sensor (col. 9, lines 1-19) configured to detect occupancy of the seat assembly to define the operating state as an occupied state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Johnson with a weight sensor, as taught by Watkins, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to modify parameters of the control arrangement based on the weight of the user.
Regarding claim 13, the controller of the combination (both references) further configured to drive the motor to adjust the track speed of the track assembly during operation in the occupied state.
Regarding claim 14, Johnson teaches a brake (speed dependent centrifugal brake; col. 10, lines 47-57) configured to selectively apply a braking force imparted on the track based on movement of the track in the ascending direction or descending direction; and wherein the controller (pitch sensor 67 which electrically engages the clutch that connects the brake directly to the traction pulley groups 3 and limits the endless belt [vehicle] speed to preset limits; col. 11, lines 6-14) such that the brake to adjust the track speed is of the track assembly during operation in the occupied state.
Regarding claim 15, Johnson teaches controllers that supplying current to the motors in precise pulses, but is silent regarding a sensor for determining a current of the motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the combination apparatus with a motor current sensor in order to precisely control the motor current supply as taught by Johnson.
Regarding claim 16, the weight sensor of the combination is a sensor configured to determine a load acting on the seat assembly (Watkins).
Claim(s) 20 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson.
Johnson does not specify a “landing track speed”, but it does teach a decreased “transition (surface angle change) speed” (col. 14, lines 5-6) where the controller is configured to control the motor to at least partially limit the track speed of the track during angle transitions. Since the apparatus is designed to traverse stairs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit speed during a transition to a bottom landing, in order to smooth the transition at the bottom of a set of stairs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Usherovich teaches an occupancy sensor that controls wheel drive.
Rudakevych teaches a slip sensor for a tracked vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights