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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 15, “the lowermost” should be “a lowermost”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 are objected to because “A lifting system” should be “The” or “Said” lifting system because the lifting system was introduced in claim 1 from which claims 2-10 depend.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 2, “rotatable” should be “rotatably”. 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 5, 10, and 13 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 regard to claim 5, the phrase “preferably two” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the claim requires only one supporting structure, or if it has to have two in order to meet the limitations of the claim. The claim will be examined as only having to have at least one supporting structure until further clarification is provided.
In regard to claim 10, the scope of the claim is indefinite because the claim contains multiple ranges within the same claim. It is not clear which range must be met in order to meet the limitations of the claim. The claim will be examined as best understood until further clarification is provided, i.e. as long as the prior art meets at least one of the ranges, the limitations of the claim will be met.
In regard to claim 13, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear how a computer program could carry out the steps of actually raising and lowering the steps, or unfolding and folding the ramp. At least these steps are understood to be manual operations that could not be carried out by a computer. Therefore, the claim appears to be indefinite and will be examined as best understood and merely being automated though the use of a computer until further clarification is provided.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liftup A/S, “Flexstep by Liftup”, 26 September (2016-09-26), retrieved from the internet: URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaQKTfL-qxw referred to in this action as “Flexstep” in view of Yeol (KR 102068931).
PNG
media_image1.png
329
1260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Flexstep clearly shows in the video a lifting system for a stairway, said lifting system comprising: at least one step of a first type, at least one step of a second type, said first type of step and second type of step being provided displaceable in relation to each other, lifting means, at least one baluster, at least two side pieces, extending from the proximate end of the stairway to the distant end of the stairway, at least one banister, extending from a proximate end of the stairway to a distant end of the stairway, wherein said lifting system can be configured for at least two positions: a stairway position (figure 1 below) and a platform lift position (figures 2 and 3 below), wherein the lowermost step of the stairway is provided with a rotatable ramp for at least enabling a walking-impaired person and/or an aid for a walking-impaired person to enter or exit the lifting system, when the lifting system is in a platform lift position, wherein said ramp is rotatable along at least a part of an outer edge of the step, preferably said step being the first type of step, wherein the rotatable ramp is positioned underneath the step that said ramp is mounted on (figure 1) when the lifting system is in a stairway position, wherein the rotatable ramp preferably is in an at least substantially horizontal position. All of the above limitations can be clearly seen in the figures below and in the full video.
Figure 1: Figure 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
861
1199
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
907
1214
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Figure 4
PNG
media_image4.png
901
1221
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
907
1211
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5:
PNG
media_image6.png
900
1208
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Flexstep does not specifically disclose that the ramp has a length being longer than the height between the floor and the step that said ramp is mounted on. Yeol teaches the use of a longer ramp with a lifting system for a stairway. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a longer ramp if desired because a longer ramp would provide a more gradual entry onto the lifting system than a shorter ramp would allow. Therefore, the longer, less steep ramp would allow a disabled person to enter the lifting system in an easier, less strenuous manner.
In regard to claim 2, Flexstep in view of Yeol disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1, wherein the rotatable ramp takes a ramp position, wherein the ramp is folded out and encounters an associated floor with at least the outermost edge and acts as a ramp, when the lifting system takes a lowermost platform lift position (figure 2 above).
In regard to claim 3, Flexstep in view of Yeol disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1, wherein the rotatable ramp takes a substantially vertical position and acts as a barrier, when said lifting system is moving up or down in a platform position (figure 3 above).
In regard to claim 4, Flexstep in view of Yeol disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1, wherein the rotatable ramp can take at least three positions: a hidden position (figures 1 and 5 above) underneath the step that said ramp is mounted on, when the lifting system takes a stairway position, wherein the rotatable ramp preferably is in an at least substantially horizontal position, a ramp position (figure 2 above), wherein the ramp is folded out and encounters an associated floor with the outermost edge and acts as a ramp, when the lifting system takes a lowermost platform lift position, and a barrier position (figures 3 and 4 above), wherein the ramp takes a substantially vertical position and act as a barrier, when said lifting system is moving up or down in a platform lift position.
In regard to claim 5, “as best understood”, Flexstep in view of Yeol disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1, wherein the ramp comprises at least one supporting structure, preferably two, positioned underneath the ramp, wherein the supporting structure encounters an associated floor, when the outermost edge of the ramp encounters the floor. The video shows a support structure at each end of the ramp located on the underside of the ramp.
In regard to claim 6, Flexstep in view of Yeol disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1, except for specifically disclosing that the ramp has a trapezoidal shape. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Flexstep’s ramp trapezoidal shape because by doing so, the sides would angle in towards the middle and be less likely to interfere with the side rails of the steps when the ramp rotates between the various positions. Further, the mere change in shape of an element is within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. The device would function equally as well with the rectangular shape shown by Flexstep, or with the trapezoidal shape.
In regard to claim 7, Flexstep in view of Yeol disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1, wherein the ramp has at least one edge being substantially the same width as the step that said ramp is mounted on (see the figures above).
In regard to claim 8, Flexstep in view of Yeol disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1, wherein the rotatable ramp has a length being at least two thirds of the depth of the step that said ramp is mounted on. The examiner contends that this is clearly shown in the video and above figures from the video. The ramp extends substantially the entire width of the step. Standard steps are typically approximately 10 inches deep and at least 36 inches wide. Therefore, since the ramp is substantially the entire length of the step it would be at least two thirds of the depth of the step. If the applicant disagrees, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the ramp of the claimed length, because one would want the ramp to be long enough so that it is wider than a conventional wheel chair so the wheel chair does not fall off one end or the other of the ramp.
In regard to claim 9, Flexstep in view of Yeol disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1, wherein the ramp comprises an angled portion along the outermost edge of the ramp (as shown in the video and above figures).
In regard to claim 10, Flexstep in view of Yeol disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1, as “best understood”, wherein the ramp is rotatably mounted along at least 80% of the width of the step. Since the ramp is shown to extend substantially the entire width, or almost 100%, this is at least 80% of the width of the step.
In regard to claim 11, Flexstep in view of Yeol disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1. Flexstep in view of Yeol further disclose a method of operating a lifting system according to claim 1, wherein the operation transforms the lifting system from a stairway position to a platform lift position to enable a walking-impaired person and/or an aid for a walking-impaired person to get from a lower level to an upper level, the method comprising the steps of: activating the lifting system to start lowering steps of the stairway, by activating at least one lifting means, lowering the steps to a predetermined level, raising the lowermost step of the lifting system to a predetermined height to allow a ramp to be folded out without encountering an associated floor, unfolding a ramp by rotating the ramp from underneath the lowermost step of the stairway, continuing lowering the steps of the stairway to a predetermined lowermost level, wherein all the steps are in a horizontal plane forming a platform, ensuring at least the outermost edge of the ramp encounters the floor to allow the user to enter the platform via the ramp, by rotating the ramp, activating the lifting system, rotating the ramp up to an at least substantially vertical position to form an exit barrier for the user, raising the platform to an upper level and allow the user to leave the platform, optionally, converting the lifting system from a platform lift position into stairway position, wherein during the conversion, the ramp is rotated down under the step or optionally, lowering the platform to a lower level to help another person to get from one level to another, wherein the ramp is rotated from a barrier position to a ramp position. These steps are performed and shown in the video and in the attached figures above.
In regard to claim 12, Flexstep in view of Yeol disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1. Flexstep in view of Yeol further disclose a method of operating a lifting system, according to claim 1, wherein operation transforms the lifting system from a stairway position to a platform lift position to enable a walking-impaired person and/or an aid for a walking-impaired person to get from an upper level to a lower level, the method comprising the steps of: activating a lifting system to start lowering steps of the stairway, by activating at least one lifting means, lowering the steps to a predetermined level, raising the lowermost step of the lifting system to a predetermined height to allow a ramp to be folded out without encountering an associated floor (this is an obvious step once modified in view of Yeol), unfolding a ramp by rotating the ramp from underneath the lowermost step of the stairway to an at least substantially vertical position to form an exit barrier for the user, continuing lowering at least one step to a predetermined level until all the steps are in a horizontal plane forming a platform, raising the platform, allowing the user to enter the platform, activating the lifting system to start lowering the platform to a predetermined lowermost level, by activating at least one lifting means, ensuring at least the outermost edge of the ramp encounters the floor to allow the user to leave the platform via the ramp, by rotating the ramp, optionally, converting the lifting system from a platform lift position into a stairway position, wherein during the conversion, the ramp is rotated down under the step or optionally, raising the platform to an upper level to help another person to get from one level to another, wherein the ramp is rotated from a ramp position to a barrier position. These steps are the obvious steps that are performed and shown in the video, in the attached figures above, and in view of the teaching of Yeol to make the ramp longer than the distance from the floor to the bottom of the step that the ramp is mounted to. After the ramp is made longer, one would have to raise the step to unfold the ramp.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liftup A/S, “Flexstep by Liftup”, 26 September (2016-09-26), retrieved from the internet: URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaQKTfL-qxw referred to in this action as “Flexstep” in view of Yeol (KR 102068931) and further in view of Lupher (20220063960).
In regard to claim 13, as “best understood”, Flexstep in view of Yeol disclose the basic claimed invention of claim 1. Flextep in view of Yeol do not specifically disclose a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 11. Lupher teaches that the use of a computer program is known to be used in conjunction with stair in order to move stair lifts and aid a user to move up the stairs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a computer to help control the movement of the Flexstep lifting device so that the movements could be automated by a sensor and activated automatically when a user approached the stair. This would allow for a more efficient use of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights