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 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please delete the extra period (.) at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 is 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. Claim 3 requires a “toothed segment” in addition to the “rack” claimed in parent claim 2. Applicant’s specification states that “an internal rotational toothed segment 12 is used instead of a rack 13” (emphasis added, see page 11, lines 8-9). Applicant did not possess the combination of a “rack” and “a toothed segment” at the time the disclosure was originally filed. “There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262, 191 USPQ at 96, thus the examiner has the initial burden, after a thorough reading and evaluation of the content of the application, of presenting evidence or reasons why a person skilled in the art would not recognize the written description of the invention as providing adequate support for the claimed invention. To make a prima facie case, it is necessary to identify the claim limitations that are not adequately supported, and explain why the claim is not fully supported by the disclosure. For example, in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the examiner made a prima facie case by clearly and specifically explaining why applicant’s specification did not support the particular claimed combination of elements, even though applicant’s specification listed each and every element in the claimed combination. “ See MPEP 2163 (II)(A).
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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "whereas always two opposite casters are each connected by a control shaft" and later recites “both control shafts”. It is apparent from claim 1 that there are four (two pairs) total casters with a control shaft between at least two casters that are opposite each other. It is not clear if only one control shaft is required, or if two control shafts are required as the aforementioned limitations are not abundantly clear. Examiner is interpreting "whereas always two opposite casters are each connected by a control shaft" as —wherein each pair of casters is connected by a control shaft—, thus requiring two control shafts for prior art examination.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a toothed segment” in addition to the “rack” claimed in parent claim 2. Applicant’s specification states that “an internal rotational toothed segment 12 is used instead of a rack 13” (emphasis added, see page 11, lines 8-9). A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). See MPEP 2173.03. Examiner is interpreting “toothed segment” as the —rack—.
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) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elku (US 2017/0143566) in view of Gong (CN 209059257).
Regarding Claim 1, Elku discloses a patient support apparatus (100) having a central dual control system of casters (see Fig. 47) comprising at least two pairs of casters (119) with at least one actuating pedal (117), whereas always two opposite casters are each connected by a control shaft (2181) with hexagonal cross section (see Figs. 48A-50), whereas both control shafts with hexagonal cross section are mutually coupled via a connecting member (2287) to a linkage rod (2272) of the central dual control system and a rack (2286) coupled to the linkage rod. Elku fails to disclose wherein a servomotor comprises a rack coupled to the linkage rod, whereas the servomotor is configured to change a position of the rack of the servomotor and thus change a position of the central dual control system of casters upon manual change of position of the actuating pedal and/or upon electrical activation of the servomotor to change a position of the actuating pedal to another position of the central dual control system of casters. Gong teaches wherein a servomotor (121) comprises a rack (1232) coupled to a linkage rod (124), whereas the servomotor is configured to change a position of the rack of the servomotor and thus change a position of the central dual control system of casters upon manual change of position of the actuating pedal and/or upon electrical activation of the servomotor to change a position of the actuating pedal to another position of the central dual control system of casters (see Fig. 3). Elku and Gong are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. caster systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pedal system of Elku with the motor assisted system of Gong. The motivation would have been to drastically reduce the labor required to turn the brake system on or off, thus enhancing convenience.
Regarding Claim 4, Elku as modified teaches wherein the servomotor can be attached to the control shaft with hexagonal cross section. “Can be” is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. Elku as modified could have the servomotor attached to a control shaft and effectively operate in a similar fashion.
Regarding Claim 5, Elku as modified teaches wherein the servomotor is removable from the linkage rod. Gong teaches a mounting bracket 125 used to mount the servomotor 121. The servomotor can be removed if the mounting bracket is removed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 2, Gong discloses a pinion (output of shaft motor), a cogwheel (122), but fails to disclose a printed circuit board with microswitches, and whereas the lateral side of the rack comprises at least one bottom hole on the bottom side and at least one upper hole on the upper side. Printed circuit boards and microswitches are well-known within the art of electric motors/actuators, however, neither Elku or Gong provide for a rack having two holes as required by the claim. There’s no motivation to modify either rack in Elku or Gong to have the required holes as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J KURILLA whose telephone number is (571)270-7294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7AM-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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/ERIC J KURILLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619