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 Objections
Claims 3-7, 9-11, 13, and 15-16 objected to because of the following informalities:
“including” should read as “includes”
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.
Claim 17 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.
Re: claim 17, a left side elevating member and a right side elevating member are not positively recited within claim 1 or claim 17, which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 11 positively recites a left side elevating member and a right side elevating member.
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, 3-4, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carlin Comm (NPL - youtube.com/watch?v=o92xQ1O6lYA).
Re: claim 1, Carlin Comm teaches an ergonomic elevated foot board device (Fig. 1 & 2) for a vehicle (See Fig. 1 & 2 for interior of vehicle, specifically a bus) comprising: a main base (Fig. 1 – main base) with a top surface (top surface); the main base including a first cutout (first cutout) on a back side (seat side/ back side)of the main base, the first cutout is configured to fit around the seat base mount of the driver’s seat of the vehicle (See Note below); the main base including a second cutout (Fig. 2 – second cutout) on the front side (steering side/ front side) of the main base, the second cutout is configured to fit around the steering column of the steering wheel of the vehicle (See Note below); and wherein, when the main base is positioned in between the driver’s seat (Fig. 2 – seat side/ back side) and the steering column of the vehicle (steering side/ front side) with the first cutout around the seat side (Fig. 1) and the second cutout around the steering side (Fig. 2), the ergonomic elevated foot board device is configured to position the top surface (Fig. 1 – top surface) at an elevated position above the floorboard (floorboard) between the seat side and the steering side (See Fig. 2 for positioning).
It is noted by the examiner that a driver’s seat with a seat base mount, a steering wheel with a steering column, and a floorboard under the driver’s seat and the steering column is not required by the claim. The phrase “configured to” further limits the claim such that the elevated foot board device has the functionality to fit between a seat base and a steering column through cutouts provided on each of a steering side and a seat side of the elevated foot board device.
It is additionally noted that the annotated first cutout and second cutout have the ability to be positioned such that the first cutout is able to fit around a seat base mount of the driver’s seat and the second cutout is able to fit around a steering column of the steering wheel of the vehicle.
Re: claim 3, Carlin Comm teaches wherein: the first cutout (Fig. 1 - first cutout) including a first width (first width), the first width is sized to receive the seat base mount therein (See Fig. 1); and the second cutout (Fig. 2 – second cutout) including a second width (second width), the second width is configured to receive the steering column therein.
It is noted that the annotated first cutout and second cutout have the ability to be positioned such that the first cutout is able to receive a seat base mount of the driver’s seat and the second cutout is able to receive a steering column of the steering wheel of the vehicle.
Re: claim 4, Carlin Comm teaches wherein: the first cutout (Fig. 1 – first cutout) including a first depth (first depth); the second cutout (Fig. 2 – second cutout) including a second depth (second depth); the main base (Fig. 1 – main base) including a length (Fig. 2 - length) from the front side (steering side/ front side) to the back side (seat side/ back side); the main base including a cutout distance (See note below) from a first end of the first cutout (Fig. 1 – first cutout marking across width) at the first depth to a second end of the second cutout (Fig. 2 – second cutout marking across width) at the second depth; and the cutout distance (Between the first cutout marking across width and second cutout marking across width) is approximate to a driver’s foot area distance between the seat side (seat side/ back side) and the steering side (steering side/ front side).
It is noted by the examiner that the cutout distance is measured between Figures 1 and 2 from the “first cutout marking across width” and the “second cutout marking across width”.
Re: claim 18, Carlin Comm teaches the ergonomic elevated foot board device of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1) being configured for a bus (See Figs. 1 & 2 and the title of the youtube video – “For The School Bus”).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dai et al. (CN 217961112 U).
Re: claim 19, Dai et al. teaches an ergonomic elevated foot board device (Fig. 1): a main base (1, 2) with a top surface (1), the main base including: a platform structure (2) with the top surface (1) thereon; elevating members (3) positioned under the platform structure (2), the elevating members (3) are configured to elevate the platform structure (2) from the floor (See Fig. 1 – 3 elevates 2); and wherein, when the main base (1, 2) is positioned on the floor, the ergonomic elevated foot board device (Fig. 1) is configured to position the top surface (1) at an elevated position (Via 3) above the floor.
It is noted by the examiner that a driver’s seat, a steering wheel, and a floorboard under the driver’s seat and the steering wheel is not required by the claim. It is additionally noted that the device of Dai et al. has the ability to be positioned/configured as claimed.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlin Comm.
Re: claim 2, Carlin Comm is silent on the ergonomic elevated foot board device of claim 1 being designed and configured to minimize foot or ankle soreness of a driver when operating a floor mounted pedal in the vehicle.
However, it is noted by the examiner that Carlin Comm is using “Anti Fatigue Floor Mats”, recited in the title of the video, as the elevated foot board device. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Anti Fatigue Floor Mats would be designed and configured such that they would minimize foot or ankle soreness of a driver when operating a floor mounted pedal in the vehicle.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlin Comm in view of Dai et al.
Re: claim 17, Carlin Comm teaches claim 1. Carlin Comm fails to teach a handle, the handle being configured to be used to carry the ergonomic elevated foot board device, wherein the handle is positioned on an outside side of a left side elevating member or a right side elevating member.
However, Dai et al. teaches a handle (Fig. 5 – 501), the handle being configured to be used to carry the ergonomic elevated foot board device (See Fig. 1 – attached to the device), wherein the handle is positioned on an outside side (See Fig. 1 & 2) of a left side elevating member or a right side elevating member (Fig. 2 – 3).
Carlin Comm and Dai et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of mats. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Carlin Comm’s device with those of Dai et al.’s handle in order to provide the advantage of making the device more ergonomic and increasing the ease of transportation of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 allowed.
Claims 5-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re: claim 5, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least having elevating members positioned under the platform structure. The anti-fatigue foam mats of Carlin Comm would require an addition that would be unnecessary and be building to the spec to reach this limitation and would be unreasonable to combine Dai et al. to achieve the addition of elevating members. Claims 6-16 depend on claim 5.
Re: claim 20, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least wherein the platform structure is made from a wood material, a sheet metal material, or a hard plastic material; wherein the platform structure including an edge guard around a perimeter of the platform structure, the edge guard being a rubber guard positioned on the perimeter of the platform structure; wherein the top surface of the platform structure including... a handle being configured to be used to carry the ergonomic elevated foot board device, wherein the handle is positioned on an outside side of the left side elevating member or the right side elevating member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patent No. 2,136,980 discloses a floor mat for heels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP C ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights