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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 09/27/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because is it improper. The document is marked as an IDS but it does not contain any of the cited references.
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 7 and 19, “a hook” should read -- the hook -- since “a hook” has already been recited in claims 1 and 12 respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cale (U.S. 2017/0231844A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cale discloses a vehicle (12, fig. 1 and para 0020), comprising (examiner is using the embodiment of fig. 7 but making reference to figs. 1-6 for details not described):
a floor (16; fig. 1 and para 0021) having a longitudinal axis (22E, para 0023);
a shuttle (32A-32B; examiner notes that no structure has been claimed) movable relative to the floor along the longitudinal axis (22E; as shown in fig. 3A, track 22 comprises a plurality of bores or wells 22D for securing 32A and 32B to the tracks. Therefore, the shuttle is movable by securing 32A and 32B in different bores 22D); and
two hook assemblies (38A, 38D) adjustably supported by the shuttle (see fig. 3C and fig. 7) and moveable relative to the shuttle (moving along 32A, 32B as shown in fig. 3C “45” and refer to para 0036) to hooking positions (see fig. 4);
the hook assemblies (38A, 38D) each including a hook (52A, 52D), the hooks (52A, 52D) opposing each other along the longitudinal axis in the hooking positions (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Cale discloses wherein the hook assemblies (38A, 38D) are rotatable relative to the shuttle about rotational axes (para 0034: “rotating knob(s)”), respectively, that are nonparallel to the longitudinal axis of the floor (see “6B” in fig. 6A indicating rotational axis).
Regarding claim 3, Cale discloses wherein each hook assembly (38A, 38D) includes a rotational actuator (38C3, see fig. 3Crefer to para 0034) engaged with the shuttle (32A-32B; see fig. 3C as they are indirectly engaged. The claim does not require a direct engagement).
Regarding claim 4, Cale discloses wherein the hook assemblies (38A, 38D) each include an arm (50A, 50D) extendable relative to the shuttle (para 0033: “payout and retract”).
Regarding claim 7, Cale discloses wherein each hook assembly (50A, 50D) includes an arm (50A, 50D) and a hook (52A, 52D) supported by and rotatably adjustable relative to the arm (see fig. 4; during securing to the wheelchair, the hook will have to be rotatably adjusted for securement to the wheelchair).
Regarding claim 8, Cale discloses for each hook assembly (50A, 50D), a rotational actuator (38A3, 38D3, see fig. 3Crefer to para 0034) between the arm (50A, 50D) and the hook (52A, 52D; see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Cale discloses a track (22A, 22B, fig. 7) fixed to the floor (16; fig. 1 and para 0021) and elongated along the longitudinal axis (22E, para 0023), the shuttle (32A-32B) being moveably engaged with the track (as shown in fig. 3A, track 22 comprises a plurality of bores or wells 22D for securing 32A and 32B to the tracks. Therefore, the shuttle is movable by securing 32A and 32B in different bores 22D).
Regarding claim 12, Cale discloses a wheelchair-anchor assembly (10, fig. 1 and refer to para 0020), comprising (examiner is using the embodiment of fig. 7 but making reference to figs. 1-6 for details not described):
a track (22A, 22B, fig. 7) having a longitudinal axis (22E, para 0023);
a shuttle (32A-32B; examiner notes that no structure has been claimed) moveably engaged with the track and moveable relative to the track along the longitudinal axis (22E; as shown in fig. 3A, track 22 comprises a plurality or bores of wells 22D for securing 32A and 32B to the tracks. Therefore, the shuttle is movable by securing 32A and 32B in different bores 22D); and
two hook assemblies (38A, 38D) adjustably supported by the shuttle (see fig. 3C and fig. 7) and moveable relative to the shuttle (moving along 32A, 32B as shown in fig. 3C “45” and refer to para 0036) to hooking positions (see fig. 4);
the hook assemblies (38A, 38D) each including a hook (52A, 52D), the hooks (52A, 52D) opposing each other along the longitudinal axis in the hooking positions (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Cale discloses wherein the hook assemblies (38A, 38D) are rotatable relative to the shuttle about rotational axes (para 0034: “rotating knob(s)”), respectively, that are nonparallel to the longitudinal axis of the track (see “6B” in fig. 6A indicating rotational axis).
Regarding claim 14, Cale discloses wherein the rotational axes are parallel to each other (see “6B” in fig. 6A indicating rotational axis. Rotation at 38A will be parallel to rotation at 38D).
Regarding claim 15, Cale discloses wherein each hook assembly includes a rotational actuator (38C3, see fig. 3Crefer to para 0034) engaged with the shuttle (32A-32B; see fig. 3C as they are indirectly engaged. The claim does not require a direct engagement).
Regarding claim 16, Cale discloses wherein: the hook assemblies (38A, 38D) each include an arm (50A, 50D) extendable relative to the shuttle (para 0033: “payout and retract”); and for each hook assembly, the hook is supported by and rotatably adjustable relative to the arm (see fig. 4; during securing to the wheelchair, the hook will have to be rotatably adjusted for securement to the wheelchair).
Regarding claim 17, Cale discloses wherein the hook assemblies (38A, 38D) each include an arm (50A, 50D) extendable relative to the shuttle (para 0033: “payout and retract”).
Regarding claim 19, Cale discloses wherein each hook assembly (50A, 50D) includes an arm (50A, 50D) and a hook (52A, 52D) supported by and rotatably adjustable relative to the arm (see fig. 4; during securing to the wheelchair, the hook will have to be rotatably adjusted for securement to the wheelchair).
Regarding claim 20, Cale discloses for each hook assembly (50A, 50D), a rotational actuator (38A3, 38D3, see fig. 3Crefer to para 0034) between the arm (50A, 50D) and the hook (52A, 52D; see fig. 2).
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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cale (U.S. 2017/0231844A1), in view of Schwarz et al. (U.S. 2024/0398636A1).
Regarding claims 10-11, Cale teaches all the features of these claims; however, Cale fail to teach an automatic operation comprising a computer having a processor and memory storing instructions executable by the processor to adjust the shuttle along the longitudinal axis of the floor based on a position of a wheelchair along the longitudinal axis, wherein the instructions include instructions to adjust the position of the hook assemblies relative to the shuttle to engage the hook assemblies with axles of the wheelchair, respectively, based on the position of the wheelchair.
Schwarz et al. teach a wheelchair securement system for a vehicle (refer to abstract) comprising an automatic adjustment system to match any model and make of a wheelchair. The automatic system comprises a computer (902, fig. 9 and para 0056) having a processor (906) and memory (904) storing instructions executable by the processor (refer to para 0056), wherein the instructions include instructions to adjust the position of the hook assemblies relative to the shuttle to engage the hook assemblies with axles of the wheelchair, respectively, based on the position of the wheelchair (refer to para 0064. Also refer to para 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manual system of Cale to include an automated system comprising a computer having a processor and memory storing instructions executable by the processor to adjust the shuttle along the longitudinal axis of the floor based on a position of a wheelchair along the longitudinal axis, wherein the instructions include instructions to adjust the position of the hook assemblies relative to the shuttle to engage the hook assemblies with axles of the wheelchair, respectively, based on the position of the wheelchair, for the purpose of efficiency and to match any make and model of wheelchairs (refer to para 0018). Also, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 18 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. Giesa et al. (U.S. 12,465,534B2), Zhao et al. (U.S. 11,370,382B2), Jaradi et al. (U.S. 11,364,872B1), Farooq et al. (U.S. 2022/0134991A1), Jaradi et al. (U.S. 2022/0096289A1), Cardona (U.S. 7,040,847B1), Cardona (U.S. 2008/0247837A1), and Goosen (U.S. 7,455,490B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights