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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0076], Line 2, replace “630a-b” with “610a-b”
Paragraph [0076], Line 5, replace “630a-b” with “610a-b”
Paragraph [0078], Line 1, replace “630a-b” with “610a-b”
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species 1 in the reply filed on 07/09/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
“The stated basis for restriction does not establish that the elected product can be used in a materially different process, or that the claimed process can be practiced with a materially different product. The Office Action states that the claimed product can be used in a materially different process, "such as a manual assembly that the operator pulls down on to deploy." Applicant respectfully disagrees. The method claims do not recite manually pulling down a handle. Claim 14 recites deploying the grab handle using a driving mechanism and by sliding the grab handle from the stowed position to the deployed position. Likewise, the elected system claims recite a driving mechanism configured to slide the grab handle between the same stowed and deployed positions. Thus, a hypothetical manually pulled-down assembly is not the claimed method of use and, to the extent it omits the claimed driving mechanism and controlled sliding deployment, is not the claimed product either. (See Page 7 of the Applicant’s Arguments)”
However, the examiner disagrees. The method of claim 14 includes limitations drawn to “obtaining a signal requesting a deployment of a grab handle…” There is nothing in the product of claim 1 which requires the use of “obtaining a signal”. As such, the product of claim 1 can be used in a materially different process of using that product as the driving mechanism of claim 1 may certainly be manually operated.
The applicant additionally argues:
“Applicant also respectfully submits that the alleged examination burden has not been adequately established. The Office Action states that the classifications are different and that the scope of keyword searches is divergent. However, the product and method claims share the same central technical feature set: an overhead grab handle attached to a ceiling of a housing, a stowed position along a wall of the housing, a deployed position protruding downward from the ceiling for access by a seated person, and a driving mechanism that slides the grab handle between the positions. The specification likewise presents the method as deploying the same grab handle of FIGS. 1, 2A, 2B, 3-7, 8A, 8B, 9A, and 9B, rather than as a separate invention requiring a materially different search. (See Pages 7 and 8 of the Applicant’s Arguments)”
However, the examiner disagrees. The examiner noting that search burden has been shown below as there are several prior art devices which reject claim 1 but do not necessarily contain the limitations of claim 14. See Rejections below.
Finally, the applicant argues:
“Applicant further traverses the species requirement. The alleged species are not mutually exclusive inventions requiring separate examination. Rather, the identified assemblies are disclosed as related implementations, subassemblies, or operating states of the same overhead handle system. For example, assembly 200 shown in FIGs. 2A and 2B illustrates the grab handle in deployed and stowed positions; the assembly 300 shown in FIG. 3 illustrates an interior space of a housing where the overhead handle system may be deployed, and further including one or more switches to activate deployment and retraction of the overhead grab handle; the assembly 400 of FIG. 4 is described as illustrating an environment in which the overhead grab handle system of FIGs. 2A and 2B may be deployed in a position easily accessible to a PRM in a PRM device; assembly 500 illustrates components of the overhead handle system in more detail; assembly 600 illustrates a height adjustment assembly; and assemblies 800 and 900 illustrate deployed grab handle configurations with the height adjuster at different positions. The specification expressly explains that the disclosed embodiments are designed to work together as part of a single larger system or method and that compound embodiments combining the disclosed features are contemplated. These assemblies are not separate inventions. (See Pages 8 and 9 of the Applicant’s Arguments)”
However, the examiner disagrees. The examiner noting that search burden between the various species has been shown below as there are several prior art devices which reject some species but do not necessarily contain the limitations of other species. See Rejections below. Thus, the species are not mutually exclusive inventions requiring separate examination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II and Species 2-5, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “driving mechanism” in claims 1-8, 10-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4, and 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 4 recites “a stowage compartment, formed inside a wall of an interior space of the housing…” However, claim 1 has set forth a “housing” as the “intended use” of the grab handle and the driving mechanism. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether claim 4 is attempting to actually recite the “housing” as part of the invention being recited or whether the “housing” is still the intended use of the grab handle and the driving mechanism? As such, claim 4 has not been further treated in view of the prior art as the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,518,302 (Cho et al.).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10, Cho et al. teaches: Claim 1 - a system comprising: a grab handle (300) configured to be attached to a ceiling of a housing (“intended use” limitation) and to move from a stowed position in which the grab handle (300) is positioned along a wall of the housing to a deployed position in which the grab handle (300) is configured to extend vertically from the ceiling of the housing to be accessible overhead by a person in a seated position; and a driving mechanism (M) configured to slide the grab handle (300) between the stowed position and the deployed position, (Figures 1-12); Claim 2 - a controller (described in at least Column 9, Lines 47-51) configured to control the driving mechanism (M) to slide the grab handle (300) along an arc, wherein the controller (described in at least Column 9, Lines 47-51) is further configured to be positioned above the ceiling of the housing, (Figures 1-12); Claim 6 – one or more hinges (302/304) configured to attach to a frame of the ceiling and to support the grab handle (300), (Figures 1-12); Claim 7 - wherein the one or more hinges (302/304) include a first standalone hinge (302/304) positioned at a first top corner portion of the grab handle (300) and a second hinge (302/304) that is adjacent to the driving mechanism (M) and is positioned at a second top corner portion of the grab handle (300), (Figures 1-12); Claim 10 - a height adjustment assembly (112) configured to vertically lower the grab handle (300) in the deployed position from the ceiling further downward, (Figures 1-12).
Claim(s) 1, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112590633 (Wang).
Regarding Claims 1, and 9, Wang teaches: Claim 1 - a system comprising: a grab handle (73) configured to be attached to a ceiling of a housing and to move from a stowed position in which the grab handle (73) is positioned along a wall of the housing to a deployed position in which the grab handle (73) is configured to extend vertically from the ceiling of the housing to be accessible overhead by a person in a seated position; and a driving mechanism (31) configured to slide the grab handle (73) between the stowed position and the deployed position, (Figures 1-3); Claim 9 - wherein the driving mechanism (31) includes an actuation motor (31), and further comprising: a gear and belt reduction assembly (14, 46) configured to reduce a speed of the actuation motor (31) such that the grab handle (73) is retracted and deployed within a predetermined period of time, (Figures 1-3).
Claim(s) 1, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,431,643 (Grey).
Regarding Claims 1, and 13, Grey teaches: Claim 1 - a system comprising: a grab handle (206) configured to be attached to a ceiling of a housing and to move from a stowed position in which the grab handle (206) is positioned along a wall of the housing to a deployed position in which the grab handle (206) is configured to extend vertically from the ceiling of the housing to be accessible overhead by a person in a seated position; and a driving mechanism (251) configured to slide the grab handle (206) between the stowed position and the deployed position, (Figures 1-5C); Claim 13 - a switch (222) configured to be activated by a user to initiate a deployment and/or a retraction of the grab handle (206); and a controller, coupled to the switch (222), and configured to control the driving mechanism (251) to slide the grab handle (206) along an arc to deploy the grab handle (206) and/or to retract the grab handle (206), (Figures 1-5C).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,518,302 (Cho et al.) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,904,752 (Cho et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, Cho et al. 302’ teaches the system as described above, but does not teach: a spring damping mechanism configured to limit a speed of deployment and retraction of the grab handle (Claim 8). However, Cho et al. 752’ teaches: Claim 8 - a spring damping mechanism (240) configured to limit a speed of deployment and retraction of a grab handle (400), (Figures 1-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Cho et al. 302’ to have a spring damping mechanism configured to limit a speed of deployment and retraction of the grab handle (Claim 8) as taught by Cho et al. 752’ for the purposes of controlling speed and movement of the grab handle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11 and 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.
Claims 19-21 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights