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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A is directed to a restraint end connected to a tongue structure (claim 27, 37); and
Species B is directed to a restraint end connected to a retractor spool (claim 24, 30-33).
In addition to these species, election between one of the following subspecies of wheelchair strap attachment is required.
Subspecies C is directed to a configuration where the middle portion of the restraint loops around the frame of the wheelchair (claims 25-27); and
Subspecies D is directed to a configuration where the middle portion of the restraint is connected to the wheelchair via a connector (claims 38-39).
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
Currently, claims 21-23, 28-29, 34-35, and 40 appear generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Daniel Tallitsch on 7/30/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species A (tongue structure) and Subspecies D (restraint connected to wheelchair via a connector). Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 24-27 and 30-33 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application Nos. 17/147,165; 15/896,024; 15/249,265; 14/211,934; and 61/798,914, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. None of the prior applications disclose first or second non-hand-releasable connections which is newly added to the current application with claims 36-37. For the purposes of examination on the merits the effective filing date will be 10/31/24 for these specific claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first anchor point being separate from but disposed near the second anchor point of claim 34 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, line 1, a colon is needed after “comprising” to separate the preamble from the body of the claim.
In claim 40, line 1, a colon is needed after “comprising” to separate the preamble from the body of the claim. 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 36-37 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 36, lines 2 and 3-4, recite “a first non-hand releasable connection” and “a second non-hand-releasable connection” which is unclear in that the terms have not been defined by applicant in the specification or the claim. The term is uncertain as to physical properties that constitute “non-hand-releasable”. The term is relative and subjective, and depends on individual interpretation. If applicant has a specific idea of what applicant intends to recite with the limitations applicant should make this clear in the claims exactly what is intended. Since no definitions are provided in the specification nor in the claim language, examiner is forced to use the broadest reasonable interpretation of such terminology and the plain meaning of the words. Applicant is free to act as their own lexicographer but has not done so in these instances. The meaning of the claim limitations are unknown because after interpreting the claim in view of the specification one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand if a non-hand-releasable connection is one which is connected but not releasable with the bare hand or includes those connections that can be released with a hand or power tool. That is, it is unclear if applicant intended for the connection to be for example welding or if nuts and bolts, which can be released but not always by hand and which require a tool would also fall within the claim limitation. For the purpose of examination on the merits, the claims will be interpreted as best understood.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-23, 28-29, 34-35, 36, as best understood, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘030 in view of the well known prior art.
For claim 21, Lee (5391030) discloses a vehicle comprising:
a mobility aid securement area (FIG.4) and
at least one retractor (29) secured to the vehicle at a first anchor point and temporarily secured to a mobility aid in the mobility aid securement area, wherein:
the retractor comprises
a buckle (29) and
a restraint (31) extendable therefrom;
the restraint has
a first restraint segment extending from the buckle to a securement point on the mobility aid and
a second restraint segment extending from the securement point on the mobility aid to a second anchor point on the vehicle; and
the first anchor point and the second anchor point are disposed rearward of the mobility aid,
PNG
media_image1.png
402
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
whereby both the first restraint segment and the second restraint segment extend in a rearward direction (FIG.4) away from the mobility aid to restrain the mobility aid during a forward excursion event.
PNG
media_image2.png
410
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee further discloses two separate such retractors as seen in FIG.4. Each with a buckle.
Lee lacks only that the retractors are of the type including a spool instead of a buckle. The examiner takes official notice that this type of retractor is well known in the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have used a conventional wind-up type retractor known in the prior art having a spool in place of the buckle type retractor of Lee as an obvious expedient to achieve the same predictable result of retracting the restraint and in order to allow the restraint to be automatically retracted instead of manually tightened.
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR) supports this rationale of a simple substitution.
Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch").
Applicant may seasonally challenge, for the official record in this application, this and any other statement of judicial notice in a timely manner in response to this office action. Please specify the exact statement to be challenged. Applicant is reminded, with respect to the specific challenge put forth, of the duty of disclosure under Rule 56 to disclose material which is pertinent to patentability including claim rejections challenged by applicant.
For claim 22, the mobility aid is a wheelchair and a passenger is seated in the wheelchair in a forward facing direction in the wheelchair (implicit).
For claim 23, the first restraint segment and the second restraint segment are continuous.
For claim 28, the first anchor point is on a vehicle surface selected from the group including a floor, a barrier, a wall, and an ambulatory passenger seating module (see floor, FIG.4).
For claim 29, the second anchor point is on the same vehicle surface (the floor, FIG.4).
For claim 34, the first anchor point is separate from but disposed near the second anchor point (FIG.4).
For claim 35, the first anchor point and second anchor point are both disposed on a same structure (23,24,25,32,FIGS.3-4).
For claim 36, the same structure is an anchor (23,24,25,32), whereby the retractor is connected to the anchor by a first non-hand-releasable connection (26) and the second restraint segment is connected to the anchor by a second non- hand-releasable connection (33).
For claim 38, further comprising a mobility aid connector (short strap 10, FIGS.1-2) securing a middle portion of the restraint to the securement point on the mobility aid,
wherein the middle portion of the restraint extends through an opening in the mobility aid connector.
For claim 39, Lee, as modified, discloses the restraint comprises a flexible restraint (webbing), whereby the middle segment is configured to:
moveably pass from the retractor spool and through the opening in the mobility aid connector as the mobility aid connector is pulled away from the retractor; and
movably pass through the opening in the mobility aid connector and onto the spool as the mobility aid connector is moved toward the retractor.
For claim 40, Lee, as modified above, discloses the recited structure as set forth above and further provides for the second additional retractor and corresponding components. That is, Lee, as modified above, discloses a vehicle comprising: a mobility aid securement area (FIG.4),
a first retractor (one side, rear of the wheelchair) secured to the vehicle at a first anchor point, and
a second retractor (opposite rear side of the wheelchair) secured to the vehicle at a second anchor point, wherein:
the first retractor and the second retractor temporarily secure a mobility aid in the mobility aid securement area of the vehicle;
the first retractor comprises a first spool and a first restraint (31) extendable therefrom;
the first restraint having
a first restraint segment (FIG.3) extending from the first spool to a first securement point on the mobility aid and
a second restraint segment (FIG.3) extending from the first securement point on the mobility aid to a third anchor point on the vehicle;
the second retractor comprises a second spool and a second restraint extendable therefrom;
the second restraint having
a third restraint segment (FIG.3) extending from the second spool to a second securement point on the mobility aid and
a fourth restraint segment (FIG.3) extending from the second securement point on the mobility aid to a fourth anchor point on the vehicle; and
the first anchor point, the second anchor point, the third anchor point, and the fourth anchor point are disposed rearward of the mobility aid,
whereby the first restraint segment, the second restraint segment, the third restraint segment, and the fourth restraint segment extend in a rearward direction away from the mobility aid to restrain the mobility aid during a forward excursion event.
Claims 21 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘030 in view of Girardin (6287060).
For claim 21, Lee ‘030 discloses all of the claimed limitations as set forth above, but lacks the retractor including a spool type instead of a buckle retractor and the specifics of the non-hand-releasable connections.
Girardin ‘060 teaches these features. Specifically, Girardin ‘060 provides a spool retractor with an attachment point at a tongue bracket as seen with belt receiving pin (18) in FIGs.4-5. The retractor has a first tongue and a restraint segment terminating at a second tongue secured via non-hand-releasable connections (12), the first and second tongue overlapping as seen in FIGS.4-5.
PNG
media_image3.png
369
364
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
275
276
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have used in place of the buckle (29), short strap (26), ring (23), snap hook (32), and track anchor (24,25) (all of FIG.3) of Lee, the compact spool retractor and tongues of Girardin ‘060 as an obvious expedient to achieve the same predictable result of retracting and anchoring the restraint, and in order to allow the restraint to be automatically retracted instead of manually tightened.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references disclose conventional spring biased spool retractors of the well known prior art: Cardona (2008/0247837), Bosley (2006/0188354), Bell (2014/0271019), Davis et al. (6109846), and Carpenter (4842458).
Specifically, Cardona provides a retractor (20) with retractor spool (44) which is spring biased ([0037]) to urge belts (22) to be wound around spool (44).
PNG
media_image5.png
396
565
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Bosley (2006/0188354) discloses a retractor assembly (22) with spool (36) which winds a strap (70) in a spring biased manner ([0022]).
PNG
media_image6.png
301
447
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Bell (2014/0271019) includes a personal mobility vehicle restraint with biased retractor to wind a webbing (claim 9).
PNG
media_image7.png
406
429
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Davis et al. (6109846) teach a retractor with spring (105) biased to rotate shaft (spool 70) to retract belt (35) (FIG.2).
PNG
media_image8.png
547
781
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Carpenter (4842458) teaches a retractable tie down (FIGS.2-3) with spool and spring (Abstract) for securing a vehicle.
PNG
media_image9.png
258
347
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Anthony et al. (5219207) teach a retractor having a spool (spring biased spool 74, FIG.1) and a restraint (73) extendable therefrom;
the restraint has:
a first restraint segment (73) extending from the spool to a securement point (FIG.5) and
a second restraint segment (60) extending from the securement point (FIG.5) to a second anchor point on the vehicle; and
PNG
media_image10.png
361
272
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
382
483
media_image11.png
Greyscale
the first anchor point and the second anchor point are disposed rearward of a seat (FIG.1),
whereby both the first restraint segment and the second restraint segment extend in a rearward direction away from securement point (FIG.1) to restrain an occupant during a forward excursion event.
For claims 35-36, Anthony et al. provides the first and second anchor points are disposed on the same structure, the structure being an anchor. The retractor is connected to the anchor by a first non-hand-releasble connection (as at 75 which connects to bracket 69) and the second restraint segment (60) is connected (at end 72) to the anchor by a second non-hand-releasable connection (71).
For claim 37, the retractor includes a first tongue (part of bracket 69) that defines the first non-hand-releasable connection and the second restraint segment (60) terminates in a second tongue (71) that defines the second non-hand-releasable connection.
Williams (9399423) teaches a retractor as seen in FIG.1 and disclosed at Col 5, lines 20-36.
Specifically, the retractor can include an automatically actuated retractor (16) which includes a spool or other structure onto or about which web (18) is manually paid out (by applying a force thereto opposite the biasing force of one or more biasing spring. The web (18) can be wound on the spring biased spool when the force applied thereto does not overcome the spring force of the spool springs.
PNG
media_image12.png
291
325
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
305
610
media_image13.png
Greyscale
In addition, Williams shows brackets (14A and 14B) each with bores (14C) which align with each other such that a pin (12) can extend therethrough. Alternatively, the pin (12) could be integral with the retractor. The bracket (14B) shows but does not disclose an additional attachment point (at the end opposite the tongue end as seen in FIG.1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. 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 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. Should you have questions, 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.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights