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 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 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 "the apparatus" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the adaptor assembly" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Clam 3 recites the limitation “the drive-connection member” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the drive-connection member” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the adaptor assembly" in lines 3 – 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the adaptor assembly" in 1 – 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second bracket assembly" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 – 5 depend from claim 1, and therefore, are rejected for the same reasons.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,178,765 B2 in view of US 7,976,049 to Chiu. Claim 19 of Patent ‘765 anticipates most limitations of current claim 1 (see comparison in tabular format below) except “a first bracket having a first end that has thereon the at least one collar” and “a second bracket having a first end that has thereon the at least one collar”. Claim 19 of Patent ‘765 teaches the collar is connected to the bracket and not explicitly that it is on a first end of the bracket. However, Chiu discloses a mechanism for attaching an auxiliary drive to a wheelchair comprising brackets (upper and lower cross rods 31 and 32) having collars (retaining seats 34) their ends (See Figs. 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of reference claim 19 to specifically place the collars at the end of the brackets, as taught by Chiu, for the purpose of advantageously optimizing the bracket length (in other words avoiding a situation where the bracket extends to a longer than necessary length, past the collar location). Additionally and in the alternative, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the collar-on-bracket of the reference claim 19 in such a way to provide the collars specifically at brackets’ ends, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Claims 2 – 5 are rejected for similar considerations as Claim 1.
Double Patenting Claim Comparison
18935768
US 12,178,765 B2
1
1. A chair-drive interface assembly for connection to a wheelchair assembly and a drive assembly,..., the apparatus comprising:
19
19. A chair-drive interface assembly for connection to a wheelchair assembly and a drive assembly,..., the apparatus comprising:
at least one collar for the first chair-connection member, wherein each of the at least one collar for the first chair-connection member has an aperture that extends laterally and is sized to mount to the first chair-connection member;
at least one collar for the first chair-connection member, wherein each of the at least one collar for the first chair-connection member has an aperture that extends laterally and is sized to mount to the first chair-connection member;
at least one collar for the second chair-connection member, wherein each of the at least one collar for the second chair-connection member is positioned rearwardly of the at least one collar for the first chair-connection member, and has an aperture that extends laterally and is sized to mount to the second chair-connection member;
at least one collar for the second chair-connection member, wherein each of the at least one collar for the second chair-connection member is positioned rearwardly of the at least one collar for the first chair-connection member, and has an aperture that extends laterally and is sized to mount to the second chair-connection member;
a first bracket having a first end that has thereon the at least one collar for the first chair-connection member;
a first bracket that is connected to the at least one collar for the first chair-connection member;
a second bracket having a first end that has thereon the at least one collar for the second chair-connection member, wherein the first bracket and the second bracket are pivotally connected to each other at a non-zero angle by way of a pivot member that extends laterally, so as to form an angle joint that extends in a longitudinal–vertical plane of the wheelchair assembly; and
a second bracket that is connected to the at least one collar for the second chair-connection member, wherein the first bracket and the second bracket are pivotally connected to each other at a non-zero angle by way of a pivot member that extends laterally, so as to form an angle joint that extends in a longitudinal-vertical plane of the wheelchair assembly; and
a docking assembly that is connected to at least one of the first and second brackets and which extends forwardly from the first and second brackets, wherein the docking assembly includes at least one engagement feature that is shaped to receive at least one drive connector on the drive assembly.
a docking assembly that is connected to at least one of the first and second brackets and which extends forwardly from the first and second brackets, wherein the docking assembly includes at least one engagement feature that is shaped to receive at least one drive connector on the drive assembly,
wherein the adaptor assembly includes: a third bracket assembly; and the third bracket assembly is configured to be fixedly connected to the second bracket assembly at a selected portion of the second bracket assembly in such a way that the third bracket assembly is adjustably mountable to the second bracket assembly at predetermined locations positioned along a length of the second bracket assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Felicia L Brittman-Alabi whose telephone number is (313)446-6512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/Felicia L. Brittman-Alabi/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights