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”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8-13, 15, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 8-13, 15, 17, and 21 do not further limit the device because applicant’s invention (claim 1) is directed to a product (the securement system) which comprises: a processor. The specifics of the processor including the hardware architecture, instruction set, and performance needs are not recited in the claim nor disclosed in the specification. Instead, applicant recites only that the processor is programmed to receive a signal. However, the device from which the signal is sent does not make up a part of the invention. In the broadest reasonable interpretation, the processor only needs to be capable of receiving the type of signal to satisfy the limitations of the claims. That is, the sensor is not being positively recited. As such, limitations directed to the type of sensor (a camera, a proximity sensor, an RFID tag/QR code, a weight sensor) or limitations further defining/limiting the sensor (as with claim 17 where the sensor comprises a pressure sensitive member) do not further limit the invention because the sensor is not a part of the system.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Seko et al. (2020/0113755).
For claim 3, Seko et al. (2020/0113755) discloses a securement system (automated docking feature) adapted for securing a wheeled mobility device (motorized wheelchair 100) during transport, the securement system comprising
a processor (as a sequence of processor-implemented executed blocks) programmed to:
receive a signal (from any of sensors 102a-110a; 124; 500) indicative of a characteristic of at least one of the wheeled mobility device and an occupant of the wheelchair mobility device (sensors may be able to detect the “proximity and alignment of docking features to confirm the destination position” and sensors within the vehicle 500 also send signals to the mobility device controller 120 to confirm the position, [0058]);
set a securement parameter based on the characteristic (once the mobility device 100 is in position, it interfaces with the dock on the vehicle (step 818), [0059]; see also [0043]); and
apply a securement member (mechanical locks may interface with the wheels and/or chassis to hold the device 100, [0059]) to the wheeled mobility device based on the securement parameter.
For claim 4, the signal is indicative of a position of the wheeled mobility device.
For claim 5, the securement parameter is a securement location on the wheeled mobility device.
For claim 6, the processor is further configured to direct the securement member (mechanical locks) to the securement location.
For claim 7, the signal is indicative of a position of the wheeled mobility device in a securement area.
For claims 8-9, the signal is provided by a sensor comprising a camera (122a,b; [0029]).
For claims 10-11, the signal is provided by a sensor comprising a proximity sensor (sensors may be able to detect proximity, [0058]).
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 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seko et al. as applied above, with respect to claim 3, in view of WO 2019027408 (WO 408; Buttolo P et al.).
For claim 13, Seko et al. lack the signal is indicative of a weight of one or both of the wheeled mobility device and the occupant.
For claim 19, Seko et al. fail to provide the signal is indicative of a type of the wheeled mobility device.
WO 408 teaches a processor 140 which is capable of executing instructions based on information about the accessibility device 110 including physical characteristics such as the weight of the accessibility device ([0019]) as well as the “type of accessibility device”, [0019]).
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 provided the processor of Seko et al. programmed to receive a signal indicating the weight of the device and the type of device both taught by WO 408 in order to determine the physical dimensions of the device (WO 408, [0019]).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seko et al. above with respect to claim 6 or as modified above with respect to claim 13, and further in view of WO 2012/042458 (WO 458; Paolacci).
For claims 12 and 15, Seko et al. lack the signal is provided by one or both of an RFID tag and a QR code on one or both of the wheeled mobility device and the occupant.
WO 458 teaches the use of RFID tags on a mobility device (10) which are read by RFID readers on a vehicle (20). Providing this interaction allows for the device (10) to be precisely positioned and aligned during movement as the RFID tags relay crucial information concerning the dimensions of the device. This allows the control means of WO 458 to correctly move the device with respect to the vehicle without incident.
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 provided the wheeled mobility device of Seko et al. with RFID tags as taught by WO 458 in order to provide dimensional data for properly positioning the wheelchair.
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seko et al. as modified above with respect to claim 13, and further in view of Cardona et al. (12478521).
For claim 17, Seko et al., as modified, fail to include the signal is provided by a sensor comprising a pressure sensitive member disposed on a floor of a securement area, a feature taught by Cardona et al. (Abstract; the controller receives input from any combination of sensors configured to provide signals indicative of a wheelchair position, direction, or speed, such as cameras, light curtains, and floor pressure sensors).
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 provided the signal of Seko et al., as modified, from a pressure sensitive member on the floor of a securement area as taught by Cardona et al. as an obvious alternative to the position/location sensors to achieve the predictable result of determining the location of the wheelchair.
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").
Claims 14,16,18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seko et al., as modified above, with respect to claim 13, 15, 17, or 19, further in view of GB 458.
For claims 14, 16, 18, and 20, Seko et al., as modified, fail to disclose the securement parameter is a securement force, as taught by GB 2521458 (GB 458; Pratt et al.).
GB 458 teaches a processor (102; pg 8, lns 9-12) used to control a sling adjustment device. The sling adjustment device includes strap tensioners able to tighten or loosen straps (38-42) of a sling (30). GB 458, in particular, teaches the processor (102) which receives signals (load feedback measurements from load detection devices; pg 10, lines 15-24) indicative of a characteristics of an occupant of the sling. The processor is set with an expected range (securement parameter) based on securement force (tension on the strap).
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 applied the same parameter as taught by GB 458 to the device of Seko et al. in order to allow for adequate securement force to be applied.
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 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
