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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-18 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 2/3/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated and fully encompassed by the patented claim(s). Compared to patented claims 1 and 2, claim 1 of the instant application essentially drops the limitation of: “wherein the extended lip includes a first planar section that extends horizontally 180° degrees, a second planar section that extends downward at 45° degrees, and a third planar section that extends downward at 90° degrees.”
Claim 2 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
Claim 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,927.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-11, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 8,990,976 to Saccone et al. (hereinafter Saccone).
As per claim 1, Saccone teaches: A transfer seat platform (see Fig. 1, [100]: assistance device), comprising:
a stand portion having a top portion (see Fig. 1-3, [106]: upper facing side of frame), a pair of front legs (see Fig. 1-3, [118/120]: second legs), an extended lip (see Fig. 1-3, generally [108/110]), the top portion includes a front end (see Fig. 2, [115]: outer side), a back end (see Fig. 2, [105]: vehicle facing side), and a bottom portion (see Fig. 2, 5, [106]: underside side of frame inside the perimeter formed by [106]), the pair of front legs extend from the front end of the top portion of the stand portion (see Fig. 2, legs [118] extend and are connected to [106] on side [115]) and the extended lip extend from the back end of the top portion of the stand portion (see Fig. 2, element [108] extends and is connected to [106] on side [105]); and
wherein the top portion is a flat planar surface (see Fig. 1-3, frame element 106 is flat and planar); and
a cushion (see Fig. 1-3, [104]: platform surface) disposed and coupled directly on the top portion (see at least Figs. 1-5).
As per claim 3, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the pair of front legs have an adjustable length (see Fig. 1-2, adjustability of legs [118/120] is shown via detents/pin [130/140], see also col. 2, lines [3-5]).
As per claim 5, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the pair of front legs have an adjustable length via a locking assembly (see Fig. 1-2, adjustability of legs [118/120] is shown via detents/pin [130/140], see also col. 2, lines [3-5]).
As per claim 6, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the pair of front legs are adapted to be placed on a ground surface (as shown in Fig. 1-2, legs 118/120 contact a ground surface, see also col. 2, lines [17-19]).
As per claim 7, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the pair of front legs each include a hinge disposed on top each of the pair of front legs connected to the bottom portion of the top portion of the stand portion (see Fig. 1-2, hinge is shown [no reference #] where legs [118] connect to frame [106] on each leg).
As per claim 8, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the extended lip extends outward and downward from the bottom portion of the top portion of the stand portion (see Fig. 1-2, legs [108/110] extend downward and to some degree outward from where connected to [106] at [105] based on the angle facilitated by locking arm [510], see Fig. 5).
As per claim 9, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the extended lip includes a downward vertical guide directly adjacent to the top portion of the stand portion to guide the extended lip in place (see Fig. 2, locations where lower legs [110] telescope inside upper legs [108] may be considered a “vertical guide”).
As per claim 10, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the extended lip is placed within the vehicle (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines [13-17]: “the device 100 may assist a user entering or exiting (either deemed "egressing" herein) a vehicle such as by placing the first feet 110 temporarily on a sill plate 150 or between the sill plate 150 and the vehicle seat 102 within a doorway of a vehicle”).
As per claim 11, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 10, and additionally teaches: wherein the extended lip is placed within a floorboard of the vehicle (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines [13-17]: “the device 100 may assist a user entering or exiting (either deemed "egressing" herein) a vehicle such as by placing the first feet 110 temporarily on a sill plate 150 or between the sill plate 150 and the vehicle seat 102 within a doorway of a vehicle”).
As per claim 15, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the transfer seat platform is utilized by a handicapped person adapted to utilize a wheelchair and the vehicle without having to lift the handicapped person and physically place them into the vehicle (see col. 1, lines [6-29]).
Examiner Note: A recitation of the intended use (e.g., “the transfer seat platform is utilized by a handicapped person adapted to utilize a wheelchair and the vehicle without having to lift the handicapped person and physically place them into the vehicle”) of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As per claim 16, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 15, and additionally teaches: wherein the transfer seat platform is positioned between the vehicle and the wheelchair (see col. 1, lines [15-20]: “The seat can act as a bridge allowing the passenger to safely transfer from a wheel chair, walker, cane, crutches, or other ambulatory devices by sitting on the seat outside of the vehicle and then slide on to the internal seat at the same level avoiding strain or injury entering the vehicle.”).
As per claim 17, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 15, and additionally teaches: wherein the handicapped person can lift themselves from the wheelchair onto the transfer seat platform and then lift themselves from the transfer seat platform and into the vehicle (see col. 1, lines [6-29]).
Examiner Note: A recitation of the intended use (e.g., “the handicapped person can lift themselves from the wheelchair onto the transfer seat platform and then lift themselves from the transfer seat platform and into the vehicle”) of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
As per claim 18, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 15, and additionally teaches: wherein the handicapped person receives assistance from one or more other persons to lift themselves from the wheelchair onto the transfer seat platform and then lift themselves from the transfer seat platform and into the vehicle (see col. 1, lines [6-29]).
Examiner Note: A recitation of the intended use (e.g., “wherein the handicapped person receives assistance from one or more other persons to lift themselves from the wheelchair onto the transfer seat platform and then lift themselves from the transfer seat platform and into the vehicle”) of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,990,976 to Saccone in view of U.S. Patent 4,494,465 to Fick, Jr. (hereinafter Fick).
As per claim 4, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however Saccone does not teach the following: wherein the pair of front legs include a rubber foot disposed on a distal end of each of the pair of front legs to prevent slippage.
Fick teaches: wherein the pair of front legs include a rubber foot disposed on a distal end of each of the pair of front legs to prevent slippage (see Fig. 1, rubber tip [46] at the end of each leg [34] supporting table [10]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Saccone (directed to a vehicle platform person transfer assistance system with supporting legs intended to contact a ground surface) and Fick (directed to a table for use with automobiles with legs and rubber feet at the ends of the legs) and arrived at a vehicle transport assistance system with rubber feet at the ends of the supporting legs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (adding rubber feet of Fick to the existing legs of Saccone) with no change in their respective functions (the legs of Saccone would function the same) with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the legs of Fick are used in a similar supporting manner as the legs in Saccone to bridge uneven surfaces).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 8,990,976 to Saccone in view of U.S. Patent 5,435,614 to Nordberg.
As per claim 12, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however Saccone does not teach the following: wherein the stand portion is made of aluminum.
Nordberg teaches: wherein the stand portion is made of aluminum (see col. 2, lines [37-39] and Fig. 2-4, [50]: cast aluminum seat plate).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Saccone (directed to a vehicle transfer device with a seat plate) and Nordberg (similarly directed to an automotive transfer seat with a seat plate formed of aluminum) before them, to have substituted the aluminum material of Nordberg for a generic frame material of Saccone with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
As per claim 13, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however Saccone does not teach the following: wherein the cushion is made of leather.
Nordberg teaches: wherein the cushion is made of leather (see Fig. 1-4, [32]: vinyl or leather cover).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Saccone (directed to a vehicle transfer device with a seat cushion) and Nordberg (similarly directed to an automotive transfer seat with a seat cushion made of vinyl or leather) before them, to have substituted the leather material of Nordberg for a generic seat material of Saccone with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
As per claim 14, Saccone teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however Saccone does not teach the following: wherein the cushion is made of vinyl.
Nordberg teaches: wherein the cushion is made of vinyl (see Fig. 1-4, [32]: vinyl or leather cover).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Saccone (directed to a vehicle transfer device with a seat cushion) and Nordberg (similarly directed to an automotive transfer seat with a seat cushion made of vinyl or leather) before them, to have substituted the vinyl material of Nordberg for a generic seat material of Saccone with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 2, the closest prior art of record, U.S. 8,990,976 to Saccone, U.S. Patent 6,129,403 to Townsend, U.S. Patent 5,435,614 to Nordberg, and U.S. Patent 3,341,864 to Wichmann do not teach nor fairly suggest an extended lip portion with the specific angular extensions as in the claimed invention. It further would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified/designed the device of Saccone to have applied or utilized the claimed lip portion angular properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited patents show vehicle seat and other transfer devices with similar properties to the claimed invention. They show the general state of the art and are of general relevance with respect to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 571-272-8525. 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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
3/17/2026