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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Vehicle for Transporting an Occupant in a Wheelchair”.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10, 13, 17-19, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “wherein the status is whether the wheelchair is engaged…” to read --wherein the status is indicative of whether the wheelchair is engaged…--. Similar issues exist in claims 9-10, 13, and 17-19.
In claim 21, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “wherein: the operations performed by the controller comprises triggering…” to read --wherein: the operations performed by the controller comprise triggering…--
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 5 and 21 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 5 recites the limitation "the adverse driving event" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the operations" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent claim 2 is directed to a vehicle (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 2 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 2 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 2 recites:
A wheelchair accessible vehicle for transporting a wheelchair occupant while seated in a wheelchair, the wheelchair accessible vehicle comprising:
a wheelchair securement system comprising at least one securement member for releasably securing at least one of the wheelchair occupant and the wheelchair;
at least one data storage medium; and
a controller configured to: receive data indicative of at least one characteristic of at least one of the wheelchair securement system, the wheelchair, and the wheelchair occupant; and store the data on the at least one data storage medium.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “receive data indicative of at least one characteristic of at least one of the wheelchair securement system, the wheelchair, and the wheelchair occupant; and store the data” in the context of this claim encompasses a person data indicative of at least one characteristic of at least one of the wheelchair securement system, the wheelchair, and the wheelchair occupant, and committing it to memory or recording it with pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A wheelchair accessible vehicle for transporting a wheelchair occupant while seated in a wheelchair, the wheelchair accessible vehicle comprising:
a wheelchair securement system comprising at least one securement member for releasably securing at least one of the wheelchair occupant and the wheelchair;
at least one data storage medium; and
a controller configured to: receive data indicative of at least one characteristic of at least one of the wheelchair securement system, the wheelchair, and the wheelchair occupant; and store the data on the at least one data storage medium.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a wheelchair securement system comprising at least one securement member for releasably securing at least one of the wheelchair occupant and the wheelchair”, “at least one data storage medium [configured to store the received data]”, and “a controller [configured to perform the receiving of data]” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely describe the operational environment and/or use a computer (circuitry) to perform the process. In particular, the [receiving] and [storing] data steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information related to at least one of the wheelchair securement system, the wheelchair, and the wheelchair occupant), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “circuitry” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes in a generic or general purpose computerized vehicle environment. Lastly, the claim includes no control step that would take the concept beyond a mental process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 2 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using circuitry to perform the [receiving] and [storing] data steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “a wheelchair securement system comprising at least one securement member for releasably securing at least one of the wheelchair occupant and the wheelchair”, “at least one data storage medium [configured to store the received data]”, and “a controller [configured to perform the receiving of data]”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities and/or descriptions of the environment in which the concept is carried out.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a wheelchair securement system comprising at least one securement member for releasably securing at least one of the wheelchair occupant and the wheelchair”, “at least one data storage medium [configured to store the received data]”, and “a controller [configured to perform the receiving of data]” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced in the prior art rejections below, and the specification does not provide any indication that the circuitry is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Said claims as a whole recite a mental process because the claims recite, under their broadest reasonable interpretation as drafted, specifics of the data to store, use of a sensor for generating the data, and specifics of the securement member. Therefore, dependent claims 3-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 2. Claim 21 is deemed to include a control step (i.e. triggering a safety device in response to an adverse driving event) which represents a practical application of the concept.
Therefore, claim(s) 2-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 2, 7-8, 10, 12-13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shutter et al. (US PGPub. No. 2008/0079252) in view of Amidon (US PGPub. No. 2019/0016287).
Claim 1 is canceled.
Regarding claim 2, Shutter discloses a wheelchair accessible vehicle for transporting a wheelchair occupant while seated in a wheelchair (Shutter ¶0002), the wheelchair accessible vehicle comprising: a wheelchair securement system [Shutter 10] comprising at least one securement member [Shutter 20, 30, 40] for releasably securing at least one of the wheelchair occupant and the wheelchair (Shutter Figure 1; ¶0031-0032); but appears to be silent on the vehicle further comprising: at least one data storage medium; and a controller configured to: receive data indicative of at least one characteristic of at least one of the wheelchair securement system, the wheelchair, and the wheelchair occupant; and store the data on the at least one data storage medium.
Amidon, however, teaches a vehicle for transporting an occupant in a wheelchair that includes mounts [Amidon 25] and straps [Amidon 26] for securing a wheelchair and its occupant during transport in the vehicle, and at least one data storage medium and a controller configured to: receive data indicative of at least one characteristic of at least one of the wheelchair securement system, the wheelchair, and the wheelchair occupant and store the data on the at least one data storage medium (Amidon Figure 2; ¶0036, ¶0042, ¶0049). Examiner notes Amidon’s recording of camera imagery of the wheelchair and/or its occupant requires at least one data storage medium and at least one controller for carrying out said recording. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Shutter in view of Amidon. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Shutter, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include at least one data storage medium; and a controller configured to: receive data indicative of at least one characteristic of at least one of the wheelchair securement system, the wheelchair, and the wheelchair occupant; and store the data on the at least one data storage medium, as doing so was a known way of monitoring a secured wheelchair and/or its occupant during transport, as recognized by Amidon (Amidon ¶0036, ¶0042, ¶0049).
Regarding claim 7, Shutter in view of Amidon teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 2, wherein the at least one characteristic includes a status of the at least one securement member (Shutter ¶0091).
Regarding claim 8, Shutter in view of Amidon teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 7, wherein the status is whether the wheelchair is engaged by the wheelchair securement system (Shutter ¶0091). Examiner notes Shutter’s green indicator represents a type of status of the wheelchair.
Regarding claim 10, Shutter in view of Amidon teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 7, wherein the status is a position of the at least one securement member (Shutter ¶0091).
Regarding claim 12, Shutter in view of Amidon teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 10, wherein the position is a location of a wheelchair engagement member (Shutter ¶0091).
Regarding claim 13, Shutter in view of Amidon teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 7, wherein the status is a force applied to the wheelchair by the at least one securement member (Shutter ¶0091).
Regarding claim 15, Shutter in view of Amidon teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 13, wherein the force is a compressive force applied to the wheelchair by a plurality of wheelchair engagement members (Shutter ¶0091).
Regarding claim 16, Shutter in view of Amidon teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 2, wherein the at least one characteristic includes a status of at least one of the wheelchair (Shutter ¶0091) and the wheelchair occupant.
Regarding claim 17, Shutter in view of Amidon teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 16, wherein the status is a location of at least one of the wheelchair (Shutter ¶0091) and the wheelchair occupant in the wheelchair accessible vehicle. Examiner notes Shutter’s green status indicates the wheelchair is properly secured and positioned.
Regarding claim 18, Shutter in view of Amidon teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 16, wherein the status is an orientation of at least one of the wheelchair (Shutter ¶0091) and the wheelchair occupant. Examiner notes Shutter’s green status indicates the wheelchair’s orientation is that which is properly located and secured.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shutter in view of Amidon as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Barnes et al. (US PGPub. No. 2016/0331606).
Regarding claim 3, Shutter in view of Amidon teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 2, but appears to be silent on the vehicle further wherein the data includes dynamic information concerning the wheelchair accessible vehicle.
Barnes, however, teaches a method for securing a wheelchair in a vehicle for transport (Barnes Abstract), further comprising an accelerometer of the vehicle whose measurements are stored (Barnes ¶0101). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Shutter in view of Amidon in view of Barnes. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Shutter in view of Amidon, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include wherein the data includes dynamic information concerning the wheelchair accessible vehicle, as doing so was a known way of logging vehicle dynamics while transporting fragile cargo such as an occupant in a wheelchair, as recognized by Barnes (Barnes ¶0101).
Regarding claim 4, Shutter in view of Amidon in view of Barnes teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 2 further comprising at least one sensor generating a signal indicative of the at least one characteristic of the at least one of the securement system (Barnes ¶0004), the wheelchair occupant, and the wheelchair.
Regarding claim 5, Shutter in view of Amidon in view of Barnes teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 4, wherein the stored data is associated with a nature of the adverse driving event (Barnes ¶0101).
Regarding claim 6, Shutter in view of Amidon in view of Barnes teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 4, wherein the sensor comprises a camera in a video-based analytic system that monitors the wheelchair occupant and the wheelchair in the wheelchair securement system (Amidon ¶0049).
Regarding claim 14, Shutter in view of Amidon in view of Barnes teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 13, wherein the force is a tension in a wheelchair tie-down (Barnes ¶0060-0061). Examiner notes that a tension sensor represents an obvious alternative for determining the wheelchair is effectively secured.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shutter in view of Amidon as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mori (US PGPub. No. 2020/0093662).
Regarding claim 21, Shutter in view of Amidon in view of Barnes teaches the wheelchair accessible vehicle of claim 2, but appears to be silent on the vehicle further wherein: the operations performed by the controller comprises triggering a safety device for at least one of the wheelchair occupant and the wheelchair in response to an adverse driving event; and, the data includes information associated with the triggering of the safety device.
Mori, however, teaches a vehicle for safely transporting an occupant in a wheelchair wherein a controller [Mori 76] triggers a safety device for at least one of the wheelchair occupant and the wheelchair in response to an adverse driving event; and, the data includes information associated with the triggering of the safety device (Mori ¶0106-0110). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Shutter in view of Amidon in view of Barnes in view of Mori. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Shutter in view of Amidon in view of Barnes, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include the vehicle further wherein: the operations performed by the controller comprises triggering a safety device for at least one of the wheelchair occupant and the wheelchair in response to an adverse driving event; and, the data includes information associated with the triggering of the safety device, as doing so was a known way of protecting an occupant of a wheelchair during a collision in a vehicle, as recognized by Mori (Mori ¶0106-0110).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
