DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application filed on November 3, 2025. This application is a continuation (CON) of application 18/303,081, and in turn, a CON of application 15/605,872, which claims a priority to US 62/341,570, filed on May 5, 2016. Therefore, the effective filing date of the instant claims is presumably May 5, 2016.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The examiner acknowledges the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 30, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
4. Claim 1 is pending in the case; Claim 1 is an independent claim. This action is made non-final.
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.
5. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,660,238 (hereinafter ‘238).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of ‘387 discloses each limitation recited in instant Claim 1, as indicated below.
Instant Claim 1:
1. A mobility device securement system, comprising:
* a first front tie-down unit having a first motor for retracting a first restraint;
* a second front tie-down unit having a second motor for retracting a second restraint;
* a controller for the first and second motors, the controller being capable of operating the first and second motors at different speeds in response to a directional inputs.
Claim 1 of ‘387:
1. A winch apparatus that is adapted for pulling and steering a wheeled device up and down an incline, the winch apparatus comprising:
* a first motorized retractor having a first motor for retracting a first restraint at a left side of the wheeled device, wherein the first motor is a left-side motor;
* a second motorized retractor having a second motor for retracting a second restraint at a right side of the wheeled device, wherein the second motor is a right-side motor; and,
* a controller for the first and second motors, the controller being capable of operating the first and second motors at different speeds in response to a directional input, the directional input comprising….
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 (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 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.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cardona et al. (hereinafter Cardona), US 2003/0190208 A1, published on October 9, 2003 (previously cited in an IDS filed on May 24, 2018 in parent application 15/605,872 and in an IDS filed on September 11, 2023 in parent application 18/303,081); alternatively, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lerchenmueller et al. (hereinafter Lerchenmueller), US 7,284,744 B1, issued on October 23, 2007.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Cardona teaches a mobility device securement system, comprising:
a first front tie-down unit having a first motor for retracting a first restraint (see Figs. 1 and 2c, elements 14a, 17, and 24).
a second front tie-down unit having a second motor for retracting a second restraint (see Figs. 1 and 2c, elements 14b, 15, and 24);
a controller for the first and second motors, the controller being capable of operating the first and second motors at different speeds in response to a directional inputs (see Fig. 3, element 60, ¶¶ 0038, 0044, 0047, 0058, showing that each belt can be calibrated so that it is tensioned independently from the other belt and further showing that each motor is bi-directional (and thus corresponds to a directional input from the controller); it is further noted that the instant claim merely requires “the controller being capable of operating the first and second motors at different speeds” which does not need to be interpreted as operating the first motor at a different speed from the second motor at the same time – instead, the claim merely requires the controller to be capable of operating either or both motors at different speeds, i.e., 0 and X, which Cardona clearly teaches).
Alternatively, Lerchenmueller teaches a mobility device securement system, comprising:
a first front tie-down unit having a first motor for retracting a first restraint (see Fig. 4, element 20, col. 4, lines 3-14).
a second front tie-down unit having a second motor for retracting a second restraint (see Fig. 4, element 21, col. 4, lines 3-14).
a controller for the first and second motors, the controller being capable of operating the first and second motors at different speeds in response to a directional inputs (see Fig. 4, element 37, col. 5, line 62 – col. 6, line 34, showing a control device for controlling the first and second motors and allowing for speed adjustment for each individual motor; as noted above, the instant claim merely requires “the controller being capable of operating the first and second motors at different speeds” which does not need to be interpreted as operating the first motor at a different speed from the second motor at the same time).
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shimizu (JP 2006280400A (cited in IDS filed on 04/06/2020 in parent application 15/605,872 and in IDS filed on 09/11/2023 in parent application 18/303,081)) describes a wheelchair pull up apparatus capable of preventing the inclination of a wheelchair while it is being pulled by providing individually controllable left and right winch units.
Ishikawa (JP 2006271662A) describes a wheelchair lifting device capable of preventing inclination of the wheelchair being lifted by determining whether the speed of each belt is synchronized and correcting the speeds of both motors accordingly.
Fotonoff et al. (US 2008/0128668 A1(cited on PTO-892 mailed on 07/10/2019 in parent application 15/605,872 and in IDS filed on 09/11/2023 in parent application 18/303,081)) describes a multiple-rope or multiple-cable pulling device for positioning a load where the device includes a controller that interprets user’s input in order to control the motors driving the pulling mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden, can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
